Irresponsible Ad

"Ken [NY]" wrote:


Remember that ads have been pulled that show bicyclists not
wearing helmets, even though they are mostly useless.


Oh really? I can assure you that many of my fellow triathletes, as
well as me, have been spared serious head injuries because they were
wearing a helmet. Most of us won't ride around the corner without one
on.

Mike Tennent
"IronPenguin"


snip

I now seriously doubt that foam helmets can save
someone from the force of a 3,000 motor vehicle striking their head.

Well duh. That's not what they're designed to do.

Do you know that you can suffer fatal head injuries simply from
falling over on a bike? While stationary?

It's the velocity of the brain coming to a sudden stop. Simple physics
and anatomy. That's what the helmet is designed for - those kind of
head injuries.

Mike Tennent
"IronPenguin"

On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 12:55:44 -0400, Mike Tennent
wrote:

I now seriously doubt that foam helmets can save
someone from the force of a 3,000 motor vehicle striking their head.

Well duh. That's not what they're designed to do.

So true. What a shame that the International Brotherhood of
Handwringers feel the need to invoke the fear of this kind of crash in
order to promote them! But then, I suppose it's understandable, given
that most serious cyclist injuries are sustained in collision with
motor vehicles.

Do you know that you can suffer fatal head injuries simply from
falling over on a bike? While stationary?

Or from falling over backwards while drunk. Not many people do,
though. Funny, isn't it, that cycling only became dangerous after
Bell started producing the Biker?

It's the velocity of the brain coming to a sudden stop. Simple physics
and anatomy. That's what the helmet is designed for - those kind of
head injuries.

Er, not as such, no. It's designed for the equivalent of your
disconnected head hitting a flat surface at 12mph or less. Although
it is theoretically possible for this to be fatal, a lot of people
have survived a lot worse. There is also a school of thought which
suggests that the helmet makes the impact more likely in the first
place, for a number of reasons. One of the best-known pro-helmet
studies found that helmeted cyclists were seven times more likely to
hit their heads, and the biggest study of cyclist injuries ever
conducted in the USA found a small but significant increase in risk of
death.

Like the man says, risk management is not rocket science - it's *much*
more complicated than that!

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote in message

Like the man says, risk management is not rocket science - it's *much*
more complicated than that!


Brilliant!

On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 13:12:09 -0400, "Paul R" wrote:

Like the man says, risk management is not rocket science - it's *much*
more complicated than that!

Brilliant!

http://www.geog.ucl.ac.uk/~jadams/publish.htm is the man in question.
And his book Risk is excellent.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote:
It's designed for the equivalent of your
disconnected head hitting a flat surface at 12mph or less. Although
it is theoretically possible for this to be fatal, a lot of people
have survived a lot worse.

Marie Antoinette's disconnected head fell a lot less than two meters, and it
was swiftly fatal to her. ;-)

On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 15:16:00 -0400, Mitch Haley
wrote:

Marie Antoinette's disconnected head fell a lot less than two meters, and it
was swiftly fatal to her. ;-)

Ah, but she was eating a cake at the time.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote:

On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 12:55:44 -0400, Mike Tennent
wrote:

It's the velocity of the brain coming to a sudden stop. Simple physics
and anatomy. That's what the helmet is designed for - those kind of
head injuries.

Er, not as such, no. It's designed for the equivalent of your
disconnected head hitting a flat surface at 12mph or less.

chuckle And just what do you think falling over is?

Although
it is theoretically possible for this to be fatal, a lot of people
have survived a lot worse.

A lot of people have survived lots of things, but that's totally
irrelevant.


There is also a school of thought which
suggests that the helmet makes the impact more likely in the first
place, for a number of reasons. One of the best-known pro-helmet
studies found that helmeted cyclists were seven times more likely to
hit their heads,

Oh, I see. People who wear helmets ride around thinking "OK, if I
crash, I'll just slam my head down on the pavement deliberately."

LOL.

Sounds like statistical games for those in denial.

Mike Tennent
"IronPenguin"

On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 08:54:11 -0400, Mike Tennent
wrote:

It's the velocity of the brain coming to a sudden stop. Simple physics
and anatomy. That's what the helmet is designed for - those kind of
head injuries.

Er, not as such, no. It's designed for the equivalent of your
disconnected head hitting a flat surface at 12mph or less.

chuckle And just what do you think falling over is?

Well I don't know about you, but I always do my best to keep my head
firmly attached to my body when falling...

Here is what one helmet tester has to say about helmet standards:
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html#1081

Although
it is theoretically possible for this to be fatal, a lot of people
have survived a lot worse.

