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

Sorni wrote:

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.

So if this would have been worth attending ER for without a hat
then it would have been in the records, and the absence of such
incidents would register as a fall in injury rates, if there
absence was significant. It appears it isn't.

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.

Again, it will go into the population stats where the sum total of
all the incidents will give you a better indication of what you
might expect.

Never mind, of course,
that the person would have been injured at least as badly -- if not worse --
without the lid.

But you don't actually know that. For example, if it were an
accident where the extra size and weight of the lid meant the
difference between hitting the head and not hitting at all, then it
wouldn't have been at least as bad. I don't know that would have
been the case, but you don't know it wouldn't.

I'll take the protection, thanks.

As is your choice. I choose to take it at certain times, like
technical MTBing. What I'd like you to /stop/ doing is *not*
wearing a helmet, but labouring under numerous misapprehensions
about what level of benefit you can expect of them, that they
/must/ be helpful in the event of a spill, and that numerous other
things you do without one don't have a significant chance of
landing you a potentially nasty head injury as well.

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:

I'll take the protection, thanks.

As is your choice.

TYVM. Let the threads cease!

... What I'd like you to /stop/ doing is *not*
wearing a helmet, but labouring under numerous misapprehensions
about what level of benefit you can expect of them, that they
/must/ be helpful in the event of a spill, and that numerous other
things you do without one don't have a significant chance of
landing you a potentially nasty head injury as well.

I'll worry about my own expectations, TYVM. (And they're not as you
describe, anyway.)

Darn, we almost had it there...

Per Peter Clinch:
So why are you so afraid of it on a bike, but not on foot?

You're focusing on the curbs. I'm thinking more about rock gardens.

Also, falling from a bike is a much less controlled fall - in my experience
head-first. I once saw a video of a guy getting killed as he fell from a
windsurfer/skateboard at about 2 mph. Whacked his melon on the curb and all
his troubles were over. Having said that, I rarely wear my helmet for just
riding around.
--
PeteCresswell

"(PeteCresswell)" writes:

Per Peter Clinch:
So why are you so afraid of it on a bike, but not on foot?

You're focusing on the curbs. I'm thinking more about rock gardens.

Also, falling from a bike is a much less controlled fall - in my experience
head-first. I once saw a video of a guy getting killed as he fell from a
windsurfer/skateboard at about 2 mph. Whacked his melon on the curb
and all

Please refer to Peter's earlier replies in which he suggests that the
dead guy probably has only himself to blame for not being sufficiently
"situation aware" to avoid the fall. Had I not read them myself I would
not have believed it.


his troubles were over. Having said that, I rarely wear my helmet for just
riding around.

Same as that : but its ludicrous to suggest that they dont offer at
least some protection.

--
PeteCresswell

--

(PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Peter Clinch:
So why are you so afraid of it on a bike, but not on foot?

You're focusing on the curbs. I'm thinking more about rock gardens.

If we could agree to keep mountain biking separate from ordinary riding
on roads, perhaps we could save lots of misunderstanding.

If you're going mountain biking in tricky terrain, it's not illogical
to want to wear a helmet. Falling is part of the game.

Ordinary road riding is much, much different.

- Frank Krygowski

Sorni wrote:
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.

Sorni, you and others frequently claim this is a "flaw." I can only
assume you're still refusing to read the studies.

Let's try an analogy. Say 10,000 people in a certain city saw their
doctor for colds every year, year after year.

Say the entire city took a new, highly touted cold vaccine beginning
January 1. And at the end of the year, 10,000 people had seen their
doctors for colds, just like before. Despite the vaccine.

Would you say "The vaccine worked. It's just that we never heard about
the people who didn't get colds"?


- Frank Krygowski

Hadron Quark wrote:

Please refer to Peter's earlier replies in which he suggests that the
dead guy probably has only himself to blame for not being sufficiently
"situation aware" to avoid the fall. Had I not read them myself I would
not have believed it.

Seems like you're intnet on misinterpreting and misrepresenting me.
What I said about things being the riders own fault was stuff you
suggested like riding into hedges being a real sfaety problem for
typical cyclists on roads.

**** happens, certainly. It also happens in lots of places other
than on bikes where you don't seem to feel any need of extra head
protection, so clearly there's an inconsistency in risk assessment
going on.

Same as that : but its ludicrous to suggest that they dont offer at
least some protection.

Which is why I wear mine at times, typically for technical MTB
work. But they don't offer much (look at the specs they're built
to, don't take my word for it), and have a very low chance of
saving anyone a serious injury. If it were otherwise increased
wearing would have dented the serious injury figures for cyclists.

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/

(PeteCresswell) wrote:

Also, falling from a bike is a much less controlled fall - in my experience
head-first.

Mine are typically far more controlled than when I'm walking, and
sideways rather than over the bars. Last time I went over the
bars... I hit my head! Was I wearing a hlemt? Yes? Was I glad
about that? No, because I landed on my chin and it made no
difference at all :-(

Having said that, I rarely wear my helmet for just
riding around.

As I usually do wear mine for technical MTB work. Most helmet
sceptic data comes specifically from road based incidents, so
anybody trying to draw hard conclusions about MTB through a rock
garden is kidding themselves. Please note I'm not trying to do any
such thing.

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 writes:

Hadron Quark wrote:

Please refer to Peter's earlier replies in which he suggests that the
dead guy probably has only himself to blame for not being sufficiently
"situation aware" to avoid the fall. Had I not read them myself I would
not have believed it.

Seems like you're intnet on misinterpreting and misrepresenting
me. What I said about things being the riders own fault was stuff you
suggested like riding into hedges being a real sfaety problem for
typical cyclists on roads.

No I didnt. I mentioned things like getting clipped by a wing mirror,
drainage slots and other such things. You replied that it would be the riders
own fault for not being aware enough to avoid them : a pathetic attempt
to suggest that any form of protection for a cyclist is unnecessary
since its "safer than walking down the street" and less prone to head
injuries than doing the shopping....


**** happens, certainly. It also happens in lots of places other than
on bikes where you don't seem to feel any need of extra head

Why are you intent on bringing other risky activities into this? We are
not discussing caving or juggling or whatever : we are discussing whether
bicycle helmets are worthwhile appendages to reduce injury in the case
of an accident (regardless of where blame were to lie).

protection, so clearly there's an inconsistency in risk assessment
going on.

Same as that : but its ludicrous to suggest that they dont offer at
least some protection.

Which is why I wear mine at times, typically for technical MTB work.
But they don't offer much (look at the specs they're built to, don't
take my word for it), and have a very low chance of saving anyone a
serious injury. If it were otherwise increased wearing would have
dented the serious injury figures for cyclists.

Its hard to sport trends in small samples. But I have seen enough
material to know that there are a plethora of cyclists out there who
reckon that wearing a helmet saved them considerable injury and maybe
even their lives. See "point of contact" post earlier in the day.

I don't use a helmet during the day,
because there is no sun protection, for cancer;
so I use a wide golfers type hat.

I don't use a helmet at night,
because they're so ugly! I do own one,
So I'm trying to get over the "looks" thing.

waterboy