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

Tim McNamara writes:

In article ,
Hadron Quark wrote:

"Cathy Kearns" writes:

I unbelievingly often get called out for not wearing a helmet while
pedaling to my daugher's school. Note that I run this same route,
on the same roads (there are no sidewalks), at the same speed more
often, yet not one person has mentioned I should be wearing a
helmet when I go running.

Why would you wear a helmet when running? You arms dont get tangled
in handlebars/cables, you are very unlikely to be "clipped" by a wing
mirror, you are probably running into the traffic as opposed to with
it so know exactly whats approaching. Its totally different risk
factors with totally different accident results.

According to data from the Minnesota Department of Health, the incidence
of brain injuries among pedestrians is several times higher than that
among bicyclists. If helmets provided a protective effect, then more
benefit would be obtained from pedestrians wearing them than cyclists.

So what? BTW, do these statistics correctly scale to relevant numbers
involved in the "sport" or pastime? e.g everyone is at sometime a
pedestrian : only a percentage are cyclists.

Regardless,

1) I choose not to wear a helmet
2) I see no facts disproving that a helemt would, in a head collision,
offer more protection than nothing at all.




--

Peter Clinch writes:

Hadron Quark wrote:

eh? Just because the statistics say there are similar injury numbers it
doesnt in any way equate the accident itself. And guess what : Ive never
known a runner injured by anything other than self punishment (sprains
etc) - Ive known lots of cyclists clipped by cars, hedges, spilled by
drainage grates and gravel etc.

What, the hedges, grates and gravel just leapt out at them? If you're
clipped by a hedge, ride over a drainage grate or lose it on gravel
then there's nobody to blame but yourself: i.e., self punishment.

Are you sane? Victorian dad? Mr logic? Certainly not human and prone to
error and lapses of judgement by the sound of it.


As for the cars, are you really suggesting that nobody out for a run
has ever been knocked down by a motor vehicle?

Where did I suggest that?


Aha! You're coming from an angle I see. You're argument angle is
ridiculous : with this logic you would defend murder since it was
considered part of life until a legal system was invented to discourage
it. They were invented for a reason you know.

Sports use and making money are both perfectly reasonable reasons for
cycle helmets to exist, and neither has any particular bearing on A to
B utility road cycling.

You need a tinfoil helemt.


When falling off a bike or hit by car when cycling its quite often the
case that bits of the body are indeed caight by the falling bike : maybe
I didnt describe it properly - I was hoping you could extrapolate. Ive
certainly had a couple of nasty falls with cleats I didnt disengage when
someone just walked out in front of me.

I know of /lots/ of people who've failed to disengage and then toppled
over, certainly including me. I don't recall any others of them
saying they were "nasty" (or that they hit their heads, for that
matter).

Oh for goodness sake. You sound ridiculous.


Are you just being obstinate?

No, I'm just dealing with reality: many/most cases of cyclists being
clipped by overtaking vehicles would not happen if the cyclist were
better positioned, but unfortunately the belief that hugging the kerb
is the safest place to be is even more widespread than the
misapprehension that helmets will Save Your Life.

Why do you keep telling us how perfect you/people are? Lets consider
real life where not everyone can be in a safe position.


The clip of the wing mirror
was an example of being hit by a passing automobile. Bikes by their
nature tend to move around : especially in slipstreams - far more than a
runner would.

No reason to be in a slipstream involuntarily, again down to
positioning.

Really. Ive had enough of this. I think you're purposely moving
goalposts and creating a stir.

Bottom line is : I believe helmets provide more protection than nothing
at all. You seem to have lots of theories about why a perfect cyclist
should *never* need to test out that hypothesis. To continue : I dont
wear one - but I dont expect most cyclists to be as careful as me either.

Peter Clinch wrote:
Ozark Bicycle wrote:

Well, look at the helmets available as of 1988.

Look at the standards they were made to and compare those to EN1078.
Cycle helmets have not got any more protective, they have just got
lighter and cheaper and better ventilated. The standards they're made
to conform to have actually been eroded, not strengthened.


Hmm....one of the "dangers" often cited is the helmet "sticking" to the
pavement after impact. The cloth covered styrofoam helmets of ca. 1988
were likely more prone to that than the later "microshell" helmets
(although the helmet makers never came right out and said so, the
"microshell"s real purpose was to eliminate, or at least reduce, the
sticking-to-the-pavement problem).

Also, the truly useless Skid-lid was in (for the time) relatively
widespread use ca. 1988.


I also wonder where the "8 million" sample size came from. What was the
demographic?
Prior to ~ 1990, I knew, first hand, of only three (yes, three)
cyclists who wore helmets (one V-1 Pro and two cloth covered foam
shells). And I hung around with alot of cyclists.


The point is, the helmets available in 1988 were *very* different than
the helmets available today. Do you think that might make a difference?

Not in terms of the standards they were built to conform to they're not,
so "no, not really". And the helmets available then would still conform
to the sort of thing that Mr. Quark couldn't see any reason not to wear
because they wouldn't do any harm.


