|
Yea we all know that it is just the illegal drugs that are bad. I mean, Vioxx, that killed my ex's father a few years back (yes the family won a lawsuit) certainly is a good drug given to you by your government.
At this point all I hear is circus music ringing in my head. I really need to watch Idiocracy again tonight to have a good laugh at it all. When simple strings of logic are laid out and somebody comes back with pure off topic insanity, that is the time to bow out. Really, at this point I fell like I am just being trolled. On the other hand, the world must be filled with old men like rydabent, or else the world would not be the way it is... |
Originally Posted by rydabent
(Post 15668536)
sudo
This of course is off topic, but since you challange me follow this logic. EVERYONE that use illegal drugs including weed are guilty of being an accessory to murder. All the murders to get fool illegal drug users their drugs can be laid at the doorstep of the users. Drug users will ***** a holler about this, but it is a fact, their use of durgs cause the murders!!! Simple logic no drug users, no drug pushers, no mexican drug cartel. [Edit] I see mconlonx beat me to it. |
Originally Posted by rekmeyata
(Post 15670905)
Right, so we should legalize all drugs, legalize hookers, legalize child sex too. America land of the free to do whatever we want.
Originally Posted by rydabent
(Post 15671639)
IMHO ANYONE that uses illegal drugs has a weak mind. Why not spend their money on something of use. Just so the record is straight, I probably drink what amounts to a 6 pack of beer in a year, and have NEVER used or seen the need to use illegal drugs. Add to that my opinion that illegal drug users aid and abet drug dealer and drug cartel murders, using illegal drugs is just plain stupid!!!!
None of which has anything to do with helmets. Maybe ya'll would like to debate the War on Some Drug Users over in P&R...?
Originally Posted by rekmeyata
(Post 15671780)
Actually you're wrong because you don't understand how gang and mafia work. If you take away their cash cow, drugs in this case, they will find another cash cow, thus legalize all the drugs to starve the gangs to death and they'll turn to other stuff such as child pornography. Get a clue.
|
d by rydabent http://www.bikeforums.net/images/but...post-right.png sudo When the terrorist set off the bomb in Boston, we blamed the terrorist not the bomb. So when someone with a twisted mind kills someone with a gun why blame the gun and not the shooter? I have NEVER know a gun to go out and kill someone by itself. You might not accept that argument, but at least you now hopefully understand it and won't substitute a nonsensical strawman that makes you like ridiculous, yes? |
Originally Posted by SwampDude
(Post 15666474)
I haven't read this entire thread, because its too long at this point. The helmet issue is, in my opinion, an important one because there are situations where head gear somewhat mitigates the risk of serious injury.
I voted in the category of wearing a helmet sometimes, depending on the riding conditions. My reasoning isn't sophisticated or supported by studies; its just an old peckerwood's logic after 60+ years of riding and one brain-shaking cycling accident. You might call me a proponent of 'informal accident probability theory' when it comes to helmet use. In all of my years on a bike, I've had only one serious accident. My road bike front tire dropped into a narrow crack in the street and I was catapulted into the curb head first. Because I was riding on busy, unfamiliar streets that day, I was wearing my helmet; the foam liner split cleanly in the temple area where I contacted concrete. I was scraped and bloodied on my arm and one leg, but my head survived nicely. The bike shop owner who sold me the helmet was amazed I walked away without a concussion, or worse, because the helmet damage was obvious; he sent it to Giro and gave me another one. First of all, your helment had no effect. We know this because it slip - helmets that work maintain shell integrity and have compacted foam in an intact shell. When shells fail they do so before liner compression, and so no energy is aborbed. Secondly, Bike Store Man is not an expert of concussion or on accidents! People have accidents that leave them with grazed arms and withput concussion pretty dam frequently. In fact, no current road helmet can absorb the impact energy that is usually required to create a concussion. Thirdly, the main cause of serious brain damage is rotational injury.. which current helmets make worse. |
Originally Posted by Paramount1973
(Post 15666574)
For a non-helmet wearer, besides the hole in your head and the concussion, or worse, you will likely get short shrift in pressing for injury compensation. |
Originally Posted by rekmeyata
(Post 15672263)
If you don't wear a helmet there is a possibility you could become weak minded.
|
Originally Posted by rydabent
(Post 15662114)
Gee-------------no tons of posts so far from people that have been convinced to quit wearing helmets. I can only conclued that the anti hemlet crowd are just wasting their time peeing into the wind.
