First Helmet : jury is out.

RogerDodger wrote in
:


I understand that gridiron helmets can cause neck injuries? There is
some research that has been conducted in this area - but that's a
side issue.

Wasn't that mainly in the case where players were using there helmeted
heads as battering rams, breaking their own necks?

In article . 204,
says...
RogerDodger wrote in
:


I understand that gridiron helmets can cause neck injuries? There is
some research that has been conducted in this area - but that's a
side issue.

Wasn't that mainly in the case where players were using there helmeted
heads as battering rams, breaking their own necks?

Basically, yes. What it did was allow the players to hit harder with
their heads without getting a head injury, to the point where the impact
transmitted to their necks was injuring the neck.

--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the
newsgroups if possible).

wrote:
David Kerber responded to
I understand that gridiron helmets can cause neck injuries? There is
some research that has been conducted in this area - but that's a
side issue.

Wasn't that mainly in the case where players were using there helmeted
heads as battering rams, breaking their own necks?
Basically, yes. What it did was allow the players to hit harder with
their heads without getting a head injury, to the point where the impact
transmitted to their necks was injuring the neck. end quote



So what we have here is an example (or variation along the lines) of
risk compensation?

Another aspect of interest is how, in the discussion of cycle helmet in-
efficacy, some people look to other activities where helmets are worn -
and this seems to be, in their mind, sufficently compelling reason for
helmets to be worn on the bike.

I'd suggest that this manner of *reasoning* (which is, to put it
sarcastically; a sort of reasoning you can use if you don't have the
inclination, patience or ability to actually reason).

Of course doing this isn't reasoning it's perhaps better described as
mindless consistency - hey- these people wear helmets so that's a really
good reason we should too?

I've seen mention of football helmets a couple of times recently on this
forum/NG and it does add an(other) interesting perspective to the
debate. Notwithstanding the soft & thin headgear worn by a very small
number of rugby-footballers - the hard and bulkier helmets worn by gridiron-
footballers are pretty much unique to N. America (?)

My reason for saying that this is interesting is that it gives a insight
into differences of subjective perceptions of risk in this sport. As I
mentioned in a previous post a huge number of people play rugby-football
(and rugby-league) in Commonwealth countries. I would cautiously suggest
that rugby-football is as much - if not more - physically bruising as
gridiron-football.

Disregarding the difference with rugby, in particular the scrummaging,
in which the use of gridiron helmets just wouldn't be suitable - there
are plenty of "hard hits" (tackles) and despite the occasional
concussion the perception, in the minds of spectators and players, of
risk of it is low.

Now contrast that perception of risk with the perception of risk of head-
injury in the game of gridiron-football, as evidenced by posters such as
the previous one by "sittingduck". The perception of risk is basically
determined by the fact that gridiron-footballers wear helmets...
(certainly you wouldn't want to not wear one if everyone else was - that
would be like driving a hatchback when everyone else drives hummers).

While I'm being provocative - is there any likelyhood that some cyclists
embrace the idea of wearing a helmet at least partly as a desire to
emulate the macho image of gridiron-footballers?

Roger

Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote; "For non-conformity the world whips you with
its displeasure... A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little
minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines." - in
"Self Reliance".



--

"RogerDodger" wrote

So what we have here is an example (or variation along the lines) of
risk compensation?

Another aspect of interest is how, in the discussion of cycle helmet in-
efficacy, some people look to other activities where helmets are worn -
and this seems to be, in their mind, sufficently compelling reason for
helmets to be worn on the bike.

I'd suggest that this manner of *reasoning* (which is, to put it
sarcastically; a sort of reasoning you can use if you don't have the
inclination, patience or ability to actually reason).

Of course doing this isn't reasoning it's perhaps better described as
mindless consistency - hey- these people wear helmets so that's a really
good reason we should too?

I've seen mention of football helmets a couple of times recently on this
forum/NG and it does add an(other) interesting perspective to the
debate. Notwithstanding the soft & thin headgear worn by a very small
number of rugby-footballers - the hard and bulkier helmets worn by
gridiron-
footballers are pretty much unique to N. America (?)

My reason for saying that this is interesting is that it gives a insight
into differences of subjective perceptions of risk in this sport. As I
mentioned in a previous post a huge number of people play rugby-football
(and rugby-league) in Commonwealth countries. I would cautiously suggest
that rugby-football is as much - if not more - physically bruising as
gridiron-football.

Disregarding the difference with rugby, in particular the scrummaging,
in which the use of gridiron helmets just wouldn't be suitable - there
are plenty of "hard hits" (tackles) and despite the occasional
concussion the perception, in the minds of spectators and players, of
risk of it is low.

