helmet

Ah, the good old days.



-- Jay Beattie.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

that;s what I've always herd from the nursing squad
brains up
ACCIDENTS MORE OR LESS THE SAME
INCREASED HELMET SALES
LBS OWNERS HAVE A LARGER YACHT
BORED NEUROTICS FORM PARTY
RIDERS STAND AROUND WEARING GERMAN HELMETS AND TATTOOOOOS DEBATING WETHER TO BURN THE CAPITOL

On 27/10/12 08:18, Phil W Lee wrote:
James considered Fri, 26 Oct 2012 16:26:01
+1100 the perfect time to write:

On 26/10/12 16:06, Frank Krygowski wrote:
(Helmets do nothing against rotational
acceleration, and may even exacerbate it.)

Got data?

I've heard helmets are supposed to offer more grip of the road surface
than hair/skin/flesh/bone, but never seen the test results.

Also greater leverage, due to the increased diameter.
And increased risk of contacting the road in the first place - human
reflexes are actually quite good at protecting the head, but do get
beaten by increases in effective size.
It's a bit like running the hurdles with clown shoes on - even the
best hurdler would expect to clatter a few with that kind of handicap.


As I said in a previous reply, I've never damaged a helmet in any
bicycling accident, though I've always worn one and been in numerous
racing accidents and a few training accidents - some of which involved cars.

--
JS

On Friday, October 26, 2012 7:56:28 PM UTC-4, James wrote:
On 27/10/12 08:18, Phil W Lee wrote:

James considered Fri, 26 Oct 2012 16:26:01

+1100 the perfect time to write:



On 26/10/12 16:06, Frank Krygowski wrote:

(Helmets do nothing against rotational

acceleration, and may even exacerbate it.)



Got data?



I've heard helmets are supposed to offer more grip of the road surface

than hair/skin/flesh/bone, but never seen the test results.



Also greater leverage, due to the increased diameter.

And increased risk of contacting the road in the first place - human

reflexes are actually quite good at protecting the head, but do get

beaten by increases in effective size.

It's a bit like running the hurdles with clown shoes on - even the

best hurdler would expect to clatter a few with that kind of handicap.





As I said in a previous reply, I've never damaged a helmet in any

bicycling accident, though I've always worn one and been in numerous

racing accidents and a few training accidents - some of which involved cars.

I damaged one helmet badly once, back when I wore one. I _guess_ you could call it a bicycling accident. We were starting a bike tour in Ireland. We were in Dublin's Phoenix Park, and I was trying to walk down a steep grassy hill, rolling my loaded touring bike and carrying my helmet under my arm.. The grass was wet, and I slipped and sat down on my butt on the lawn. When I got up, the helmet I was carrying had two good sized pieces broken out of it. It had never left my grip.

People often claim "My helmet was broken. That's proof it saved my life!" But helmets really are very fragile.

-Frank Krygowski

JB's obit

https://www.google.com/webhp?hl=en&t...w=1152&bih=635

On Oct 25, 4:05 pm, AMuzi wrote:
If anyone here has an argument which we didn't thoroughly
beat to death in 1998, please start a new helmet thread and
enlighten me.


I'm sorry for (contributing to) trashing the place. I'll try to wrap
it up tonight or this weekend and then nevermore (would be a real load
off anyway).

Oh, and if anyone thinks an argument here will change anyone
else's opinion, you might explain your reasoning.


I'm not even trying to change anybody's opinion - just looking for a
tangible shred of respect buried underneath one of them.

On Oct 25, 8:04 pm, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Thursday, October 25, 2012 8:37:46 PM UTC-4, SMS wrote:
On 10/25/2012 4:04 PM, AMuzi wrote:

If anyone here has an argument which we didn't thoroughly beat to death

in 1998, please start a new helmet thread and enlighten me.

Actually a lot has changed since 1998.

Snipped
14 years ago, some people still believed that cycling rates fell if

helmets were either promoted or mandated, now we have solid evidence

that this is not the case.

Snipped

Pray tell us; where in the world has bicycle usage remained the same or risen AFTER MANDATORY HELMET LAWS were introduced? Not Australia or New Zealand.

Studies showed that mandatory helmet laws DO cause cycling rates to DROP. Frank has posted data and links to those studies many times.


Ever wonder if they do the counting anywhere near the same places
they've done enforcement? ;-)

Sure MHL is a discouragement and it absolutely makes sense that some
of the more marginally committed people would stop riding, but the
best they can do is count what they *think* is a representative
sample, and as Frank is so fond of tellign us (when it suits his
agenda), confounding factors abound.

;) Are you visiting from another galaxy? ;)

On Oct 25, 8:12 pm, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Thursday, October 25, 2012 8:37:46 PM UTC-4, SMS wrote:
On 10/25/2012 4:04 PM, AMuzi wrote:

If anyone here has an argument which we didn't thoroughly beat to death

in 1998, please start a new helmet thread and enlighten me.

Actually a lot has changed since 1998.

Snipped

Yes, a lot has changed. One thing is that it is nowextremely difficult to find a hard-shell bicycling helmet in the average bicycle shop.


I'm still using my '86 Vetta until I can afford a new POC.

snip

On 10/26/2012 8:26 PM, Dan O wrote:

snip

Sure MHL is a discouragement and it absolutely makes sense that some
of the more marginally committed people would stop riding, but the
best they can do is count what they *think* is a representative
sample, and as Frank is so fond of tellign us (when it suits his
agenda), confounding factors abound.

As I pointed out, the fraudulent cyclehelmets.org site simply omitted
the fact that adult cycling rates increased by 44% following the MHL in
Victoria, and only talked about a decrease in youth cycling rates. Of
course neither of those changes could be attributed to the MHL. Adults
didn't start riding more because they thought that now that they were
forced to wear a helmet that they were magnitudes safer, and minors
didn't start cycling less because they were so upset over the law.

On 10-25-2012 21:11, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
folding bicycle helmets:
http://www.treehugger.com/bikes/folding-bike-helmet-fits-in-your-pocket-or-purse.html

Doubles as a party decoration.

--
Wes Groleau

A pessimist says the glass is half empty.
An optimist says the glass is half full.
An engineer says somebody made the glass
twice as big as it needed to be.

On 10/26/2012 8:17 PM, Dan O wrote:

I'm not even trying to change anybody's opinion - just looking for a
tangible shred of respect buried underneath one of them.

It is not necessary to respect those that lie to advance their own agenda.

The biggest reason to believe that helmets are effective is that those
against them have such weak, scientifically faulty and statistically
faulty, reasons for their opposition.

As a commenter on treehugger.com wrote four years ago, "Anyone quoting
cyclehelmets.org as a reputable site has to get their own brain examined."

You have to wonder how anyone could fall for the "science" on that site.
The funniest part has got to be when they get started on the Netherlands
and correlate the lack of helmet usage to relatively few injuries and
fatalities without ever taking into account the cycling infrastructure
in the Netherlands.

One thing's for sure, when you see the name of any of their patrons or
editorial board members on a post about helmets, get your shovel ready
because you're about to be hit with a s%^#load of junk science and junk
statistics. It's like deciding who and what to vote for and against when
you don't know the candidates or you're unfamiliar with a ballot
proposition (for those of us in states that have those). You look at who
is supporting or endorsing a particular candidate or issue.