Firstly, you didn't ask if YOU had convinced anyone to START wearing a helmet Secondly, the reason that intelligent people contribute head is not because they think many people read it real time - very few will have read it between your two posts - but to influence google searches. |
Originally Posted by Paramount1973
(Post 15664033)
Helmets are good at preventing severe brain injury And death. No surprise here. "The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that all cyclists wear helmets that fit properly for each ride, and supports legislation that requires all cyclists to wear helmets."
- Cycling helmets are designed and specced to prevent just one type of injury - one possible only for children with "soft" skulls that are still growing. This is the ONLY type of serious injury the amount of energy absorbed by a helmet can prevent - When helmets were marketed to adults this same low energy level becaume the stanard. Helmet kaers knew it would be useless, but people won't wear heavy helmets - and many people are stupid, lazy and easily influenced, so you don't need a real benefit to influence them - Then helmet standards were softened again to make them easier to sell and cheaper to make... So, yes, it's very possiblt that a study might show benefits for children (although I would be cautious, because in the past such studies have been helmet maker funded and rather bend the rules of science) - but this has nothing to do with the potential benefits for adults. |
Originally Posted by meanwhile
(Post 15673066)
First of all, your helment had no effect. We know this because it slip - helmets that work maintain shell integrity and have compacted foam in an intact shell. When shells fail they do so before liner compression, and so no energy is aborbed.
Secondly, Bike Store Man is not an expert of concussion or on accidents! People have accidents that leave them with grazed arms and without concussion pretty dam frequently. In fact, no current road helmet can absorb the impact energy that is usually required to create a concussion. Thirdly, the main cause of serious brain damage is rotational injury.. which current helmets make worse. Second: You make an assumption that the bike shop guy said the helmet prevented a concussion, when the accident victim claimed no such thing. Third: Some current helmets are designed to mitigate rotational injury. And since measure of such is not part of helmet testing, others may provide some degree of mitigation, but we just don't know.
Originally Posted by meanwhile
(Post 15673116)
The problem with this post is that it shows that you have no grasp of the issues...
- Cycling helmets are designed and specced to prevent just one type of injury - one possible only for children with "soft" skulls that are still growing. This is the ONLY type of serious injury the amount of energy absorbed by a helmet can prevent - When helmets were marketed to adults this same low energy level becaume the stanard. Helmet kaers knew it would be useless, but people won't wear heavy helmets - and many people are stupid, lazy and easily influenced, so you don't need a real benefit to influence them - Then helmet standards were softened again to make them easier to sell and cheaper to make... So, yes, it's very possiblt that a study might show benefits for children (although I would be cautious, because in the past such studies have been helmet maker funded and rather bend the rules of science) - but this has nothing to do with the potential benefits for adults. - Just because helmets are designed to pass a minimum test for one type of impact, they can and do prevent/mitigate all kinds of injury. Just not serious injury. - Helmets are not useless and provide real benefits. You're just as off-base, your comments as useless, as those you seek to castigate for their helmet advocacy. |
I suspect a data discrepancy between reported and unreported accidents and in particular an analysis of speed, severity of injury, concussion. It might that NFL research into helmet collisions (particularly if helmets are fitted with accelerometers) might be revealing across a full gamut of head strikes. I'd estimate that (with exception for high speed wrecks) most cycling accidents are within (inside) the range of NFL hits. Furthermore NFL players don't want to wear heavy helmets but want G force protection. Cyclist helmet design and efficacy might be the beneficiary of data.
Data mining hospital records is giving us gross probability data that in turn used for arguments (pro-con) but not the real stuff, particularly on concussions. I wore a Snell cert. helmet in the '70's and it was on my head in 3 wrecks (more like lay downs)...but to this day I can't say what the helmet did (face shield shattering probably saved my face in one accident). i wear my bike helmet all the time but only started wearing one after a real nasty wreck (no helmet) years ago. My reasons for not wearing was it was hot and l was vain about it. But to this day I've no way to measure how that or subsequent helmets prevented injury (I'm opinionated on it...but no "data"). Same goes for seat belts, airbags, frontal crash protection, crumple zones or (off topic) GFI's, safety glass, speed limits, FAA 777 certification, etc. and etc. Those that don't want to wear helmets can ('cept sanctioned events & kids) but of course...on public rights of way...that "right"can change at a drop of a helmet...so to speak. |
The helmet thread
An overview of helmets in various sports.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/_mob...ycling#slide-1 And Sheldon http://sheldonbrown.com/helmets.html |
1 Attachment(s)
Originally Posted by mconlonx
(Post 15673168)
First: you have no idea if his helmet had any effect. A split in the shell can occur after foam compression occurs, after some energy has been dissipated.
