Singlespeed & Fixed Gear - just curious, really

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v623/Mechta/badlands.jpg

who else here wears a helmet?

I do. There's a homeless guy I see walking a few times a week that's always wearing one, too.

Wake up with broken bones in your skull, you decide helmets are good.

i heard some 100lbs girl actually polished off one of those burgers in less than 3 hours.

Oh so frequent trips to the restroom to stick a finger down your throat counts?

Small (skinny) people can eat more than big (fat) people, physically. No puking involved.

fast metabolism

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v623/Mechta/badlands.jpg

who else here wears a helmet?

i reckon that burger could use a helmet. that guy has serious intent in his eyes. i'd be willing to lend it mine until they serve up dessert.

I heard it's the lack of a fat layer constricting the expansion of the stomach. I don't mean over time, I mean in one sitting.

What I find funny is the fact that people who wear helmets(inluding me sometimes) don't wear them when they drive a car. Someone once told me that they did not need a helmet in a car because, although they were travelling at speeds in excess of 70mph, they were surrounded by metal and glass....I had a point but I seem to have forgot what it was.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v623/Mechta/badlands.jpg
Calling photoshop masters: Make this man appear to be eating a bunny with a pancake on its head.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v336/benar/RABBITPANC.jpg

AMAZING! Well done. haaaaaaa. :):)

calling powers2b:

we now need a haiku

Always wear your helmet
Never know when you'll wipe out
Man that rabbit tastes great

Always wear your helmet
Never know when you'll wipe out
Man that rabbit tastes great

Shouldn't it be 5-7-5?

you guys really know how to make my day. and make me laugh out loud.

I wear my helmet.

Why not? I know too many people whose story ends with "and I would have been killed if I didn't have my helmet on." Pardon the pun, but it seems like a no-brainer to me. I look uncool and poseuresque regardless of what is on my head (pancakes included).

That said, I am sitting at at a coffee shop right now helmet free because "it is only a few blocks from my office." Perhaps I should take my own advice.

Heads will roll!

Work regulations (which I helped write) say wear a helmet. I'm not sure how much (if at all) helmets protect folks, but I have used them in two collision. Helmet definitely helped me in one of them. I'm also an economist, and will tell you that risk compensation is real (folks behave more dangerously when they think they are protected.) When I'm not working, though, I probably wear a helmet about 50% of the time. (other 50% I just wear the pancake)

a) Of course risk compensation is real. Usually it's the pro-helmet faction that argues that it's not (as counterpoint to those who say they would behave more dangerously if they had a helmte). Of course their very argument, that cycling is too dangerous without a helmet, proves that we are liable to increase our risk if we believe ourselves to be protected.

b) Can you be sure that a helmet helped you? That's the thing: if you hit your head and weren't injured, there's no evidence that had you hit your unhelmeted head you would have been hurt. And the converse is true. It's like saying I knocked on wood and haven't been run over yet, so clearly it really is lucky. You're an economist, you should know better. What would prove it is to have a well-designed, non-biased study that compared similar types of accidents between sufficiently large helmeted and unhelmeted populations and assessed efficacy based on that. Said study would need to control for cyclist ability, environment, age, sex, and probably a few other things that I can't think of.

It seems like they should, common-sense-wise--which is why I wear one--but the dramatic increase in helmet use rates has not had any discernable impact on fatality rates anywhere once you control for changes in cyclist populations.

Ken Kifer has a nice exploration: http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/advocacy/mhls.htm

I heard it's the lack of a fat layer constricting the expansion of the stomach. I don't mean over time, I mean in one sitting.

Yes, that is correct. It is called the "Belt of Fat" Theory, and it states that a person who has a large ammount of fat around their stomach region will not be able to eat as much due to the fat belt which prevents the stomach from expanding to its full potential. See my boy Takaru Kobayashi aka the king of the Coney Island hot dog compitition. He recently broke his previous league shattering record of fifty hot dogs in 12 minutes and stepped it up to 53 and one half hot dogs in 12 minutes (which nobody can touch...nobody.) Anyway, check him out at IFOCE.

