Irresponsible Ad

On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 14:59:10 GMT, Joe Ellis
wrote:

[followup-to reset from alt.dev.null]

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...

Unlikely, since the dominant source of serious and fatal cyclist
injury has always been motor traffic impacts. In fact, much of the
data only includes injuries on public roads.

My son, just learning to ride a bike without training wheels, couldn't
turn very well... He crashed hard into a 4x4 upright fencepost.

There's your problem right there. Training wheels are a Work of Stan
and should be Shunned. Seriously.

Go to wide, gently sloping smooth surface (e.g. playground)
Remove pedals
Set saddle so child can put feet flat on floor
Stand at top of slope
Child scoots down hill
Repeat until child has the hang of balancing (usually takes no more
than 20 minutes); if necessary steady with a hand on the shoulders
(*not* the saddle)
Replace pedals, raise saddle slightly
Send child off on bike. Applaud when child shouts "Look, Daddy, I can
ride my bike!"

Total time from start to riding: usually under half an hour, could be
an hour for younger kids.

If the balance problem proves too much, try them on a scooter for a
while.

There are two major problems with training wheels:
o they inhibit the learning of balance, which when you think about it
is nine tenths of riding a bike
o they introduce handling and balance discontinuities which can take
the bike over.

The
resulting pressure cut went clear to his skull and required 17 stitches
to close...

My son had a similar one from falling off a slide.

Wait a minute.... STITCHES???? My God, these people live in the dark
ages! Staples or glue, man! ;-)

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

So, the kid hit his head, wrote off the lid and *still* got 17
stitches? And that's supposed to be an advert for helmets?!?

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 ,
Joe Ellis writes:

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.

In other words, his helmet didn't work.

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

l (Tom Keats) writes:

In article ,
Joe Ellis writes:

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.

In other words, his helmet didn't work.

Helmets are designed for impacts against more or less flat objects,
like the surface of a road.

Tell him to hit a flat side of the 4x4 next time instead of going in
directly towards an edge.


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

What in the world does this have to do with model railroading? Give me
a break. Or a brake. Or put on the brakes for this thread.

wrote:

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

At Fri, 01 Jul 2005 18:02:41 -0400, message
64jxe.44874$%Z2.17475@lakeread08 was posted by "G.M."
, including some, all or none of the following:

What in the world does this have to do with model railroading? Give me
a break. Or a brake. Or put on the brakes for this thread.

I didn't cross-post it, but I ride my bike from the office to home,
where my model railway is located.

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

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

In article ,
(Bill Z.) writes:
l (Tom Keats) writes:

In article ,
Joe Ellis writes:

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.

In other words, his helmet didn't work.

Helmets are designed for impacts against more or less flat objects,
like the surface of a road.

The only times I've heard of cyclists squarely hitting
the road head-first were when they were hit from behind
by cars with such force as to launch them straight up;
then they arc back down again with a trajectory like
that of a V2 rocket, and the cyclists landing head-first
on the road behind the cars that hit them. Although
sometimes they land on top of the car. Of those riders
who were wearing helmets, theirs didn't work either.

Tell him to hit a flat side of the 4x4 next time instead of going in
directly towards an edge.

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

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

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

i stick mine up my butt. The extra body mass really attenuates the
impact, and the tucked-in geometry gives a better rollout.

..max
no offense meant, it was just an image that needed sharing.

In article ,
(Bill Z.) wrote:

Helmets are designed for impacts against more or less flat objects,
like the surface of a road.

Tell him to hit a flat side of the 4x4 next time instead of going in
directly towards an edge.

Earlier this spring i had a rilly nice UPD (UnPlanned Dismount) off my
uni during a lunchtime practice. Laid out like a WWF guy, my head
impacting from a height of about 80". To the rear, right on my occiptal
region -- BONK!.

Mildy Concussed myself, saw a _lot_ of stars, couldn't see good for a
couple of days and thought my head was going to pop it hurt so bad. ly.
I really really wish i'd had a couple of inches of deformable foamed
styrene to stretch out the deceleration pulse, and to have intercepted
some of the energy that was trasformed into rapidly accelerating and
shearing my intercranial tissues. Damn.

Needles to say i always always ride my uni and my bike with a little
foam hat. Of course, almost permanently blinding myself with a UPD
isn't relevant, since it was on a unicycle and not a bicycle, hence no
valid inferrences can be made.

..max

On 1 Jul 2005 08:05:44 -0700, wrote:




chuckle And just what do you think falling over is?

Do you decapitate yourself as you fall?


LOL. No, but I thought it was fairly obvious that there would be
little or no difference between an attached head hitting the concrete
at 12 mph and a "detached" head hitting the concrete at 12 mph. the
brain stops just as suddenly.

And I also assumed that you made that irrelevant distinction based
upon the testing techniques.

Mike Tennent
IronPenguin Electronics
www.ironpeng.com/ipe
Special Effects lighting,
Crossing guards

On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 14:41:44 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

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.


Perhaps you should re-read it and try to apply the principles
logically.


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;

LOL. Guess you've never ridden in a crit.



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.

Ok, let's apply this principle to helmet use. In this thread you've
blamed helmet wear for a higher rate of injury - not the activity
itself.

Every sanctioning body in the US involved in bicycle racing - road,
off-road, triathlon, etc mandate helmet use. These individuals are
constantly involved in higher risk competition and higher risk
training (speed and course) - far more than the casual joe citizen on
his beach cruiser who doesn't wear a helmet. We're talking about a
factor of thousands of times more risk exposure. And their accidents
are far more likely to be reported.

Don't you think that just might skew the numbers?

But no, you say statistics prove that it's because they wear a helmet
that they have a higher risk. You blame the safety equipment, not the
far higher risk exposure. That's a hoot.

Of course, it's easy to prove just about anything if you ignore cause
and effect.

Children who are breast fed are less likely to be injured in car
accidents. Do you think this is because of nutrition or because of
lower numbers in the population?

I'm sure it could be demonstrated that Ironman triathletes who use
Gatorade have a higher risk of injury than those that use PowerAde. Is
this because of the specific drink or because Gatorade sponsors many
of the Ironmans and provides it free?

Simple cause and effect, right? The statistics prove it, right?

Mike Tennent

8 times Ironman finisher
100's of triathlons, crits, road races

Always wears a helmet.