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

On 12/23/2010 9:15 AM, Duane Hébert wrote:
On 12/23/2010 11:48 AM, SMS wrote:
On 12/23/2010 8:19 AM, Duane Hébert wrote:

Not sure if I'd say that zealotry being counter-productive is a
problem.

It is, if you share the goals of the zealots without sharing their
passion for lies and distortions.

Maybe but I'm much more concerned when zealots are productive.

In the case of MHLs, most people I think realize the flakes and ignore
them. I haven't really seen cases that you're describing where the rest
of us are lumped together with zealots so maybe I'm wrong.

You still see some helmet laws being imposed in some localities. Who
shows up at meetings to oppose helmet laws? Those that talk about
walking helmets and that actually believe the stuff on cyclehelmets.org.

DirtRoadie wrote:
As do back-country XC skis.
^^

These days backcountry equipment is virtually the same as Alpine
(downhill) gear and is typically referred to by the term "Alpine
Touring" or simply "AT."

You refer to touring equipment in alpine terrain, where the typical
mode of operation is either climbing up or going down.

The original reference was touring equipment in flat terrain, where
the typical mode of operation is going distance which might include
hills. Typically done with somewhat broader and heavier cross
country ski with edges, trading in weight and speed for the ability
to move on deeper snow and better cornering.

--
MfG/Best regards
helmut springer panta rhei

On Dec 23, 11:48*am, SMS wrote:
The best thing for
people like Frank to do, if their goal is to prevent more MHLs, is to be
quiet since no one takes them seriously and they hurt the cause whenever
they say anything.

Son of a gun. Yet I was actually asked to testify before a
legislative committee regarding a mandatory helmet law, specifically
because of a person reading the data and discussions of data I've
presented here.

And when I began my testifying, there were committee members who
literally woke up from their dozing to listen to me, having slept
through the "If only one life can be saved...!" cries of the helmet
law lobbyists.

And in the end, the committee decided that bill would not pass out of
committee. Despite the fact that there were only two of us testifying
against the bill, versus an entire gaggle of Safe Kids folks pleading
in favor. Oh, and we had two proponents come up to us afterward and
ask us for more information. One specifically complimented our
presentation.

Personally, I think the fact that we provided better data and better
logic had an effect.

OTOH, I don't believe Steven M. Scharf has ever taken his arguments
anywhere beyond Usenet and his own "world's greatest expert" web
pages.

- Frank Krygowski

On 12/23/2010 12:40 PM, SMS wrote:
On 12/23/2010 9:15 AM, Duane Hébert wrote:
On 12/23/2010 11:48 AM, SMS wrote:
On 12/23/2010 8:19 AM, Duane Hébert wrote:

Not sure if I'd say that zealotry being counter-productive is a
problem.

It is, if you share the goals of the zealots without sharing their
passion for lies and distortions.

Maybe but I'm much more concerned when zealots are productive.

In the case of MHLs, most people I think realize the flakes and ignore
them. I haven't really seen cases that you're describing where the rest
of us are lumped together with zealots so maybe I'm wrong.

You still see some helmet laws being imposed in some localities. Who
shows up at meetings to oppose helmet laws? Those that talk about
walking helmets and that actually believe the stuff on cyclehelmets.org.

Yeah I'm getting a taste of religious zealotry in a different thread
at the moment and I guess I can see your point. The only good thing
that I can see is that the idiot riding in the middle of the road
controlling the lane from the truck will not be wearing a helmet.
Every little bit helps.

On 12/23/2010 1:12 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Dec 23, 11:48 am, wrote:
The best thing for
people like Frank to do, if their goal is to prevent more MHLs, is to be
quiet since no one takes them seriously and they hurt the cause whenever
they say anything.

Son of a gun. Yet I was actually asked to testify before a
legislative committee regarding a mandatory helmet law, specifically
because of a person reading the data and discussions of data I've
presented here.

Got a link to the minutes?

On 12/23/2010 9:29 AM, DirtRoadie wrote:

These days backcountry equipment is virtually the same as Alpine
(downhill) gear and is typically referred to by the term "Alpine
Touring" or simply "AT." Powder width skis, rigid plastic boots, heel
can be freed for walking/climbing but locked down to ski. Some folks
still use a telemark boot/binding setup with a free heel.

I'm the latter. Anyone can do turns on the new "XC" equipment. I use my
older Black Diamond Valmonte X skis. If I go to a downhill area maybe
I'll see one other person, if that many, with the older gear, doing
telemark turns.

On 12/23/2010 9:15 AM, Duane Hébert wrote:
On 12/23/2010 11:49 AM, SMS wrote:
On 12/23/2010 6:16 AM, Duane Hébert wrote:

snip

Skis are waxed on the bottom. Downhill skis have edges
for cutting and are sharpened.

