A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

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



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #171  
Old January 5th 11, 04:40 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Patrick Lamb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 425
Default Why we should bike w/o a helmet--from the TED conference

On 04 Jan 2011 19:35:35 GMT, wrote:

Frank Krygowski wrote:


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.


Actually, I don't believe I've ever said "useless."


So, what is your opinion? *Useless or not?


I think "useless" implies absolute zero protection, and I don't
think bike helmets (or ski helmets) provide absolute zero
protection. They're not totally useless, since as many of us have
said, they obviously prevent certain minor bumps and scrapes, if
nothing else.


But that's not how they're sold, so to speak. They're touted (or
mandated) because of claims they prevent lots of fatalities or truly
serious brain injuries. Yet data clearly shows otherwise.


Based on that, and based on the available data showing low risk of
serious injury while cycling, my opinion is that bike helmets aren't
necessary for safety, and they don't significantly increase safety.


I find surprizing how many people ask "but were you wearing a helmet"
when they hear of various injuries I sustained from bicycling, like a
broken hip, broken ribs, nad broken thumb, among others. It's been
more than 70 years of bicycling and I expect to see that there were
hazards.


But why are you surprised? Didn't Robinson's proper reevaluation of
the Thomson, Rivara, and Thompson paper's data demonstrate that
helmets DID prevent leg injuries with statistical significance?

If only one leg can be saved...
Ads
  #172  
Old January 5th 11, 04:44 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,511
Default Why we should bike w/o a helmet--from the TED conference

On Jan 4, 9:43*pm, Dan O wrote:

...Yet
someone with a perspective that may once have been positive seems to
have an agenda long gone off the rails, and appears compelled to put
down any consideration (with extreme prejudice) any notion that
bicycle helmets may be beneficial, and very predictably criticizes us
personally as "wrong" (and more!) *It can be very exasperating.


Dan, wear a helmet if you like. Nobody is trying to forbid that
choice. Nobody is trying to pass mandatory no-helmet laws. And Lord
knows, there are plenty of people applauding that choice, and urging
everyone to make that same choice.

But regarding right vs. "wrong": I'm sorry, but there is a difference!
And there are accepted ways of telling the difference. When someone
here states something that is wrong, it tends to get corrected.

It's not just helmets. When someone says "I think my new
SooperTourist Mark IV bike is really comfortable," most posters will
say "Congratulations on the new bike." But if they completed that
sentence by saying "...because the green rubber in the tires absorbs
that frequency of vibration that would otherwise pass through the
spokes to my butt," they'd get some strong disputes. Bull**** gets
called, no matter how sincerely it's believed.

You want to wear a fancy plastic multicolored chapeau? Fine. Enjoy.
But if you tell me you want to wear it because bicycling causes so
many serious head injuries, or because such chapeaus are so
wonderfully protective of serious head injuries, or that such a cap
has saved your life several times, or that brain injury wards are full
of cyclists who chose otherwise, or that bare-headed cyclists are dumb
organ donors - all of which have been posted here - I'll say you're
wrong. And I'll produce data to prove it.

Yeah, I know. Lots of people don't use data and don't care about
data. Lots of people don't like math. Fine. Those people should
stay out of technical discussions.

- Frank Krygowski
  #173  
Old January 5th 11, 05:49 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Dan O
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,098
Default Why we should bike w/o a helmet--from the TED conference

On Jan 4, 7:44 pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Jan 4, 9:43 pm, Dan O wrote:

...Yet
someone with a perspective that may once have been positive seems to
have an agenda long gone off the rails, and appears compelled to put
down any consideration (with extreme prejudice) any notion that
bicycle helmets may be beneficial, and very predictably criticizes us
personally as "wrong" (and more!) It can be very exasperating.


Dan, wear a helmet if you like. Nobody is trying to forbid that
choice. Nobody is trying to pass mandatory no-helmet laws. And Lord
knows, there are plenty of people applauding that choice, and urging
everyone to make that same choice.

But regarding right vs. "wrong": I'm sorry, but there is a difference!
And there are accepted ways of telling the difference. When someone
here states something that is wrong, it tends to get corrected.

It's not just helmets. When someone says "I think my new
SooperTourist Mark IV bike is really comfortable," most posters will
say "Congratulations on the new bike." But if they completed that
sentence by saying "...because the green rubber in the tires absorbs
that frequency of vibration that would otherwise pass through the
spokes to my butt," they'd get some strong disputes. Bull**** gets
called, no matter how sincerely it's believed.

You want to wear a fancy plastic multicolored chapeau? Fine. Enjoy.
But if you tell me you want to wear it because bicycling causes so
many serious head injuries, or because such chapeaus are so
wonderfully protective of serious head injuries, or that such a cap
has saved your life several times, or that brain injury wards are full
of cyclists who chose otherwise, or that bare-headed cyclists are dumb
organ donors - all of which have been posted here - I'll say you're
wrong. And I'll produce data to prove it.


