I'm going to participate without a helmet...

On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 12:39:42 -0700 (PDT), Art Harris
wrote:

Frank Krygowski wrote:
... like those foolish reporters at the New York Times, who actually
bothered to look at real data.

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1028.html


From that NY Times article:

"Dr. James P. Kelly, a neurologist and a concussion expert at
Northwestern University Medical School, said that even as helmets were
currently designed, patients who were wearing them when they were
injured were much better off than those who were not."

and

"What is going on here? No one is very sure, but safety experts stress
that while helmets do not prevent accidents from happening, they are
extremely effective at reducing the severity of head injuries when
they do occur. Almost no one suggests that riders should stop wearing
helmets, which researchers have found can reduce the severity of brain
injuries by as much as 88 percent."

Who are these experts. And what is Kelly comparing his views too?

And most to the point, if there is a minute chance of even injuring my
head in the first place, why does it matter? And why do you not push
for helmet use in similarly safe activities? After all, if someone
would be better off, shouldn't they wear one.

I know a few folks who have crashed and lost conciousness even though
wearing a helmet.

I know of people who have died w/o helmets on in accidents. Happens
every three or four days in my city.

On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 18:41:25 -0700 (PDT), Chalo
wrote:

Neil Brooks wrote:

I know the value of EPS in cushioning against
impact where fragile products are involved. *Extrapolating FROM that,
I believe that there is SOME benefit to me in wearing a helmet.

Surely such benefit would extend to any activity you undertook in
which there was a chance of you falling (for instance cooking), or in
which there was a chance of something falling on you (like walking
near multistory buildings).

Closest thing to a serious head injury that happened to me (saw stars,
head hurt) happened to me at a bike race. Sitting still, no helmet,
hit by a baseball.

I had a helmet with me but like an idiot I did not have it on.

On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 00:45:52 -0500, Tim McNamara
wrote:

In article ,
Johnny Twelve-Point presented by JFT wrote:

On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 10:41:49 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Oct 15, 1:14*pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
wrote:

There's a certain irony in not wearing a helmet in an event
"featuring" heavy congestion of bicycles, since even the
anti-helmet folk will often concede that a helmet might have some
value in a very low-speed collision (such as bike/bike in a sea of
slowly-moving bikes).

It is certainly true a helmet _might_ have _some_ value in a very
low- speed collision like that. The question is, how likely is such
a collision? And how much value does the helmet have, how often?

And those are the same sorts of injuries you can get by tripping on a
curb while walking. There's a certain irony to the pro-helmet crowd
not using their helmets to protect themselves from those situations.

Or while in the bathroom and on the stairs at home, where far more brain
injuries happen than while cycling. For that matter, the risk of a
brain injury from a stroke as a result of being obese and having
diabetes is probably higher than the risk of a brain injury from a bike
accident.

Yeah. Most walking, riding, etc are simply not so dangerous that
emphasizing armor is important. And insofar as there are dangers,
it's more important to try to not fall/crash/get hit. That has
bonuses in protecting other parts of the body.

On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 01:04:46 -0500, Tim McNamara
wrote:

Several folks on the steering
committee are of the "I wouldn't ride a block without a helmet"
persuasion and generally approach bicycling as being about as safe as
running a hundred yard dash holding a quart mason jar full of
nitroglycerin.

I greatly dislike those people. Why do they ride? Why do they
encourage other people to ride?

It makes no sense.

On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 05:37:43 -0700 (PDT), Art Harris
wrote:


I'm not a helmet crusader, nor am I trying to force anyone to wear
one. But for myself, it makes sense to wear one even if it provides
just a bit of protection.

Since you own it for riding already, there is almost zero cost in
using it in other activities, and it could provide just a little bit
of protection. Maybe in a cab, or when out running.

Why not use it then? It *could* help. Makses sense, right?

On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 09:19:28 -0700 (PDT), Art Harris
wrote:

the possibility of minimizing head injury makes wearing a
helmet worthwhile.

The "possiblity"? People in cars, even with airbags, die from head
injuries sometimes. THere is a possibility a helmet could help.

So the obvious question is, do you wear one in cars?

Im asking a serious question. And if you don't, why not? By the same
rationale as what you said above, it seems you should.

On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 09:49:29 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
wrote:


We have very few bike fatalities, but I found instances in our local
papers where they omitted any mention of a helmet, because the
cyclists _were_ wearing them. Apparently, it's bad policy to note
when they don't work.

When someone dies while wearing a helmet, it's *in spite* of wearing a
helmet. When someone dies w/o one, it's partially *because* they
were'nt.

Please do try to keep up.

On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 10:23:29 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
wrote:


I'll also note that the tremendous "dangers" of bicycle road racing
seem to be a new invention. In all the Tour de France, how many
fatalities? I think it's been three:

If we include specators (and race staff) who together number orders of
magnitude more than racers, it's many. Almost one a year I think from
accident injuries.

I do think that in bike racing, and in aggressive mountain biking for
training/racing, the odds of minor and medium serious injury (up to
concussion) are -- many people will experience those in, say, five or
ten years of doing the activity w/o a helmet, and a helmet might
reduce the incidence.

On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 10:52:58 -0700 (PDT), Dan O
wrote:

On Oct 17, 9:41 am, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Oct 17, 8:37 am, Art Harris wrote:


snip


I'm not a helmet crusader, nor am I trying to force anyone to wear
one. But for myself, it makes sense to wear one even if it provides
just a bit of protection.

But, of course, only when cycling. Because....


Where did he even so much as suggest that wearing a helmet only makes
sense when cycling?

Let's clear it up - ask him. Ask him if he wears a helmet when doing
other common things in his life.

On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 15:00:22 -0500, Stephen Bauman
wrote:

http://www.bikenewyork.org/rides/fbbt/history.html

I was this event's organizer for its first ten years. I still contribute
to its operation. This event's policy of requiring helmets is dictated by
the insurance company. The various governmental jurisdictions through
which this event passes require separate riders indemnifying them against
liability.

Do you know why TA in NYC can run rides that do not require helmets?
They are smaller than yours -- just a few thousand people -- but they
don't have the constraints you do. Any ideas?