Helmet Nazis at It Again!

writes:

On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 03:23:40 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote:

writes:


We know that having to wear a helmet puts people off cycling.


That's actually not true except during a transitional time period.

Cite?

http://www.bfa.asn.au/bfanew/pdf/publications/safety_in_numbers.pdf#search=%22Australia%20bicycl ing%20rates%22
has a table that shows a substantial decline the year after the
Australian MHL was introduced but with an increase in cycling the year
after (it just shows the second year, however). Others have reported
an increase after an initial drop, so you should check usenet archives
for old posts.

Also Personal observation (family/relatives with children in the
appropriate age groups) - what you snipped:

People who grew up using a helmet from early childhood tend not
to have any hangups about it as it just becomes a habit.

If you check all the claims that "having to wear a helmet puts people
off cycling", you'll find that they originated immediately after
helmet laws went into effect and do not include data on whether there
was a rebound a few years later.

You should also be very careful about what you find via a google
search. Google's search algorithm favors pages with lots of links to
them, and the result on "hot-button" topics is that the pages
maintained by the ranters can be the ones you primarily see.
Curiously, a google search of "Australia bicycling rates" showed up a
lot of web pages about helmets, including "Bicycle Helmet FAQ" near
the top even though that is maintained by a rabid anti-helmet crackpot
last I checked.


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 11:33:07 GMT, "george conklin"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On 15 Sep 2006 18:33:12 -0700, "Beach Runner"
wrote:


Two years ago my father, now 80 was riding. He ducked under a bunch of
branches,
stuck his head up, and there was a tree limb.

Without a helmet, he's dead.

Are you sure?

Your father, bless him, in search of the truth went and did the same
thing without a helmet, and died?

For a motor cycle rider or a bicycle rider not to wear a helmet is like a
car owner cutting out the seat belts and air bags in order to express his
freedom.


I've never been hot about wearing a helmet until my neighbor was hit
by a van and his head hit the pavement. He appeared to be okay for
about a week but then began experiencing headaches and blurred vision.
He went to the emergency room and found out he had swelling and blood
on the brain from the accident. He's getting around better now but he
can't walk without a cane and can barely spend much time out of the
apartment without experiencing severe fatigue; it isn't a pretty
picture. That changed my opinion about wearing a helmet while riding.

Tom Keats wrote:
In article ,
(Tom Keats) writes:
In article ,
(Tom Keats) writes:
In article .com,
"Pat" writes:

Tom Keats wrote:
In article .com,
"Pat" writes:

As an aside, many helmets are not used correctly and therefore have
their safety compromized. They are really "one use" items. If you
bonk your head or even drop the helmet, its time for a new one.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I'm curious -- what happens to the styrofoam if a helmet is dropped on
the floor from, say, handlebar height? How /exactly/ does it fracture
or fail? And if currently available helmets are so fragile, what good
are they?

If you drop one once or even maybe a few times, it'll look okay. But
the question is: what will happen if you take a hard impact and need
the helmet. Is it still okay?

No.

My question is: What happens to a helmet that renders it needing
to be replaced if it falls on the floor?

Note I didn't even qualify between a carpeted living room floor
or a concrete-slab basement floor. Heretofore nobody else has, either.

The foam can compress, break apart,
fracture, etc. under the plastic shell and you'd never know it.

/How/? What deformations does it incur? And why are bicycle helmets
allowed to be so frail?

And as I previously asked -- if bicycle helmets are so fragile,
what good are they?

Hello? Hello-oh!! Is there anybody out there to answer my questions?

Especially the one about how if a bicycle helmet is so fragile that
it must be replaced if dropped on the floor, what good is such a frail
structure while riding?

Hey, gawd-f***ing dammit, I live in a jurisdiction where I
either have to wear a glorified styrofoam egg-carton on my
head while riding, or pay a punishing fine if I don't.

So tell me -- what tangible benefits to I get from being
legistatedly forced to wear a glorified egg carton on my head
while riding, tbat's so useless that it has to be replaced if
I drop it on the floor?

It gratifies the egos of the helmet nannies that they have used the
power of the state to enforce their will on you. For this we must be
thankful. Remember, NEVER let science and logic triumph over
faith-based belief.

As for accidentally dropping helmets on the floor, it seems
to me that styrofoam is not glass.

The magical powers of the foam hat are dissipated by contact with the
floor.

--
Tom Sherman - Here, not there.