Second: You make an assumption that the bike shop guy said the helmet prevented a concussion, when the accident victim claimed no such thing. Third: Some current helmets are designed to mitigate rotational injury. And since measure of such is not part of helmet testing, others may provide some degree of mitigation, but we just don't know. While I disagree with Paramount1973's statements, conclusions, and find the study cited useless and chock-filled with inconsistencies and nonsense -- "We support MHLs because that will make parents make more kids wear helmets, but we have no idea if it will actually make cyclists safer in general." -- once again, you delve into conjecture and assumptions: - Just because helmets are designed to pass a minimum test for one type of impact, they can and do prevent/mitigate all kinds of injury. Just not serious injury. - Helmets are not useless and provide real benefits. You're just as off-base, your comments as useless, as those you seek to castigate for their helmet advocacy. |
Originally Posted by 350htrr
(Post 15674106)
That's the bottom line, they may not be as good as most people think, but they are CERTAINLY BETTER than no helmet at all despite all the non helmet wearers nay-saying and "statistics"...
Look, if I am going to fall over and hit my head, I'd like to have a helmet on. But for all my activities - cycling included - I am so unlikely to fall over and hit my head that there is no rational reason to try to protect myself from it. Why is that so goddamned hard for you lot to understand? |
Originally Posted by 350htrr
(Post 15674106)
That's the bottom line, they may not be as good as most people think, but they are CERTAINLY BETTER than no helmet at all despite all the non helmet wearers nay-saying and "statistics"... http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=319627
|
Originally Posted by 350htrr
(Post 15674106)
That's the bottom line, they may not be as good as most people think, but they are CERTAINLY BETTER than no helmet at all despite all the non helmet wearers nay-saying and "statistics"...
|
[QUOTE=Six jours;15674565]Neither you nor any other helmeteer has ever adequately addressed the point that the above argument is as valid for just about any other activity as it is for cycling.
Look, if I am going to fall over and hit my head, I'd like to have a helmet on. But for all my activities - cycling included - I am so unlikely to fall over and hit my head that there is no rational reason to try to protect myself from it. Why is that so goddamned hard for you lot to understand?[/QUOTE] I understand... My thinking is, it's better to have and not need, than not have and need. Why is that so Goddamned hard for you to understand? |
Originally Posted by mconlonx
(Post 15673168)
First: you have no idea if his helmet had any effect. A split in the shell can occur after foam compression occurs, after some energy has been dissipated.
Second: You make an assumption that the bike shop guy said the helmet prevented a concussion, when the accident victim claimed no such thing. The bike shop owner who sold me the helmet was amazed I walked away without a concussion, or worse Third: Some current helmets are designed to mitigate rotational injury. And since measure of such is not part of helmet testing, others may provide some degree of mitigation, but we just don't know. While I disagree with Paramount1973's statements, conclusions, and find the study cited useless and chock-filled with inconsistencies and nonsense -- "We support MHLs because that will make parents make more kids wear helmets, but we have no idea if it will actually make cyclists safer in general." -- once again, you delve into conjecture and assumptions: - Just because helmets are designed to pass a minimum test for one type of impact, they can and do prevent/mitigate all kinds of injury. Just not serious injury. - Helmets are not useless and provide real benefits. |
[QUOTE=350htrr;15675447]
Originally Posted by Six jours
(Post 15674565)
Neither you nor any other helmeteer has ever adequately addressed the point that the above argument is as valid for just about any other activity as it is for cycling.