Please cite where I've ever said any of the above.


Yeah, I know. Lots of people don't use data and don't care about
data. Lots of people don't like math. Fine. Those people should
stay out of technical discussions.


I use data. I like math.

Once again, **** you!


  #174  
Old January 5th 11, 06:07 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Tºm Shermªn™ °_°[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,339
Default Why we should bike w/o a helmet--from the TED conference

On 1/4/2011 10:49 PM, Dan 0vermªn wrote:
[...]
Once again, **** you!


How quickly the holiday spirit [1] passes.

[1] However, I still have some holiday spirits left:
http://www.crwine.com/Spirits.html. [2]

[2] Grappa from Eastern Iowa - who'd of thunk?

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.
  #175  
Old January 5th 11, 06:11 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
James[_8_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,153
Default Why we should bike w/o a helmet--from the TED conference

Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote:

[2] Grappa from Eastern Iowa - who'd of thunk?


Trying to be funny?

JS.
  #176  
Old January 5th 11, 06:16 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Tºm Shermªn™ °_°[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,339
Default Why we should bike w/o a helmet--from the TED conference

On 1/4/2011 11:11 PM, James StewarD wrote:
Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote:

[2] Grappa from Eastern Iowa - who'd of thunk?


Trying to be funny?


No - the Grappa is very good.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.
  #177  
Old January 5th 11, 06:54 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
James[_8_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,153
Default Why we should bike w/o a helmet--from the TED conference

Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote:
On 1/4/2011 11:11 PM, James StewarD wrote:
Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote:

[2] Grappa from Eastern Iowa - who'd of thunk?


Trying to be funny?


No - the Grappa is very good.


Who'd have thought it, indeed.

JS.
  #178  
Old January 5th 11, 03:06 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Duane Hébert
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 384
Default Why we should bike w/o a helmet--from the TED conference

On 1/4/2011 7:20 PM, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote:
On 1/4/2011 8:56 AM, Duane Hébert wrote:

In Canada, the government supplies the health care (FWIW) and is
interested in anything that will reduce those costs. As long as
the medical community is convinced that helmets reduce serious
injuries, there is going to be a push to at least educate cyclists.


Too bad the medical community is not better informed.


That could be one possibility.

[...]
They (mostly the vehicular cycling enthusiasts) say the same thing about
facilities being more dangerous and reducing cycling.[...]


Only the first part is correct. More correct would be to say that
competent, experienced vehicular cyclists generally avoid facilities in
preference to the safer and faster streets and roads.


Forester says that facilities are more dangerous.
  #179  
Old January 5th 11, 04:12 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Barry[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 111
Default Why we should bike w/o a helmet--from the TED conference

For example, you may try some of the links at this page:
http://www.neuroskills.com/tbi/cdcbikeorganize.shtml


The very first reference given on that site

http://www.neuroskills.com/tbi/cdcbikerefs.shtml

is the Thompson, Rivara, & Thompson "85%" article, which I believe is
hopelessly flawed. This indicates to me that the people at neuroskills.com
haven't studied the issue carefully, and therefore I wouldn't consider it a
credible source of information.


  #180  
Old January 5th 11, 04:31 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Duane Hébert
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 384
Default Why we should bike w/o a helmet--from the TED conference

On 1/5/2011 10:12 AM, Barry wrote:
For example, you may try some of the links at this page:
http://www.neuroskills.com/tbi/cdcbikeorganize.shtml


The very first reference given on that site

http://www.neuroskills.com/tbi/cdcbikerefs.shtml

is the Thompson, Rivara,& Thompson "85%" article, which I believe is
hopelessly flawed. This indicates to me that the people at neuroskills.com
haven't studied the issue carefully, and therefore I wouldn't consider it a
credible source of information.


Maybe but they give 39 other references. Anyway, the one that I posted
gives links to groups like The American Trauma Society, The National
PTA, The American Academy of Pediatrics and Johns Hopkins, among others.

We can assume that none of these groups have done any rigorous study but
my point is that there is a lot of disagreement about this and much of
it comes from the medical community and not the helmet manufacturers.

Maybe it's possible that we have a few guys on the internet here with
superior understanding of statistical analysis than any of these groups
as well as groups like those running the Tour de France and most of the
other large cycling events who require helmets, a good part of the
medical industry that recommend them etc. but I find that questionable.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Fall Tahoe Mt. Bike Conference rickhopkins Mountain Biking 0 July 30th 10 12:00 AM
Contador press conference Fri Dan Connelly Racing 19 August 11th 07 06:19 AM
Skater style helmet vs. Bike style helmet ivan Unicycling 8 September 11th 06 05:11 AM
FA: Giro Pneumo Road Bike Cycling Bike Helmet S/M Exec Used Alan257 Marketplace 1 September 30th 05 10:21 PM
Phonak Press Conference? B. Lafferty Racing 0 November 30th 04 09:21 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:02 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.