the final word on helmets

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 05:07:25 -0600, Beaker wrote:

On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 23:32:27 -0800, Cheto quoth:

BTW...the good one's I've seen cost a lot more than $20.

The $20 ones are plenty good enough.

bkr

They are probably better than the $200 ones, as they have fewer
ventilation holes and defects, and therefore more "protective"
polystyrofoam.

Peter

--
If you are careful enough in life, nothing bad -- or
good -- will ever happen to you.

loki Wrote:
Yeah sure it will be...

I have to ask everyone who chooses not to wear a helmet.

[ I'm not passing judgement. I'm an agnostic myself when it comes to
brain
buckets]

If a helmet law is passed in your jurisdiction would you:

1] Stop cycling?

2] Flout the law?

3] Submit to the man?


--
'If I seem unduly clear to you
you must have misunderstood what I said'
-alan greenspan

[4] apply for an exemption and flout the law in the meantime (Yes, I've
got one - this is in NZ, it was procured a couple of months after the
law was introduced - apparently exemptions are not available in
Australia)


--
RogerDodger

Beaker wrote:

On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 12:48:43 -0800, Cheto quoth:

I suppose I would submit and buy one. I don't wear one now primarily
because 1) they're expensive


You can't manage $20? ($13 on sale, even)

ANSI approved helmets are available for under $20. I bought a bunch of
closeout Bell helmets for $1 each, just to have them for guests. Not
high style, but good enough. The cost is not even an issue in the whole
helmet debate.

Here are the types of people in the debate:

1. The people who don't like wearing helmets, but that recognize the
overwhelming evidence that helmets reduce injuries in crashes involving
the head. They are perfectly willing to accept the small extra risk
because instances of such crashes are rare. These people are opposed to MHL.

2. The people who wear helmets because of the safety aspect, but that
also recognize that the reduction in head injuries represents a
statistically very small portion of injuries incurred while bicycling.
These people are likely to be opposed to MHL, because they don't like
telling other people what they should do.

3. The people who don't like wearing helmets, and that try to justify
their behavior by mis-stating the facts on the proven reduction of head
injuries.

These people usually attempt to change the subject into one that
examines all injuries in all areas of life, concluding that there is no
statistical evidence that wearing a helmet has any effect on injuries.

Occasionally (though rarely), they'll claim that they are safer not
wearing a helmet, because if they were wearing one they might not try to
protect their head in a crash.

Often they’ll claim that MHLs reduce the number of cyclists, though of
course there is no evidence to support this contention.

One foolproof method for recognizing these people is that they'll often
launch into side issues, i.e. suggest that people wear helmets while
driving. Often they’ll launch into lengthy diatribes about how everyone
who doesn't agree with them is clueless. These people are strongly
opposed to MHL

4. The people who wear helmets, and want to force everyone else to wear
them as well. These people tend to only look at the head injury
statistics, ignoring the fact that head injuries incurred while
bicycling are very unlikely compared to overall causes of injury in
other areas of life. These people are likely to be in favor of MHL.
Fortunately, I haven't seen any such people in this most recent thread,
even Bill is only pointing out the facts, and doesn't seem in favor of MHLs.

I'm not sure who is more annoying, #3 or #4, but there are lot more
people in the #3 category. In this entire thread I did not see anyone
advocating MHLs. Perhaps the people in #3 believe that anyone that wears
a helmet is in favor of MHLs, but this is not the case.

The bicycle club I was in had a debate raging for years about whether or
not the club should require helmets on rides. A bunch of leaders, myself
included, threatened to not lead any more rides if such a rule was
enacted. Finally the club were forced into requiring helmets because
they couldn't get liability insurance otherwise; the alternative would
have been to disband, and since most people wore helmets anyway, and
many ride leaders required them, it wasn’t a big deal.

On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 16:04:09 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf"
wrote:

ANSI approved helmets are available for under $20. I bought a bunch of
closeout Bell helmets for $1 each, just to have them for guests. Not
high style, but good enough. The cost is not even an issue in the whole
helmet debate.

Bad move. Bell do not have a single brand with even one lid certified
to Snell B95. Specialized are the only brand that my contact in the
helmet test lab will recommend.

The rest of your post was bull****, basically. You were begging the
question at every stage

Here's a little poser for you: what was the result of the largest
study ever undertaken on the relationship between cycle helmets and
cyclist injury rates, which looked in detail at over eight million
separate injuries and fatalities over a 15 year period?

Hint: you won't like it.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

"Steven M. Scharf" wrote in message
hlink.net...

Here are the types of people in the debate:

You left one out: The person who doesn't feel cycling is dangerous and
therefore doesn't see the need to strap a bunch of plastic crap to his head.

Cheto

Tue, 9 Nov 2004 23:32:27 -0800, ,
"Cheto" wrote:


BTW...the good one's I've seen cost a lot more than $20.

The expensive ones cost more than $20.

That doesn't make them good helmets if they don't fit properly or
split in half when you toss them in the corner with your shoes and
pack containing a hardened steel chain with attached killer padlock.

Mine's a $17.95 generic hardshell hat and better than that.
--
zk

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 16:04:09 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf"
wrote:


ANSI approved helmets are available for under $20. I bought a bunch of
closeout Bell helmets for $1 each, just to have them for guests. Not
high style, but good enough. The cost is not even an issue in the whole
helmet debate.


Bad move. Bell do not have a single brand with even one lid certified
to Snell B95. Specialized are the only brand that my contact in the
helmet test lab will recommend.

The rest of your post was bull****, basically. You were begging the
question at every stage

Here's a little poser for you: what was the result of the largest
study ever undertaken on the relationship between cycle helmets and
cyclist injury rates, which looked in detail at over eight million
separate injuries and fatalities over a 15 year period?

Hint: you won't like it.

Guy

Sounds interesting, do you have a link to the study? I'd be interested
in reading it.

Ferris wrote:

Sounds interesting, do you have a link to the study? I'd be interested
in reading it.

The citation is: Reducing Bicycle Accidents: A re-evaluation of the
impacts of the CPSC bicycle standard and helmet use, Rodgers. Journal of
Product Liability, Vol 11 pp 307-317, 1988.

I don't think it's online but your library may be able to get it for
you.

--
Guy

Steven M. Scharf Wrote:
...Here are the types of people in the debate:
...blah blah...

What Steven M. Scharf (does that rhyme with chaff? - there might be
more than just a "sounds-like" similarity here - a semantic similarity
-= his name sounds like chaff, as does the cognitive content) whoops -
naughty me -indulging in ad hominem.

I'll start that sentence again...What Steven M. Chaff omits in his
catalogue of types is where he himself fits...

So we need to add item (5.0) Pretentious prattlers who take their
position high upon a fence (alongside Humpty Dumpty) and stroke their
overblown ego assuming a middle-of-the-road and know-it-all mantle and
taking muddle headed pot shots at both sides and casting
nonsense-on-stilts comments from their self appointed, on high,
position.

"Don't confuse correlation for causation" loftily admonishes Master
Chaff, repeating a pretentious pronouncement he made on another thread.


"There's a good knock down argument for you" says Humpty Dumpty.

"I'm not sure that what you're saying has appropriate meaning" said
Alice, a little bewildered.

"A word means exactly what I want it to mean - nothing more and nothing
less" said Master Chaff triumphantly, assuming a mantle of self assured
certainty and assuming he could bluff his way through...

(a variation on Alice in wonderland)

It's not for no good reason that people like Master Chaff - Janus faced
twerps who run with the hares and hunt with the hounds - attract
contempt from both camps in the debate.

RogerDodger


--
RogerDodger