Look, if I am going to fall over and hit my head, I'd like to have a helmet on. But for all my activities - cycling included - I am so unlikely to fall over and hit my head that there is no rational reason to try to protect myself from it. Why is that so goddamned hard for you lot to understand?[/QUOTE] I understand... My thinking is, it's better to have and not need, than not have and need. Why is that so Goddamned hard for you to understand? |
Originally Posted by meanwhile
(Post 15675563)
Because that is not your thinking. If it was, you'd wear a helmet for walking, driving a car, jogging, etc. Because cycling helmets can only protect you from the energy level of impact involved in stumbling, not that associated with dangerous cycling accidents. |
This is from a site written by professional risk management scientists and edited by a director of the University of Michigan Risk Science Centre:
In a recent survey, 92% of respondents reported that they are in favor of mandatory bicycle helmet laws for children, and 83% are in favor of helmet laws for all cyclists. Groups as disparate as the American Pediatric Association and various State Departments of Transportation recommend the usage of helmets for cyclists. And, on and on. Yet, they might all be wrong. Bicycle helmets might not protect cyclists much at all. And, in fact, in some cases, they might actually be more dangerous than going lidless. To begin, I would just like to point out some of the ridiculous nature of the whole concept. I doubt that this avenue of argument will convince many, but I hope you will at least think about it before continuing on to the more statistically focused ones. The idea that a 4000 pound steel box moving at 35 miles per hour would have limited effect against a plastic and Styrofoam bowl, that weighs less than a pound, is an ignorant one, at best. (Or, one that delights in sci-fi physics.) And yet, many people seem to have the idea that if you are a cyclist who wears a helmet, you are safe. (At this point, please reread the H. L. Mencken quote at the beginning of this piece.) Let’s look at the evidence, shall we. In a 2001 New York Times article, Julian Barnes noted that while rates of cycling had decreased between 1991 and 2001, head injuries had increased even though the use of helmets had skyrocketed throughout the 1990s. The risk of injury per cyclist had gone up by 51%. Several causes were postulated: antilock brakes, the risk-taking behavior that people do when wearing safety gear, etc. I hope that you will take a moment to read the article. Some of the quotes are precious. “We don’t know what’s going on,” said one political appointee who should know. Well, I’ll offer my idea. People accepted the idea that helmets work, and then created studies to “prove” that they do. But, let’s keep going. For my evidence on these matters, I could use many sources, but I will focus on the work of W. J. Curnow, who is a leading researcher in the field. He states that the most common form of testing done on helmets is of the linear impact variety. That is, imagine putting on a helmet, running at a wall, and measuring the decrease in impact. Modern bicycle helmets generally perform well at these tests, as they are designed to pass them. Curnow points out that these tests generally max out at 12.5 mph. This means, that up to this speed, in a linear impact situation, the helmet should have some increase in protection for the wearer. His own evidence backs this up. However, many accidents involving cyclists do not fall into this highly specific category. Most healthy cyclists, especially adults, regularly cycle faster than 12.5 mph. And, of course, cars go a lot faster than this, even in school zones. Also, Curnow points out that the most dangerous type of injury to the heads of cyclists are of the “rotational” or “torsional” variety. This takes place when the head and neck twist rapidly. These injuries can cause the brain to become detached from the connective tissue and the brain stem can be torn. It is these injuries that bicycle helmets make worse, and make happen when they normally wouldn’t. The thickness of the helmet causes the head to come into contact with surfaces that it would not in a person not wearing a helmet. Because of this, and the movement and sliding of a crashing cyclist, the helmet will “grab” the ground and cause the head to twist, leading to these extremely dangerous injuries to the brain. So, what we have done is create a society that is absolutely certain that helmets work. However, the requirement to wear helmets has led people to stop cycling. This has contributed to the obesity problem that industrialized countries are facing. And, the people who are cycling with helmets are perhaps more at risk than they were before all of this started. Well done, everyone! ...At the end, it must be pointed out that cycling has a similar risk of death as being a pedestrian. - If you are wearing a helmet because you think that it reduces your chances of dying in a cycling accident, you are NOT being rational - If wear a helmet to cycle but not to walk, you are NOT being rational So why are you wearing a helmet? Either because you didn't know the facts, or because you are scared and the helmet has an irrationally great benefit for you psychologically. The problem with the second is that it indicates you are "risk compensating" - which means that you are taking risks that you wouldn't without the helmet. If you are scared riding in traffic, take a course or read a book like Robert Hursts and learn some survival skills that actually work. |