IFOCE! (http://www.ifoce.com/eaters.php?action=detail&sn=22)

Forget Takaru, Sonya Thomas is much much cooler.

a) Of course risk compensation is real. Usually it's the pro-helmet faction that argues that it's not (as counterpoint to those who say they would behave more dangerously if they had a helmte). Of course their very argument, that cycling is too dangerous without a helmet, proves that we are liable to increase our risk if we believe ourselves to be protected.

b) Can you be sure that a helmet helped you? That's the thing: if you hit your head and weren't injured, there's no evidence that had you hit your unhelmeted head you would have been hurt. And the converse is true. It's like saying I knocked on wood and haven't been run over yet, so clearly it really is lucky. You're an economist, you should know better. What would prove it is to have a well-designed, non-biased study that compared similar types of accidents between sufficiently large helmeted and unhelmeted populations and assessed efficacy based on that. Said study would need to control for cyclist ability, environment, age, sex, and probably a few other things that I can't think of.

It seems like they should, common-sense-wise--which is why I wear one--but the dramatic increase in helmet use rates has not had any discernable impact on fatality rates anywhere once you control for changes in cyclist populations.

Ken Kifer has a nice exploration: http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/advocacy/mhls.htm


Not sure if I made myself clear. I'm primarily in the non-mandatory-helmet faction. I've read all of Ken Kifer's work and generally agree. I also was pleased to see a large discussion on the subject in the riv reader a few issues back. The only significant studies of helmet use are regarding motorcycle helmets, and those generally show no safety increase in states with helmet laws.

The time that I referenced when a helmet most likely helped me was when I was dragged along for several yards. The helmet was pretty chewed up by the road. The head was relatively unscathed.

I find that eating without the fat belt increases confidence so that the eater will move beyond their percieved limits, but this can sometimes end in disaster. A fat belt can sometimes make the user more careful in their eating habits.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v336/benar/RABBITPANC.jpg
'nough said.

I just cant get enough of the stuff...

http://poets.sfsu.edu/kamiltest/eatbf.jpg

The time that I referenced when a helmet most likely helped me was when I was dragged along for several yards. The helmet was pretty chewed up by the road. The head was relatively unscathed.

Fine, I'll give you that one...

;)

re FP... not re big hamburger.
I wear one. my head feels safer with one. i wear it on my commute, and not usually when tooling around near home/lab. i.e. i wear it in fast car traffic

i'm pretty good about wearing my lid, but i almost always forget my fat belt. that thing could really come in handy.

I ate a hamburger that big once. FOur pounds. Two punds of cooked beef, a pund a vegetables and a pound of bun. I ate it in 56 minutes and got it for free! They bake the bun in a pie pan :)

I did this all while in highschool. And I went rockclimbing right afterwards!

no matter how freaking ridiculus i look i always/most of the time wear my helmet. Saved my head the other day when my pedal snapped off planting me in the middle of mass ave. no more 15$ bikes i swear

I ate a hamburger that big once. FOur pounds. Two punds of cooked beef, a pund a vegetables and a pound of bun. I ate it in 56 minutes and got it for free! They bake the bun in a pie pan :)

I did this all while in highschool. And I went rockclimbing right afterwards!

here's a link to the original story of the 100lb girl: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,144615,00.html

As advertised on the pub's web site, a 96er sells for $23.95 and includes the following fixings and condiments:
Two whole tomatoes
A half-head of lettuce
12 slices of American cheese
A full cup of peppers
Two entire onions
A river of mayonnaise, ketchup, and mustard

holy. crap.

these are the pics of the girl eating it (thanks to bco)

I crash motorcycles and bikes, so I always wear a helmet.

big Eric Badlands
needs a helmet to eat lunch
supersize workout

Enjoy

i'm pretty good about wearing my lid, but i almost always forget my fat belt. that thing could really come in handy.

Nice synthesis.

If they made a soy-based version of that 6lb burger, I would SO be there.

here's a link to the original story of the 100lb girl: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,144615,00.html

Imagine the stink the next morning.

hmmmmmm, lets move this to foo so the rest of the world can see how effed up the Fixed/ss crew is!

a) Of course risk compensation is real. Usually it's the pro-helmet faction that argues that it's not (as counterpoint to those who say they would behave more dangerously if they had a helmte). Of course their very argument, that cycling is too dangerous without a helmet, proves that we are liable to increase our risk if we believe ourselves to be protected.

b) Can you be sure that a helmet helped you? That's the thing: if you hit your head and weren't injured, there's no evidence that had you hit your unhelmeted head you would have been hurt. And the converse is true. It's like saying I knocked on wood and haven't been run over yet, so clearly it really is lucky. You're an economist, you should know better. What would prove it is to have a well-designed, non-biased study that compared similar types of accidents between sufficiently large helmeted and unhelmeted populations and assessed efficacy based on that. Said study would need to control for cyclist ability, environment, age, sex, and probably a few other things that I can't think of.

