Wear that Helmet!!

Here are two interesting articles about wearing helmets.

http://www.egms.de/en/meetings/dgnc2...134.shtml#Text
http://agbu.une.edu.au/~drobinso/velo1/velo.html

It shows that helmets are not really the life savers that some people think
they are. It's more about using what's inside the helmet; your brain. In
this case the car driver did not use his brain.

Menno
wears a helmet when appropriate.

Here are two interesting articles about wearing helmets.

http://www.egms.de/en/meetings/dgnc2...134.shtml#Text
http://agbu.une.edu.au/~drobinso/velo1/velo.html

It shows that helmets are not really the life savers that some people think
they are. It's more about using what's inside the helmet; your brain. In
this case the car driver did not use his brain.

Menno
wears a helmet when appropriate.

"Menno" wrote in message
. ..
Here are two interesting articles about wearing helmets.

http://www.egms.de/en/meetings/dgnc2...134.shtml#Text
http://agbu.une.edu.au/~drobinso/velo1/velo.html

It shows that helmets are not really the life savers that some people
think
they are. It's more about using what's inside the helmet; your brain. In
this case the car driver did not use his brain.

Menno
wears a helmet when appropriate.

Well, you'll change your tune the first time you shatter a helmet and come
out of the wreck with at least your head unscathed. I hit my head in a race
at 30mph hard enough that I didn't even feel my collarbone break. I guess
that suggests that we should wear shoulder pads too, but then we'd be big
wusses like football players.

For anyone who races or rides in competitive group rides the benefits
provided by wearing a helmet are probably much greater than those for casual
riders whose main threat is from intense impact with a car.

--Art

JimLane writes:

Some of us, perhaps you, have heard a gunshot go off somewhere in
the neighborhood. It may be startling or no great shakes depending
on how often this happens. One immediately outside your door is
another matter. Wanna bet which one has the greatest impact on you?
which causes the strongest adrenaline jump?

Well, that helmet impact is like the shot outside your front door
when the helmet is on your head and it is the first time this
happens to you. Light shining somewhere in that darkness yet?

You mean the shining light that I should never leave home without a
styrofoam beer cooler on my head, whether I am riding my bike, walking
or driving? Of that I should probably wear it in the shower too,
since more head injuries occur there than on the bike?

Man, if I was as risk-averse as some folks I'd never get out of bed,
let alone go on a bike ride.

"Art M" writes:

"Menno" wrote in message
. ..
Here are two interesting articles about wearing helmets.

http://www.egms.de/en/meetings/dgnc2...134.shtml#Text
http://agbu.une.edu.au/~drobinso/velo1/velo.html

It shows that helmets are not really the life savers that some
people think they are. It's more about using what's inside the
helmet; your brain. In this case the car driver did not use his
brain.

Well, you'll change your tune the first time you shatter a helmet
and come out of the wreck with at least your head unscathed.

Ooh, is that a threat? Are you gonna *make* me change my tune?

I hit my head in a race at 30mph hard enough that I didn't even feel
my collarbone break. I guess that suggests that we should wear
shoulder pads too, but then we'd be big wusses like football
players.

No, it just means one should learn how to avoid crashing in a race.
It was a lesson I took to heart, crashing once on the road and twice
in the velodrome in the 10 years I raced and avoiding many others.
The safest place is a solo breakaway, but I was never strong enough
to pull that off.

For anyone who races or rides in competitive group rides the
benefits provided by wearing a helmet are probably much greater than
those for casual riders whose main threat is from intense impact
with a car.

The fact of the matter is that precisely the opposite is true. The
faster you're going, the more forceful the impact, the less helpful a
bicycle helmet is. It's designed to absorb the impact of falling over
while stationary and hitting your head, not a 30 mph impact. Of
course, most crashes involve a glancing impact with the pavement.

I've been in crashes with and without a helmet. The helmet was
useful in preventing road rash on my head. That's about it. OTOH a
little over a year ago I was knocked off my bike and assaulted by
four "youths" and my helmet was helpful for that.

"Doug Huffman" wrote:

Let's not stop at a 'cup'! Full BMX (is it?) body armor! Were such legally
mandated, I'll bet we'd see a reduction in bicycle injuries just as when
hell-mutts are mandated.

