Why we should bike w/o a helmet--from the TED conference

On Dec 24, 8:56*pm, Jay Beattie wrote:

That is the deal with risk -- it is relative.... and really,
unless you are going for cameos on Warren Miller films, I don't see
the need to do aerials.

Seems to me risk is relative in other ways than relative to the
individual, your original point.

I read a fair amount on this subject. One thing that's been noted is
that society seems to have a need for danger, in two disparate ways.

First, although we in the developed countries live in the safest of
times, there are those who have a need to _shout_ "Danger! Danger!"
And they haven't slowed down a bit; they've simply transferred their
attentions to increasingly benign activities. They used to get their
inner satisfaction by warning about predator ambushes, or the Evil
Eye. Now they focus on biking, even in your driveway, without a
helmet.

Second, we need to experience risk - at least, some percentage of us
do - and over time, those things judged sufficiently risky to satisfy
that urge have become more extreme. 40 years ago, when I did downhill
skiing, jumping a mogul was plenty risky enough. Now, with some, it
barely counts unless you're inverted.

But while few people will be heard to say "Inverted aerials are
crazy!" there's an organized chorus who will piously say "Riding the
bunny slope without a helmet is crazy!"

"Danger! Danger!" for the mildest or risks, and hero worship for the
crazies. I think it's a kind of sociological schizophrenia.

- Frank Krygowski

On Dec 26, 11:26 am, Frank Krygowski wrote:

snip


"Danger! Danger!" for the mildest or risks, and hero worship for the
crazies. I think it's a kind of sociological schizophrenia.


Whjee! ;-)

On Dec 26, 11:26 am, Frank Krygowski wrote:

snip

who will piously say "Riding the
bunny slope without a helmet is crazy!"

?


"Danger! Danger!" for the mildest or risks, and hero worship for the
crazies. I think it's a kind of sociological schizophrenia.


(Wow, schizophrenia twice in one morning.)

In article ,
Duane Hébert wrote:

On 12/23/2010 8:47 PM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Duane Hébert:
But hers was really
weird as she fell on a wide and open beginner trail with a private
instructor next to her, just basically slipped.

My recollection is that she made the classic error of declining
medical attention bc she didn't feel all that bad.

Then, by the time the subdural hematoma (brain bruise?) started
swelling up it was too late.

That's what happened. They eventually flew her into a hospital in
New York where she died. Immediate treatment at the local hospital
would have probably saved her.

You can sort of understand though. She basically slipped on a bunny
slope. Something that happens all the time with beginners with no
long term affects.
^^^^^^^
effects

--
Michael Press

On 12/24/2010 8:14 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Dec 24, 1:47 pm, "Duane wrote:
"Frank wrote in message

Telling his son that ski helmets are tested and certified for only 14
mph impacts will hopefully let his son know that he shouldn't adopt
extreme risks - like blasting through dense trees at 25 mph - thinking
his helmet will protect him. That's what it's supposed to achieve.

Telling him to do anything WRT his son presumes that you're
in some position of authority with certified knowledge.

Duane, get a grip. This is a discussion group. We discuss things.
You seem to have posted many dozens of posts with no certified
knowledge.

I post my opinions. You try to imply that your opinions are fact.

On 12/29/2010 4:49 PM, Michael Press wrote:
In ,
Duane wrote:



You can sort of understand though. She basically slipped on a bunny
slope. Something that happens all the time with beginners with no
long term affects.
^^^^^^^
effects

Yep.

On Jan 3, 8:50*am, Duane Hébert wrote:
On 12/24/2010 8:14 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Dec 24, 1:47 pm, "Duane *wrote:
"Frank *wrote in message

Telling his son that ski helmets are tested and certified for only 14
mph impacts will hopefully let his son know that he shouldn't adopt
extreme risks - like blasting through dense trees at 25 mph - thinking
his helmet will protect him. *That's what it's supposed to achieve.

Telling him to do anything WRT his son presumes that you're
in some position of authority with certified knowledge.

Duane, get a grip. *This is a discussion group. *We discuss things.
You seem to have posted many dozens of posts with no certified
knowledge.

I post my opinions. *You try to imply that your opinions are fact.

It _is_ a fact that bike helmets and ski helmets are tested and
certified for only 14 mph impacts. It's not just my opinion.

If you would do more reading, you would understand the difference.

- Frank Krygowski

On 12/24/2010 10:47 AM, Duane Hebert wrote:

"Frank Krygowski" wrote in message
...
On Dec 24, 12:47 pm, Duane Hébert wrote:
On 12/24/2010 12:26 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

You cut the part that included the information.
You never directly say things like this. You imply
it with your innuendo and then you demand quotes
of exact language. Telling him that he should
tell his son that ski helmets are only tested at
14 mph impacts is supposed to achieve what then?

