|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#121
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
Ads |
#122
|
|||
|
|||
First Helmet : jury is out.
|
#123
|
|||
|
|||
First Helmet : jury is out.
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". -- |
#124
|
|||
|
|||
First Helmet : jury is out.
"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 |
#125
|
|||
|
|||
First Helmet : jury is out.
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] |
#126
|
|||
|
|||
First Helmet : jury is out.
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 --------------------------------------------- |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Bicycle helmet law can save lives | Garrison Hilliard | General | 146 | May 19th 04 05:42 AM |
How Do You Know if a Helmet Fits? | Elisa Francesca Roselli | General | 11 | April 24th 04 09:14 PM |
A Pleasant Helmet Debate | Stephen Harding | General | 12 | February 26th 04 06:32 AM |
Reports from Sweden | Garry Jones | General | 17 | October 14th 03 05:23 PM |
How I cracked my helmet | Rick Warner | General | 2 | July 12th 03 11:26 AM |