As do back-country XC skis.

Those are the short ones?

No.

On 12/23/2010 1:29 PM, SMS wrote:
On 12/23/2010 9:15 AM, Duane Hébert wrote:
On 12/23/2010 11:49 AM, SMS wrote:
On 12/23/2010 6:16 AM, Duane Hébert wrote:

snip

Skis are waxed on the bottom. Downhill skis have edges
for cutting and are sharpened.

As do back-country XC skis.

Those are the short ones?

No.

No, I forgot about Telemarking. My XC skis don't
have edges but they don't get used much either.

On Dec 23, 10:42*am, Helmut Springer wrote:
DirtRoadie wrote:
As do back-country XC skis.

* * * * * * * * * * * * ^^

These days backcountry equipment is virtually the same as Alpine
(downhill) gear and is typically referred to by the term *"Alpine
Touring" or simply "AT."

You refer to touring equipment in alpine terrain, where the typical
mode of operation is either climbing up or going down.

The original reference was touring equipment in flat terrain, where
the typical mode of operation is going distance which might include
hills. *Typically done with somewhat broader and heavier cross
country ski with edges, trading in weight and speed for the ability
to move on deeper snow and better cornering.

I don't know what the original reference was about. That is why I
merely added some broader descriptions.
Where I am, "backcountry" means almost exclusively the "up and down"
variety you mention and backcountry skiers sometimes do lift serviced
skiing using the same equipment that they use in the back country.
Some of the terms are used in more than one manner But rather than
nitpick definitions -
Here are more descriptions for inquiring minds:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-country_skiing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backcountry_skiing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telemark_skiing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ski_touring#Nordic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpine_touring_binding
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpine_skiing

DR

On Dec 23, 8:46*am, Duane Hébert wrote:
On 12/23/2010 10:36 AM, Jay Beattie wrote:





On Dec 22, 9:15 pm, Frank *wrote:
On Dec 22, 7:55 pm, Jay *wrote:

Mount Hood Meadows has been open for a month and a half!
Unbelievable, light snow for the Cascades this year. *This is why I
make my son wear a helmet:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWv-EX6bgw0
He's big in to Fright Trees. *http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwWqnQj_ozw

You might want to explain to your son that ski helmets, like bike
helmets, are tested and certified only for less than 14 mph impacts.
Watch out for that "I've got a helmet, I'm bulletproof" risk
compensation.

BTW, I was a little hasty saying that I make him wear a helmet,
because I don't generally. *He wears his free-ski helmet as a fashion
statement, and he wears his racing helmet as a requirement. *In
general, and assuming he is not in the trees or the park, I don't care
whether he wears a helmet because I question the necessity or
effectiveness in soft snow impacts -- and the effect of added moment
to the head. If it is really icy, I might re-think that.

As for risk compensation, he might think twice about skiing tight
trees with no helmet -- but he is a smart kid and does not get in over
is head, helmet or not. *At his level, however, there is very little
terrain that is over his head. *-- Jay Beattie.

The snow board classes that my son takes require helmets.
For him to work as an instructor, he's required to wear a helmet.
He's grown up snow boarding with a helmet. *He's grown up cycling
with one as well. *Doesn't occur to him not to wear one, Frank's
mantra of Danger! Danger! notwithstanding.

I don't ski with a helmet but I find snow relatively soft to
fall on. *I don't ski in the woods much -at least not intentionally.
Snowboarders do ski in the woods though as well as in snow parks with
slides, rails and jumps. *Helmets are required in the snow parks but not
on slopes in general here. *There's some movement to make them
mandatory after that actress died in Tremblant on the bunny run but I
doubt it will get anywhere.

I have fully been expecting any helmet thread to turn to ski helmets,
especially since there is probably a much better compilation of data
about ski injuries than there is about bike injuries. This would be
the result of nearly any significant ski injury at a lift serviced
area being documented by the attending ski patrol.

From my own observations I will note that a very high percentage of
fatalities at ski areas are the result of head injuries, although head
injuries may be a small percentage of all injuries. And these
fatalities regularly fit a common pattern of being lower level skiers
on "bunny" slopes. The reason being that it is relatively easy for
even a poorly skilled skier to remain upright, but with little
control, while gaining a fair amount of speed. Then if they run off
the side of the slope and into a tree - the result can be head injury
and death. Sonny Bono is just one classic example. In comparison if
the slope is steeper and/or bumpy the skier is more likely to simply
fall prior to gaining much speed or going into the trees. A simple
fall on an open slope, by itself, is common (at least among the entire
population of skiers) and does not necessarily result in injury. And
if there is an injury it is more likely a leg injury. These days knee
damage (especially ACL) is probably more common than a broken bone.

DR