Aye Doug, coming soon to a nanny state near you.

But I was thinking that sooner or later someone might bounce his
marbles in return for his presumptuous "advice".

Chalo

"Menno" wrote in message ...
Here are two interesting articles about wearing helmets.

http://www.egms.de/en/meetings/dgnc2...134.shtml#Text
http://agbu.une.edu.au/~drobinso/velo1/velo.html

It shows that helmets are not really the life savers that some people think
they are. It's more about using what's inside the helmet; your brain. In
this case the car driver did not use his brain.

Menno
wears a helmet when appropriate.

The article by Dorothy Robinson attempts to measure the efficacy (or
not) of mandatory helmet laws. It says nothing about the reduction in
risk of head injury given that an accident has occurred. These are
separate issues.

FWIW, the study showed no significant (or any at all, really)
improvement in head injury statistics after the introduction of MHL in
Australia.

Ritch

On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 15:39:57 -0500, Tim McNamara
wrote:

For anyone who races or rides in competitive group rides the
benefits provided by wearing a helmet are probably much greater than
those for casual riders whose main threat is from intense impact
with a car.

The fact of the matter is that precisely the opposite is true. The
faster you're going, the more forceful the impact, the less helpful a
bicycle helmet is. It's designed to absorb the impact of falling over
while stationary and hitting your head, not a 30 mph impact. Of
course, most crashes involve a glancing impact with the pavement.

I've been in crashes with and without a helmet. The helmet was
useful in preventing road rash on my head. That's about it. OTOH a
little over a year ago I was knocked off my bike and assaulted by
four "youths" and my helmet was helpful for that.

Oh boy, do you need to do some research. Look at the medical data on
the subject of head trauma in bicycle accidents, both with and without
a helmet.

The chances of fatality in a "head hitting hard object" drop
significantly when wearing a helmet. They do so much more than just
protect your head from road rash.

For those naysayers who say "after my accidents, I didn't see any
damage to the helmet so it's useless," that's how the helmets are
supposed to work. They absorb some of the impact - and the damage to
the helmet starts on the inside. The damage is rarely visible from
the outside.

I'm not advocating mandatory helmet laws. If you don't want to wear a
helment, then don't. Just don't coming knocking on my door when you
need help paying for the respirator after your unhelmeted head hit the
pavement and now has massive brain trauma. Society shouldn't have to
pay for that.

NobodyMan wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 15:39:57 -0500, Tim McNamara
wrote:


For anyone who races or rides in competitive group rides the
benefits provided by wearing a helmet are probably much greater than
those for casual riders whose main threat is from intense impact
with a car.

The fact of the matter is that precisely the opposite is true. The
faster you're going, the more forceful the impact, the less helpful a
bicycle helmet is. It's designed to absorb the impact of falling over
while stationary and hitting your head, not a 30 mph impact. Of
course, most crashes involve a glancing impact with the pavement.

I've been in crashes with and without a helmet. The helmet was
useful in preventing road rash on my head. That's about it. OTOH a
little over a year ago I was knocked off my bike and assaulted by
four "youths" and my helmet was helpful for that.


Oh boy, do you need to do some research. Look at the medical data on
the subject of head trauma in bicycle accidents, both with and without
a helmet.

The chances of fatality in a "head hitting hard object" drop
significantly when wearing a helmet. They do so much more than just
protect your head from road rash.

For those naysayers who say "after my accidents, I didn't see any
damage to the helmet so it's useless," that's how the helmets are
supposed to work. They absorb some of the impact - and the damage to
the helmet starts on the inside. The damage is rarely visible from
the outside.

I'm not advocating mandatory helmet laws. If you don't want to wear a
helment, then don't. Just don't coming knocking on my door when you
need help paying for the respirator after your unhelmeted head hit the
pavement and now has massive brain trauma. Society shouldn't have to
pay for that.

If you choose to not wear an approved helmet you should be mandated to
be an organ donor. Organ donation needs more visionaries.

Ahhh, so! Another wannabe tyrant. Which is worse, one tyrant a thousand
miles away or a thousand neighbor-tyrants that are one mile away?


"mrbubl" wrote in message
ink.net...
|| If you choose to not wear an approved helmet you should be mandated to
| be an organ donor. Organ donation needs more visionaries.