NYC XYZ wrote:
Sorry, I meant the "WTF???" for linking the two, 200 miles of new lanes
and a fatality statistic which doesn't mean anything outside its
context (methodology, sample, etc.)...thus, the liberals -- and it's
only helmet nazi liberals that go for this **** -- want to insinuate
causation when for all anyone knows it could just be correlation and
nothing more!

And **** the wealthy. They're the idiots who think it necessary to
redecorate every few years, and that riding a bike involves elaborate
gear. It's a ****ing bike, fer chrissake! Let's legislate helmets for
pedestrians too, why don't we -- do you know how many seniors trip over
their own feet every year?...

If the intent is really to reduce head injuries in the general
population (and head injury related deaths), rather than one group
imposing their will on another, helmets should be required for drivers
and passengers of motor vehicles.

--
Tom Sherman - Here, not there.

NYC XYZ wrote:
Many neo-cons were once liberal, particularly the Jewish ones who
became disaffected by the '60s and '70s.

Don't get me wrong -- "paid vacations" was a "liberal" idea once, "sick
leave" was "liberal" once, "pension plans" was "liberal" at first, the
eight-hour workday and five-day workweek was once "liberal"...but WRT
the helmet lobby, it's mainly liberals I see pushing this helmet thing
around (all the mainstream bike advocacy organizations, for example).
Interestingly, the "radical" ones like Time's Up! don't seem to push it
as hard.

Who has a pension plan, eight hour workday and five hour work week
anymore?

Can we get those things by wearing Magic Foam Hats [TM]?

--
Tom Sherman - Here, not there.

wrote:
Roger Houston wrote:
"NYC XYZ" wrote in message
ups.com...

WRT the helmet lobby, it's mainly liberals I see pushing this helmet thing
around

Liberal Nazis.

Only in America...

You imply that Nazis are not liberal, hence they are conservative. But
Nazis were socialists...

Bhaw ha bhaw ha ha!

Is that why the German industrial cartels of the Weimar Republic funded
the Nazi party (without said funding, the Nazi party would have
collapsed)? The owners of said cartels profited handsomely in the
1930's, as the Nazi government crushed labor rights.

The only thing socialist about the Nazi party was its name.

Stop listening to talk radio revisionist history. Look up what fascism
really means.

--
Tom Sherman - Here, not there.

wrote:
Roger Houston wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...


Liberal Nazis.

Only in America...

You imply that Nazis are not liberal, hence they are conservative. But
Nazis were socialists (with some additional sick ideas). Hardly a
conservative ideology.

Hardly liberal, either, eh?

I didn't mean to suggest nazism was liberal. It's just interesting how
liberals often draw parallels between nazism and modern conservatism,
despite the fact that nazism had a leftist socialist agenda (aside from
the other sick ideas that were neither left nor right)....

"Modern conservatism" has about as much to do with real conservatism as
the Nazi's had to do with real socialism.

If I market a foam hat as "invincible head protection", does it really
mean that it protects against ALL head injuries?

--
Tom Sherman - Here, not there.

landotter wrote:
...
Believing that helmets are panacea for bike accidents is neither a
liberal or conservative, but an ideological issue that makes for ****ty
dinnertime conversation....

....but excellent for starting Usenet flame wars on "wreck.bicycles.*"!


--
Tom Sherman - Here, not there.

Beach Runner wrote:
Gary L. Burnore wrote:
On 15 Sep 2006 18:33:12 -0700, "Beach Runner"
wrote:


Two years ago my father, now 80 was riding. He ducked under a bunch of
branches,
stuck his head up, and there was a tree limb.

Without a helmet, he's dead.

Maybe. Maybe not. You'll never know now.
--

If you saw the helmet, there'd be little doubt....

Alternate interpretation of the incident: the helmet was very badly
damaged due to the small amount of energy it is capable of adsorbing,
and at in this case merely reduced the degree of damage to the scalp. A
cap made out strong fabric could have provided similar protection.

--
Tom Sherman - Here, not there.

george conklin wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 15 Sep 2006 18:33:12 -0700, "Beach Runner"
wrote:


Two years ago my father, now 80 was riding. He ducked under a bunch of
branches,
stuck his head up, and there was a tree limb.

Without a helmet, he's dead.

Are you sure?

Your father, bless him, in search of the truth went and did the same
thing without a helmet, and died?

For a motor cycle rider or a bicycle rider not to wear a helmet is like a
car owner cutting out the seat belts and air bags in order to express his
freedom.

Citations of studies backing this up, or are you just presenting
opinion as fact? Where is the proof that foam bicycle hats are as
effective as seat belts (or the much heavier/robust motorcycle helmets,
for that matter)?

--
Tom Sherman - Here, not there.