If you want to take a swipe at Mr. Quark, grow some balls and do it
directly.

Hadron Quark wrote:
writes:

1) faster
Yes, at times. Of course, there are slow cyclists and fast sprinters.
When should helmets be worn? Above a certain speed?

Oh for gods sake.

Hang on, why complain? You have stated that speed is a reason for
wearing a helmet, so in instances of slow cycling or fast running it
/should/ make sense for there to be a crossover point where it makes
sense in one case but not the other to reverse.
If not, why not?

Runners wearing a helmet? YOu are changing the goalposts. The discussion
is whether a helmet can be beneficial.

So if it can be beneficial, why shouldn't runners get that benefit too?

Certainly I would consider
wearing a helmet more in fast moving urban traffic than along a flat
netherlands cycle track.

The specifications to which helmets are built make them far, far better
suited to accidents you might have on an fietspad than to accidents in
fast traffic, so why? Those specifications show you can't expect any
beneficial effect at the sort of energies motor vehicle collisions
create. It's also my experience that there is far more close overtaking
on a fietspad than on a road.

The you havent been buzzed by fast moving cars.

Maybe he hasn't. Maybe that's from better positioning, maybe it's from
better luck. We don't know.

Again : if your head were to hit a car door, a bonnet , a curb or a
plain old wall, do you, or do you not think a helemt would be beneficial
in this case.

It quite possibly would be. So if that's a reason for a cyclist to wear
one it should be a reason for a runner, walker or driver to wear one
too. Why single out cyclists for this line of reasoning? They're not
the only people having head injuries. In fact a greater proportion of
ER admissions amongst peds have head injuries than the cyclists, so
they're better candidates.

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/

ps

Was just browsing some long distance touring notes:

http://www.bikechina.com/ct-johnmchale1.html

"I still haven¡Çt decided what the lesson is here. Maybe something along
the lines of: "when biking down steps along a cliff edge, don¡Çt let
bees fly into your mouth"¡Ä?? I went over head-first, and it¡Çs obvious
that my helmet saved my life."

so the bottom line is that all your data is worth jack. If you stick to
the original question:

What provides more head protection : a helmet or no hlemt?

... then the answer is clear.

Compulsory? Not for me thanks.

But I guess Peter Clinch will just reply that "the guy is an idiot and has only
himself to blame".


--

Peter Clinch writes:

Hadron Quark wrote:
writes:

1) faster
Yes, at times. Of course, there are slow cyclists and fast sprinters.
When should helmets be worn? Above a certain speed?
Oh for gods sake.

Hang on, why complain? You have stated that speed is a reason for
wearing a helmet, so in instances of slow cycling or fast running it
/should/ make sense for there to be a crossover point where it makes
sense in one case but not the other to reverse.
If not, why not?

I am not complaining. I am pointing out that you seem incapable of
reaching a conclusion because you fall over yourself mumbling the
bleeding obvious.


Runners wearing a helmet? YOu are changing the goalposts. The discussion
is whether a helmet can be beneficial.

So if it can be beneficial, why shouldn't runners get that benefit too?


I never mentioned runners and do not wish to discuss them. Some scree
runners do. What is your point other than to obfuscate and come across
as a bit of a bore?

Certainly I would consider
wearing a helmet more in fast moving urban traffic than along a flat
netherlands cycle track.

The specifications to which helmets are built make them far, far
better suited to accidents you might have on an fietspad than to
accidents in fast traffic, so why? Those specifications show you
can't expect any beneficial effect at the sort of energies motor
vehicle collisions create. It's also my experience that there is far
more close overtaking on a fietspad than on a road.

Now you only compare hitting a fast moving vehicle? You really do like
to move the goalposts dont you?


The you havent been buzzed by fast moving cars.

Maybe he hasn't. Maybe that's from better positioning, maybe it's
from better luck. We don't know.

And I dont really care : maybe you can take that offline and discuss it?
Since it has no bearing whatsoever on this thread : what you may or may
not have experienced.


Again : if your head were to hit a car door, a bonnet , a curb or a
plain old wall, do you, or do you not think a helemt would be beneficial
in this case.

It quite possibly would be. So if that's a reason for a cyclist to
wear one it should be a reason for a runner, walker or driver to wear
one too. Why single out cyclists for this line of reasoning? They're

Look at the title of this NG.

not the only people having head injuries. In fact a greater
proportion of ER admissions amongst peds have head injuries than the
cyclists, so they're better candidates.

Statistics : you canprove anything with them.

On Wed, 10 May 2006 07:31:49 -0500, Tim McNamara
wrote:

In article ,
Hadron Quark wrote:

"Cathy Kearns" writes:

I unbelievingly often get called out for not wearing a helmet while
pedaling to my daugher's school. Note that I run this same route,
on the same roads (there are no sidewalks), at the same speed more
often, yet not one person has mentioned I should be wearing a
helmet when I go running.