Originally Posted by meanwhile
(Post 15675658)
This is from a site written by professional risk management scientists and edited by a director of the University of Michigan Risk Science Centre:
I.e. - If you are wearing a helmet because you think that it reduces your chances of dying in a cycling accident, you are NOT being rational - If wear a helmet to cycle but not to walk, you are NOT being rational So why are you wearing a helmet? Either because you didn't know the facts, or because you are scared and the helmet has an irrationally great benefit for you psychologically. The problem with the second is that it indicates you are "risk compensating" - which means that you are taking risks that you wouldn't without the helmet. If you are scared riding in traffic, take a course or read a book like Robert Hursts and learn some survival skills that actually work. I've been hit by cars, twice. One of those times, I have no doubt that the helmet reduced the level of my traumatic brain injury. I spent a month in a coma. The helmet now hangs on my wall, shattered and covered in my blood. This helmet shattering absorbed and dissipated a considerable amount of force. Did it save my life? I'll never know for sure, but physics says the energy that wasn't transferred likely helped. And, I've taken the LAB safety course. The first thing covered was, the 5 Layers of Bicycle Safety: Layer 1: Control your bike Layer 2: Know and follow the rules of the road Layer 3: Ride in the smartest lane position Layer 4: Manage hazards skillfully Layer 5: Utilize passive protection (i.e. - helmet, gloves, glasses) WHAT? But several members of the Bare-Head Brigade have told us to take a safety course instead of wearing a helmet. Yet, in the safety course, they tell us to wear a helmet. Clearly, this must be a mistake. I have yet to hit my head while walking. I have yet to hit my head in the shower. If that's what kills me, then please feel free to say "I told you so" at my funeral. We all mitigate risks as we deem necessary. I'll gladly take your label of not being rational. |
Originally Posted by meanwhile
(Post 15675553)
With current helmets, this is pratically impossible. The shells are extremely thin and - to point out the obvious - THEY ARE ON THE OUTSIDE. In fact, in independent studies of helmets recovered after accidents, liner compression was found to have occurred only something like 10% of the time. (Although to be fair, this might be because very few people wear helmets correctly.)
Originally Posted by meanwhile
(Post 15675553)
Ahem: ...the poster attributed this to the helmet and in the context he wrote that it was clearly presented an endorsement of that view.
Originally Posted by meanwhile
(Post 15675553)
No road cycling helmet is. Are we supposed to believe that the poster was wearing a heavy full face downhill helmet costing $500, of a type that makes up a fraction of a per cent of helmet sales, and that he forgot to inform us of this????
Originally Posted by meanwhile
(Post 15675553)
You don't know: I do. A good sample of helmets have been tested and we have the opinion of helmet engineers that current helmets make rotation WORSE - which you'd expect if you had mastered high school physics.
Originally Posted by meanwhile
(Post 15675553)
THis is grammatical nonsense. And it is semantically meaningless because you haven't defined "serious" injury - is it before or after the energy level for concussion???
Originally Posted by meanwhile
(Post 15675553)
Yes, they do - they are great at preventing extremely minor injuries. Exactly the same ones you risk while walking or jogging or taking a shower, no more.
|
I just got back from a group ride where one of the guys had a pretty bad fall (i'm still in kit as I type this even). I was behind him as we were going downhill on a wet road about 25-30mph. He applied the brakes due to a sharp corner coming up. One of his tires locked up and the bike seemed to jump sideways out from under him.
He slammed to the ground and skidded/rolled pretty darn far. Road rash all over his body, possible broken hip (he is 70 years old but super fit). front left of his helmet was broken. He couldn't remember anyone's names and kept asking to call his wife multiple times after we had already called her (and an ambulance). Definitely he has a concussion. Who knows how bad it would have been without his helmet. For anyone Oahu local who reads this it was Frank Smith - the owner if Island Triathlon and Bike. |
Two recent reports.
http://heapro.oxfordjournals.org/content/22/3/191.full http://www.iihs.org/research/topics/pdf/r1186.pdf One interesting conclusion you can make for yourself. The greatest positive reason for an adult to wear a helmet is training their young (<16 years) child/grandchild/niece/nephew to wear one in those high risk years. Of course...once teenage hormones kick in all bets are off. No one on this forum appears to be arguing that young children shouldn't wear helmets. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:15 AM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.