#1
|
|||
|
|||
Helmet ******s
On Tue, 03 Feb 2004 01:45:04 GMT, "Tom Kunich"
wrote: As is always the case at this time of the year, some ****** has to bring up helmets in a way that shows helmet ******s as what they are - stupid ass blowhards: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3451325.stm You can take the cowboy out of the country but you can't take the hat off of the cowboy. Next: baby safety helmet for any time they're put in strollers. I think we should thank the Australians for being guinea pigs in studying the effects of helmet compulsion. If they are willing to be of use to horse riders in other countries as well, then why not? |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Helmet ******s
"CSB" wrote in message ... On Tue, 03 Feb 2004 01:45:04 GMT, "Tom Kunich" wrote: snip You can take the cowboy out of the country but you can't take the hat off of the cowboy. as it happens a young cattle drover was recently killed by a fall. It is a tradition for these guys to wear Akubra hats while on a muster. Not anymore say WorkCover (Govt Dept). The station owner was negligent for not making these guys wear helmets. http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/...570335910.html |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Helmet ******s
"John Doe" wrote in message
... as it happens a young cattle drover was recently killed by a fall. It is a tradition for these guys to wear Akubra hats while on a muster. Not anymore say WorkCover (Govt Dept). The station owner was negligent for not making these guys wear helmets. So that makes the fatality rate - what? one per century? -- Guy === WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Helmet ******s
So that makes the fatality rate - what? one per century? About 15 a year apparently. Of course, inevitably, they are going to have to apply the same standard to all those people driving company cars and force them to wear helmets. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Helmet ******s
Terry Collins wrote:
So that makes the fatality rate - what? one per century? About 15 a year apparently. Of course, inevitably, they are going to have to apply the same standard to all those people driving company cars and force them to wear helmets. Car helmets - bad idea, obviously. If it wasn't, racing drivers would wear them. Oops, they do. Remember, there were once people (backed up, no doubt, by the results described in peer reviewed scholarly journals) who claimed it was safer to be thrown clear of a car in a smash than be strapped in by seatbelts. ---- If you ride a bicycle for long enough, well, statistically, you're going to take falls, and take a bad fall sometime or other. If you don't think so, you are either or both of a) lucky b) a fool. Collar-bones heal. Scafoids (most times) heal. Broken arms, dislocated shoulders, skin over ankles, knees, hips, back, arms and hands all heal. Acquired brain injuries don't heal. Of course, people with ABIs can and do sometimes regain abilities. But it's not like waiting six weeks for the cast to come off then simply doing what you did before the fall - ask someone with an ABI. A bicycle helmet (probably) didn't save my life, nor did it stop me from getting smashed and ripped up really badly, which generally happens when you hit the asphalt at 60 kph. But it did mean I can still walk, talk, ride a bicycle. And same goes for all the many less major falls before and after - any a hit to my bare head, on pavement, car, trail or whatever, might have meant a concussion, a subdural haemorrhage, or worse. I haven't had to find this out, though. Because... well, you know why. I could go on, but time to stop sermonising. And sorry for the crosspost to u.r.c, but, ummm, you started it? (joke!) xxx p |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Helmet ******s
"Fred Nieman" wrote in message
... Remember, there were once people (backed up, no doubt, by the results described in peer reviewed scholarly journals) who claimed it was safer to be thrown clear of a car in a smash than be strapped in by seatbelts. Remember there were once people who compared the fatality rates in countries with and without sealt belt laws and found them to be the same. Obviously that couldn't be right, so that data was buried. Amazingly, when the UK introduced sealt belt legislation - driver fatalities stayed the same! But there was a substantial rise in pedestrian, cyclist and rear-seat passenger fatalities. If you ride a bicycle for long enough, well, statistically, you're going to take falls, and take a bad fall sometime or other. If you don't think so, you are either or both of a) lucky b) a fool. There is no inevitability about it. Collar-bones heal. Scafoids (most times) heal. Broken arms, dislocated shoulders, skin over ankles, knees, hips, back, arms and hands all heal. Acquired brain injuries don't heal. And acquired brain injuries - amazingly - are mostly caused by crashes well outside the design envelope of hlemets, and by mechanisms which helmets do nothing to mitigate. A bicycle helmet (probably) didn't save my life, nor did it stop me from getting smashed and ripped up really badly, which generally happens when you hit the asphalt at 60 kph. But it did mean I can still walk, talk, ride a bicycle. Or not. Maybe it was your Mk. 1 Skull which did the job. That would be a reasonable assumption, given that people not wearing helmets also often survive without significant injury. That's the problem with helmet-saved-my-life anecdotes, they always attribute the outcome solely to helmets. Why? Lids are designed for straight impacts at speeds up to about 12mph. Why should we assume that they work in glancing or rotational impacts at higher speeds? And what about the people who die when wearing helmets? And the people who don't die when not wearing helmets? At the population level it's not possible to proive that helmets have any effect on brain injury. And even then, most cyclists who die of head injury turn out to have other mortal injuries as well. The case for helmets really is not half as cut-and-dried as the Liddites would like us to believe. The only absolutely repeatable effect of helmet legislation is a substantial drop in cycling. And the major determinant of risk for cyclists appears to be the number of cyclists - the more people cycle, the safer it gets. And same goes for all the many less major falls before and after - any a hit to my bare head, on pavement, car, trail or whatever, might have meant a concussion, a subdural haemorrhage, or worse. I haven't had to find this out, though. Because... well, you know why. Why? I have had several crashes with and without helmets and there was no noticeable difference in outcomes. The most serious head injury I ever had was going through a low doorway. Should we have compulsory helmets in old buildings? Or only for tall people? -- Guy === WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Helmet ******s