Now contrast that perception of risk with the perception of risk of head-
injury in the game of gridiron-football, as evidenced by posters such as
the previous one by "sittingduck". The perception of risk is basically
determined by the fact that gridiron-footballers wear helmets...
(certainly you wouldn't want to not wear one if everyone else was - that
would be like driving a hatchback when everyone else drives hummers).

In American football, they hit harder because of the helmet, not wear a
helmet because of hard hits.

The games and tactics are different. Introduce pads and helmets to rugby,
and the game would change. Remove helmets from American football, and the
game would change.

Classic risk compensation.

But the juxtaposition of football helmets and daily cycling is silly.
Completely different circumstances. In one, you're getting hit in the head,
repeatedly, on purpose. In the other, head hits are pretty damn rare.

I've even heard it in here that since NASCAR drivers wear helmets, helmets
must be a GoodThing(tm)!

Pete

RogerDodger wrote:

As I
mentioned in a previous post a huge number of people play rugby-football
(and rugby-league) in Commonwealth countries. I would cautiously suggest
that rugby-football is as much - if not more - physically bruising as
gridiron-football.

Disregarding the difference with rugby, in particular the scrummaging,
in which the use of gridiron helmets just wouldn't be suitable - there
are plenty of "hard hits" (tackles) and despite the occasional
concussion the perception, in the minds of spectators and players, of
risk of it is low.

Now contrast that perception of risk with the perception of risk of head-
injury in the game of gridiron-football, as evidenced by posters such as
the previous one by "sittingduck". The perception of risk is basically
determined by the fact that gridiron-footballers wear helmets...

Personally, I think people's perception of risk is driven by (perhaps)
dozens of factors. But I certainly think the use of helmets (or other
protective gear) is a big factor.

While I'm being provocative - is there any likelyhood that some cyclists
embrace the idea of wearing a helmet at least partly as a desire to
emulate the macho image of gridiron-footballers?

I'm sure that's part of it. But for bicycling as a whole, I think it's
usually a bit more subtle.

I think humans have a big need to be part of a group (clan?) and that we
advertise our choice of "clan" by our clothes. Military folks, square
dancers, hip-hop fans, skate boarders, Borneo tribesmen and
upper-middle-class middle-aged American white guys all have their uniforms.

Hats are an important part of most uniforms. I think that back in the
early 1980s, bike club members subconsciously saw helmets as a way to
add a hat to their uniform. And they justified wearing a (face it)
really weird styrofoam bucket by piously mentioning safety.

The related effect you mention was particularly useful for the racing
crowd. Then (even more than now) racers were frustrated because of
working themselves into extremely tough athletic shape, yet being called
pansies by the rednecks.

So it was useful to the racers to adopted a "Look at me, I'm a macho
risk taker" hat, as well as reflective streamlined shades to scowl
behind. And once they did that, even more club cyclists picked up the
look, to use on their club rides. ("Look at me, I'm a macho risk taker
riding 12 miles per hour!")

Of course, they _did_ have to at least _attempt_ to justify such
weirdness. So club cyclists jumped right on the "Bicycling is
Dangerous!" bandwagon.

And now, we have the most enthusiastic cyclists being among the loudest
shouting "Bicycling is Dangerous!" It's hard to think of another
activity whose biggest fans work as hard to deter its popularity.

All for the sake of a hat!

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

As some of you know, I just bought my first bicycle in over 30 years.
I asked my LBS about a helmet - do I need one? The owner's answer was
very straightforward. He said that in Taiwan, the mountain bikers and
freestylers all wear helmets because they are known to hit their head
frequently in falls. He then said that only foreigners in Taiwan wear
helmets for street riding. He next asked me "Do you think you need
one?" - in other words, he was asking "do I think I will hit my head,
and if so, would I want a helmet on it?"

I believe that this is a personal issue, and one which falls under the
heading of "personal responsibility." I am in favor of PR and not
having a regulatory agency dictate such things. I don't think the
stats really matter. If a person does think they might hit their head
and they would like a helmet, what is wrong with that? If a person
decides that there is little risk in hitting their head and they
prefer to not wear a helmet, what is wrong with that too?

The bike shop owner is right about one thing apparently. In all my
time spent in Taiwan, I have only seen bike helmets on the Mormon
missionaries riding bikes around - never on any Taiwanese person.
FWIW, there is a national motorcycle helmet law here. The thinking is
different because of the speeds involved. F=MA

So, did I get a bike helmet? That's my business.


Michael J. Klein
Dasi Jen, Taoyuan Hsien, Taiwan, ROC
Please replace mousepotato with asiancastings
---------------------------------------------