Why would you wear a helmet when running? You arms dont get tangled
in handlebars/cables, you are very unlikely to be "clipped" by a wing
mirror, you are probably running into the traffic as opposed to with
it so know exactly whats approaching. Its totally different risk
factors with totally different accident results.

According to data from the Minnesota Department of Health, the incidence
of brain injuries among pedestrians is several times higher than that
among bicyclists. If helmets provided a protective effect, then more
benefit would be obtained from pedestrians wearing them than cyclists.

Dear Tim,

I was wondering when someone would mention that point.

Many studies graph pedestrian head injuries and fatalities
next to the bicycle data.

The two lines invariably descend very gently over the years,
with neither showing any reaction to massive increases in
bicycle helmet use.

Because so few pedestrians or bicyclists are seriously
injured or killed in falls, it's hard to realize that just
walking around is more dangerous than bicycling.

Of course, it's hard to believe that going 400 mph with
nothing but thin air beneath me is safer than driving at the
speed limit on solid pavement, but the airline industry has
some rather convincing statistics that mock my fear of
heights and the lurid pictures of plane crashes that kill a
hundred passengers in an instant.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

Hadron Quark wrote:

Are you sane? Victorian dad? Mr logic? Certainly not human and prone to
error and lapses of judgement by the sound of it.

Sane, and prone to lapses of judgement as anyone else. However,
I'm not stupid enough to blame Fate when it's my fault, and if I'm
"clipped by a hedge" then it's my fault. Hedges are stationary and
quite visible, thus they are not /too/ hard to avoid.

Where did I suggest that?

When you said "And guess what : Ive never known a runner injured by
anything other than self punishment"

Oh for goodness sake. You sound ridiculous.

No: lots of cyclists use SPuDs or similar, many of them have had at
least one fall due to not getting out in time, they don't have a
reputation of getting people hurt.

Why do you keep telling us how perfect you/people are? Lets consider
real life where not everyone can be in a safe position.

Let's do that. Let's look at the accident figures for cyclists vs.
pedestrians across the whole population. We see the cyclists
aren't particularly more prone to getting hurt, and when they do
they're slightly less prone to head injuries. So why wear a helmet?

Really. Ive had enough of this. I think you're purposely moving
goalposts and creating a stir.

No I'm not. I'm simply pointing out that I, and many cyclists of
my aquaintance, do not make a habit of falling off our bikes when
overtaken or subject to cross winds. You may wobble a little, but
do you actually fall off that often?

Bottom line is : I believe helmets provide more protection than nothing
at all.

So why is there no change in serious head injuries as helmet
wearing rates rise anywhere you look at whole populations?

You seem to have lots of theories about why a perfect cyclist
should *never* need to test out that hypothesis. To continue : I dont
wear one - but I dont expect most cyclists to be as careful as me either.

But we're looking at whole populations, which take into account
every cyclist, the good ones, the bad ones, and the ones in
between. If helmets helped then the head injury rates would come
down as helmet wearing went up. It doesn't, anywhere you want to
look where there's data.

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/

In article ,
wrote:

On Wed, 10 May 2006 07:31:49 -0500, Tim McNamara
wrote:

In article ,
Hadron Quark wrote:

"Cathy Kearns" writes:

I unbelievingly often get called out for not wearing a helmet
while pedaling to my daugher's school. Note that I run this
same route, on the same roads (there are no sidewalks), at the
same speed more often, yet not one person has mentioned I should
be wearing a helmet when I go running.

Why would you wear a helmet when running? You arms dont get
tangled in handlebars/cables, you are very unlikely to be
"clipped" by a wing mirror, you are probably running into the
traffic as opposed to with it so know exactly whats approaching.
Its totally different risk factors with totally different accident
results.

According to data from the Minnesota Department of Health, the
incidence of brain injuries among pedestrians is several times
higher than that among bicyclists. If helmets provided a protective
effect, then more benefit would be obtained from pedestrians wearing
them than cyclists.

Dear Tim,

I was wondering when someone would mention that point.

Many studies graph pedestrian head injuries and fatalities next to
the bicycle data.

The two lines invariably descend very gently over the years, with
neither showing any reaction to massive increases in bicycle helmet
use.

That's a good point- there has been no "85%" drop in head injuries among
cyclists as helmets have been adopted. And in one country that passed a
mandatory helmet law (Australia) the rate of head injuries went up. At
the epidemiological level, there is little proof that helmets are
effective.

Because so few pedestrians or bicyclists are seriously injured or
killed in falls, it's hard to realize that just walking around is
more dangerous than bicycling.

Of course, it's hard to believe that going 400 mph with nothing but
thin air beneath me is safer than driving at the speed limit on solid
pavement, but the airline industry has some rather convincing
statistics that mock my fear of heights and the lurid pictures of
plane crashes that kill a hundred passengers in an instant.

While I have no fear of flying per se, I hate to fly because airports
suck so very badly.

In article ,
says...
At
the epidemiological level, there is little proof that helmets are
effective.


And that is about the limit of what can rationally infer from the data.
All the other breast-beating is speculation.

Rick