A lot of people have survived lots of things, but that's totally
irrelevant.

Not really. Helmets are designed to withstand a type of impact which
was never likely to cause serious injury in the first place, and then
people wonder why helmet use fails to reduce levels of serious injury.
Some people do, anyway. Others have less trouble understanding why...

There is also a school of thought which
suggests that the helmet makes the impact more likely in the first
place, for a number of reasons. One of the best-known pro-helmet
studies found that helmeted cyclists were seven times more likely to
hit their heads,

Oh, I see. People who wear helmets ride around thinking "OK, if I
crash, I'll just slam my head down on the pavement deliberately."

Sorry, if I had realised that you didn't have the faintest clue about
risk compensation theory I'd have explained it more clearly. For a
good basic grounding I suggest you read Target Risk by Wilde
(http://psyc.queensu.ca/target/), or Risk by Adams.

Remember that crashes are caused, in the main, not by the taking of
large risks, but by the taking of small risks very large numbers of
times. Cycling crashes are rare, you see, and serious injuries rarer;
you can get away with a given risk in some cases hundreds of thousands
of times - millions, even - without a mishap.

Helmeted riders perceive themselves as being better protected, so
those small risks will be slightly bigger, or taken slightly more
often. This balancing behaviour has been documented in respect of
cars and seatbelts, cars and ABS, cyclists and helmets and various
other areas.

It's a bit like walking along near the edge of a cliff. The risk of
falling over gets higher the closer you go to the edge, even though
the change in risk for each successive inch closer to the edge is
unmeasurably small.

There are a lot of reasons people have put forward to explain the
observed fact that head injury rates have never reduced as a result of
increased helmet wearing, and of these I think risk compensation is
one of the more compelling.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

In article ,
"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote:

There are a lot of reasons people have put forward to explain the
observed fact that head injury rates have never reduced as a result of
increased helmet wearing, and of these I think risk compensation is
one of the more compelling.

Of course, it may have something to do with the rise of "extreme biking"
in all forms coinciding with the rising use of helmets...


My son, just learning to ride a bike without training wheels, couldn't
turn very well... He crashed hard into a 4x4 upright fencepost. The
resulting pressure cut went clear to his skull and required 17 stitches
to close...

.... and put a _really_ nasty, deep dent in his helmet.

--
Joe Ellis ? CEO Bethlehem-Ares Railroad - A 1:160 Corp.
___a________n_mmm___mmm_mmm_mmm___mmm_mmm_mmm___mm m_n______
___|8 8B| ___ /::::: / /::::X/ /:::::/ /:::::/||
||__BARR| | | /::::::/ /:::::X /:::::/ /:::::/ ||
----------------------------------------------------------------
[(=)=(=)=(=)=(=)] |_________________________| [(=)=(=)=(=)=(=)]
=============Serving America's Heartland Since 1825=============

Mike Tennent wrote:
"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote:

On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 12:55:44 -0400, Mike Tennent
wrote:

It's the velocity of the brain coming to a sudden stop. Simple physics
and anatomy. That's what the helmet is designed for - those kind of
head injuries.

Er, not as such, no. It's designed for the equivalent of your
disconnected head hitting a flat surface at 12mph or less.

chuckle And just what do you think falling over is?

Do you decapitate yourself as you fall?

I think you didn't understand the word "disconnected." The helmet
certification tests use a magnesium model of a head, fitted with linear
accelerometers. That "headform" has no body attached. The impact of
the decapitated headform seems a poor model for the impact of a head
with a body still attached - the latter being most cyclists' personal
preference!



Although
it is theoretically possible for this to be fatal, a lot of people
have survived a lot worse.

A lot of people have survived lots of things, but that's totally
irrelevant.

It always seems to be irrelevant when people want to exaggerate the
miniscule dangers of cycling. Simultaneously, the larger dangers from
walking near traffic and riding in cars always seem irrelevant to the
styrofoam fans. IOW, we're told we COULD, POSSIBLY be terribly hurt
while cycling; but we're told it's foolish to worry about the _bigger_
risks of motoring and walking.

It seems a concerted effort to disparage and discourage cycling. It's
hard to interpret it any other way.



Oh, I see. People who wear helmets ride around thinking "OK, if I
crash, I'll just slam my head down on the pavement deliberately."

LOL.

Sounds like statistical games for those in denial.

Hmmm. Sounds to me like someone who hasn't read, nor thought about,
this issue at all!

Tell me, since you apparently ride with a helmet: Is there any place
or any situation where you would absolutely _not_ ride if you had no
helmet? Perhaps mountain biking, or perhaps heavy traffic? If so,
please describe it.

- Frank Krygowski