Remember, there were once people (backed up, no doubt, by the results
described in peer reviewed scholarly journals) who claimed it was safer to be thrown clear of a car in a smash than be strapped in by seatbelts. I love statements like this - wonder if it's true. Prize for whoever can point out why this statement, if true, is still a load of balls If you ride a bicycle for long enough, well, statistically, you're going to take falls, and take a bad fall sometime or other. If you don't think so, you are either or both of a) lucky b) a fool. With you so far. Collar-bones heal. Scafoids (most times) heal. Broken arms, dislocated shoulders, skin over ankles, knees, hips, back, arms and hands all heal. Acquired brain injuries don't heal. Of course, people with ABIs can and do sometimes regain abilities. But it's not like waiting six weeks for the cast to come off then simply doing what you did before the fall - ask someone with an ABI. Go on... A bicycle helmet (probably) didn't save my life, nor did it stop me from getting smashed and ripped up really badly, which generally happens when you hit the asphalt at 60 kph. yep... But it did mean I can still walk, talk, ride a bicycle. Cycle helmets don't protect very well against the sort of impacts that cause brain damage. See Curnow[1] for a lengthier description of why not. I think it's online somewhere, though you will certainly be able to get the abstract from the journals website, or do a search on google (I've posted it here before). See also this letter [2]. Unfortunately the git who wrote it didn't provide references :-( It's not all bad though - ages ago someone was designing a helmet that would do better[3] but they haven't turned up on the market yet. And same goes for all the many less major falls before and after - any a hit to my bare head, on pavement, car, trail or whatever, might have meant a concussion, a subdural haemorrhage, or worse. I haven't had to find this out, though. Because... well, you know why. Yes, headbutting things is dangerous. But No, cycling is not dangerous. I know that if you hit your head it could be serious, but the same applies to walking - and walking appears to be more dangerous than cycling![4] Yes at some point we are going to fall off our bikes, and sometimes we'll hit our heads and sometimes it'll be serious and a lot of the time a helmet'll help. But it doesn't change the fact that cycling is so safe that we needn't feel compelled to wear a helmet. The extreme unliklihood of suffering brain damage or dying, coupled with the relatively small protective benefit of the helmet in serious crashes makes it more understandable when others do not wear a helmet. I could go on, but time to stop sermonising. B'ah, at least you're setting two good examples for us u.r.c. reprobates :-) [1] Curnow W.J., 'The efficacy of bicycle helmets against brain injury' Accident Analysis and Prevention: 2003; 5.2.03 (You can probably get it via JSTOR) [2] http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1054.html [3] http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns9999418 [4] http://www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBAS...eets/D6536.xls |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Helmet ******s
Mark Thompson wrote:
Remember, there were once people (backed up, no doubt, by the results described in peer reviewed scholarly journals) who claimed it was safer to be thrown clear of a car in a smash than be strapped in by seatbelts. I love statements like this - wonder if it's true. Prize for whoever can point out why this statement, if true, is still a load of balls It was certainly the feeling among racing drivers in the 1950's and given that the cars were usually made from cheese and tended to douse the driver in burning fuel when they hit solid objects, it /may/ even have been correct. However, there were a fair few who were thrown out and and were still killed, as well as those who stayed aboard and survived. The late Masten Gregory certainly believed it, though, since he jumped out of sports-racing cars shortly before they hit the scenery at three-figure speeds at least twice, and survived to die of a heart attack in 1985. -- Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/ ================================================== ========= Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter http://www.bhpc.org.uk/ ================================================== ========= |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Helmet ******s
In article , "Just zis Guy, you know?" writes: | "John Doe" wrote in message | ... | | as it happens a young cattle drover was recently killed by a fall. It is | a | tradition for these guys to wear Akubra hats while on a muster. Not | anymore | say WorkCover (Govt Dept). The station owner was negligent for not making | these guys wear helmets. | | So that makes the fatality rate - what? one per century? Several a year, I would expect. He would have been on either a horse or a motorbike. Regards, Nick Maclaren. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Helmet ******s
On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 12:36:43 -0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote: Remember there were once people who compared the fatality rates in countries with and without sealt belt laws and found them to be the same. Obviously that couldn't be right, so that data was buried. Amazingly, when the UK introduced sealt belt legislation - driver fatalities stayed the same! But there was a substantial rise in pedestrian, cyclist and rear-seat passenger fatalities. Why? Any ideas? --- Cheers PeterC [Rushing headlong: out of control - and there ain't no stopping] [and there's nothing you can do about it at all] |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Helmet Wankers | Tom Kunich | General | 263 | February 13th 04 06:43 AM |
Helmet Wankers | CSB | UK | 138 | February 13th 04 06:43 AM |
Fule face helmet - review | Mikefule | Unicycling | 8 | January 14th 04 06:56 PM |
Reports from Sweden | Garry Jones | General | 17 | October 14th 03 05:23 PM |
Reports from Sweden | Garry Jones | Social Issues | 14 | October 14th 03 05:23 PM |