Telling his son that ski helmets are tested and certified for only 14
mph impacts will hopefully let his son know that he shouldn't adopt
extreme risks - like blasting through dense trees at 25 mph - thinking
his helmet will protect him. That's what it's supposed to achieve.

Telling him to do anything WRT his son presumes that you're
in some position of authority with certified knowledge. What
were those credentials again?

Something that's always amusing is when one of the AHZs proclaims (or
implies) that because a helmet (ski or bike) is tested to a certain
standard that it will provide zero protection should that standard be
exceeded.

A helmet tested to 14 mph does not suddenly stop working entirely at
15mph. And while a skier may crash headfirst into a tree at full speed,
a cyclist that's hit by a 30 mph vehicle doesn't usually incur a 30 mph
head impact, and even if they did they'd be much more likely to survive
with a helmet tested to 14 mph than no helmet at all.

Helmet standards are always a compromise of protection and practicality.
A helmet that provided full protection at 30mph would be too large and
heavy to ever be used. It reminds me of a project my daughter recently
had in he physics class, where they had to drop an egg from 30 feet high
and have it not break. The teach imposed a weight limit for the
protection. I advised her to look at how egg producers package their
products (foam cartons) and to use EPS foam, just more of it. For $1.50
she got a block of EPS foam from our local Japanese dollar store
(Daiso), cut it in half and cut out a place for the egg, and added a
layer of bubble wrap. The egg didn't break, because the force was
distributed around the egg, not through it.

Sometimes it's not clear if the AHZ making the "testing" claims is
simply clueless, or is intentionally trying to be misleading. Probably
the latter. It's the same people that go off on the "foam hat" rant,
failing to understand that "foam" is used in car bumpers, industrial
packaging, and commercial packaging, because it's light, absorbs impact,
and is inexpensive.

On 1/3/2011 11:13 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Jan 3, 8:50 am, Duane wrote:
On 12/24/2010 8:14 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Dec 24, 1:47 pm, "Duane wrote:
"Frank wrote in message

Telling his son that ski helmets are tested and certified for only 14
mph impacts will hopefully let his son know that he shouldn't adopt
extreme risks - like blasting through dense trees at 25 mph - thinking
his helmet will protect him. That's what it's supposed to achieve.

Telling him to do anything WRT his son presumes that you're
in some position of authority with certified knowledge.

Duane, get a grip. This is a discussion group. We discuss things.
You seem to have posted many dozens of posts with no certified
knowledge.

I post my opinions. You try to imply that your opinions are fact.

It _is_ a fact that bike helmets and ski helmets are tested and
certified for only 14 mph impacts. It's not just my opinion.

If you would do more reading, you would understand the difference.

And it's your opinion that since it's tested for a 14mph impact it
is useless in most actual cases where there's an impact to the head.

And you don't need to add your "if you don't agree with me
you didn't read it properly" crap.

On 1/3/2011 11:55 AM, SMS wrote:
On 12/24/2010 10:47 AM, Duane Hebert wrote:

Telling him to do anything WRT his son presumes that you're
in some position of authority with certified knowledge. What
were those credentials again?

Something that's always amusing is when one of the AHZs proclaims (or
implies) that because a helmet (ski or bike) is tested to a certain
standard that it will provide zero protection should that standard be
exceeded.

A helmet tested to 14 mph does not suddenly stop working entirely at
15mph. And while a skier may crash headfirst into a tree at full speed,
a cyclist that's hit by a 30 mph vehicle doesn't usually incur a 30 mph
head impact, and even if they did they'd be much more likely to survive
with a helmet tested to 14 mph than no helmet at all.

Or if the cyclist is hit by the vehicle going 30mph and falls to the
ground striking his head. Or if there is no vehicle and he takes a curb
and falls sideways hitting his head, or if he goes over the bars
scraping the helmet instead of his head or .. or. .. or..

Helmet standards are always a compromise of protection and practicality.
A helmet that provided full protection at 30mph would be too large and
heavy to ever be used. It reminds me of a project my daughter recently
had in he physics class, where they had to drop an egg from 30 feet high
and have it not break. The teach imposed a weight limit for the
protection. I advised her to look at how egg producers package their
products (foam cartons) and to use EPS foam, just more of it. For $1.50
she got a block of EPS foam from our local Japanese dollar store
(Daiso), cut it in half and cut out a place for the egg, and added a
layer of bubble wrap. The egg didn't break, because the force was
distributed around the egg, not through it.

Sometimes it's not clear if the AHZ making the "testing" claims is
simply clueless, or is intentionally trying to be misleading. Probably
the latter. It's the same people that go off on the "foam hat" rant,
failing to understand that "foam" is used in car bumpers, industrial
packaging, and commercial packaging, because it's light, absorbs impact,
and is inexpensive.

It certainly seems that it's intentionally misleading. Especially when
it's accompanied by the snide comments of the reader's ignorance.