It seems like they should, common-sense-wise--which is why I wear one--but the dramatic increase in helmet use rates has not had any discernable impact on fatality rates anywhere once you control for changes in cyclist populations.

Ken Kifer has a nice exploration: http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/advocacy/mhls.htm


Although I agree with Ken Kifer in principle, I don't know if I can entirely get behind the arguement. I agree that there is absolutely no reason why you should make it mandatory that someone wear a helmet. However, somehow I question whether there is no value in wearing one. For the most part, the number of rides versus injuries statistics seem a bit bogus to me. The vast majority of people I see biking are toddling along on sidestreets, the sidewalk, or through parks or trails. I would imagine those stats would be a fair bit different for people riding at a high rate of speed in traffic.

I am a long way from considering biking to be at all dangerous, but I think that it is a stretch to say that it is THAT safe. Perhaps those of us riding in the street are not at as high of a risk as someone racing downhill, but we are definately higher than average.

This is why I wear my helmet- because if on the off chance I take a fall where it might help, it will help.

However, somehow I question whether there is no value in wearing one.

Actually, the argument is that there's been no value demonstrated which is different than saying there is no value.


For the most part, the number of rides versus injuries statistics seem a bit bogus to me. The vast majority of people I see biking are toddling along on sidestreets, the sidewalk, or through parks or trails. I would imagine those stats would be a fair bit different for people riding at a high rate of speed in traffic.

Agreed. But who knows whether they're more or less risk-prone than a skilled urban cyclist... Who knows whether a helmet does that urban cyclist any good in an accident when the design parameters are those other cyclists.

What we do know is that helmet use has increased by leaps and bounds and yet death rates remain unchanged when controlled for other factors. What's up with that?

I have to admit, it is compelling- the notion that increased helmet use is not causing a decline in bicycle related fatalities. Although there is some indication to the contrary. Over the last 30 years or so there has been a slight trend toward fewer fatalities...however nothing that would seem statistically significant. However, the trend I thought was interesting was that an increasing percentage of deaths are adults. The largest increase in helmet use (if I am not mistaken) is in children.

I am not going to ever chastise someone for not wearing a helmet, I think that your chances for injury are pretty slim regardless...further, I have never fallen from my bike and hit my head. For me, it is just the fact that it could possibly help, and that is enough.

oh, and I found this kind of amusing.

Injuries per Thousand Participants
Basketball 21.2 Football 20.7 Bicycling 11.5 Snowboarding 11.2 Skateboarding 8.9 In-line skating 3.9


we are on par with snowboarders, but way ahead of inline skater, that makes me kind of mad.

I have to admit, it is compelling- the notion that increased helmet use is not causing a decline in bicycle related fatalities. Although there is some indication to the contrary. Over the last 30 years or so there has been a slight trend toward fewer fatalities...however nothing that would seem statistically significant. However, the trend I thought was interesting was that an increasing percentage of deaths are adults. The largest increase in helmet use (if I am not mistaken) is in children.

If you consider just adult populations, the death rate remains unchanged. The decrease in fatalities can be wholly accounted for by the decrease in youth cycling.

I have fallen and hit my head many times. I have cracked two motorcycle helmets and one bike helmet, but never suffered a head injury. When I cracked my bike helmet I also broke my right clavicle in five places. I hit the ground pretty hard. While I of course can't say with any certainty that my injuries would have been more or less severe had I not been wearing a helmet in each of my accidents, it's really quite hard to believe that an impact violent enough to smash a helmet wouldn't do similar damage to an unprotected skull. This is just intuition, but it's enough to get me to wear my helmet every day.

A little tidbit that I heard about cycling deaths- For 90%+ of the deaths caused while cycling, the injuries were too severe that a helmet wouldn't have done anything to protect the rider. i.e, under the circumstances of 90%+ of cycling deaths with/without a helmet, helmets did nothing/could do nothinf to protect the rider from death.

I think I heard that on another forum, and I have no idea how acurate it is, and I have no stats or anything to back it up. I guess its interesting to think about, if that's all.

I've had my life saved by a helmet in a crash. Why wouldn't you wear one? It's not a matter of if but when it will happen to you.

About five years ago, I went down face first, knocked teeth out, and mangled my otherwise good looks. The Doc said, "if its any consolation, even if you were wearing a helmet, this would have happened." Certainly, this is not strong evidence for an argument either way. But, perhaps sadly, his words resound when I consider the helmet.