Speed vs. need for helmet?

[Duke of Hazard]

I mostly average 10 mph , do I still need to wear a helmet ? I can
understand if you average 15+mph, but are helmets neccessary at slower
speeds? Energy is proportional to the square of the velocity so the
slower you travel the far less you should need one, no?

[Tom Sherman]

Harry (Lincoln, Nebraska) wrote:
> As for me, I'll wear one. I was hit by a car in late May of this
> year. I suffered no really bad injuries. ((Hurt wrist and strained
> back)) Bike was a total loss though. The helmet did absolutely NO
> good as I didn't hit the pavement.
>
> Now, the DRIVERS insurance company made a HUGE deal out of what I was
> wearing at the time. THEY wanted to know if I was wearing a helmet,
> gloves, long pants, what kind of shoes. They basically climbed up my
> butt with a microscope. Fortunately for me the Police Officer was a
> FORMER bicycle cop that KNEW what would be coming from the insurance
> company so he took photos and wrote down all that I had on and the
> damage to the bike and myself....

My point exactly on why one should wear a bicycle foam hat in the US -
land of uneducated and emotional jurors (a reflection of the general
population).

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"Localized intense suction such as tornadoes is created when temperature
differences are high enough between meeting air masses, and can impart
excessive energy onto a cyclist." - Randy Schlitter

[Edward Dolan]

<charlesA@TbarraballD.OTcom> wrote in message
news:d73d03534f.charles@clara.co.uk...
> In message <0j4em3lc7as0e3hk9r1mn7rip4lohmjeeg@4ax.com>
> "Harry (Lincoln, Nebraska)" <hbrogan57@NOSPAM.yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> But here in Nebraska a bicycle has
>> the right of way in almost EVERY situation. Exceptions being when you
>> are riding in traffic lans. There you must obey the same laws that a
>> car has to.
>
> wow!
>
> Thanks for lettind us know; pity Bush doesn't lead with this in his
> Bali talks.
>
> Must make Nebraska a boom cycling town and vacation attraction.

The best line in the movie "Unforgiven" was when the sheriff of Big Whiskey,
Wyoming announces that he once thought he had died and gone to Hell, but it
was just Nebraska!

But in any event, no one who resides in that tiny kingdom by the sea known
as England should ever be making any comments about anywhere else. It is
well known that the English have to leave their country entirely in order to
even have a vacation. They used to go to Spain (Malaga) a lot back in the
60's, but they will go anywhere where then can get some ****ing sunshine.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

[Edward Dolan]

"Harry (Lincoln, Nebraska)" <hbrogan57@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:0j4em3lc7as0e3hk9r1mn7rip4lohmjeeg@4ax.com...
[...]
> Now.....when on a MARKED bike path approaching an intersection where
> the CARS have a stop sign. The bicycle has the right of way. As in
> the case of when I was hit. ...
[...]

I have never seen a situation such as you describe above and I have ridden
thousands of miles of bike paths. When you are on a bike path where it
intersects a road, you will always have to stop - look and listen. To do
anything else is suicidal. Right of way has nothing to do with it. You must
use your common sense.

The minute you enter onto a roadway on a bicycle, you are in danger. If
motor vehicles give you some courtesy that is fine, but you cannot depend on
it. Even bike paths are dangerous for a cyclist if they are crowded.

You must never assume when you are on a bicycle that anyone knows anything
about right of way and other similar types of legal nonsense. Stop and let
the traffic clear before you venture forth. After all, you are but a reed
and a motor vehicle is a Sequoia.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

[Edward Dolan]

"Harry (Lincoln, Nebraska)" <hbrogan57@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:90thm35uq32t6v5m6s912kj6lpt9chglns@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 01:38:02 -0800 (PST), LIBERATOR
> <jgchoixx@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>On Dec 18, 5:42 pm, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote:
>>> <charl...@TbarraballD.OTcom> wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:d73d03534f.charles@clara.co.uk...
>>>
>>> > In message <0j4em3lc7as0e3hk9r1mn7rip4lohmj...@4ax.com>
>>> > "Harry (Lincoln, Nebraska)" <hbroga...@NOSPAM.yahoo.com>
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>> >> But here in Nebraska a bicycle has
>>> >> the right of way in almost EVERY situation. Exceptions being when
>>> >> you
>>> >> are riding in traffic lans. There you must obey the same laws that a
>>> >> car has to.
>>>
>>> > wow!
>>>
>>> > Thanks for lettind us know; pity Bush doesn't lead with this in his
>>> > Bali talks.
>>>
>>> > Must make Nebraska a boom cycling town and vacation attraction.
>>>
>>> The best line in the movie "Unforgiven" was when the sheriff of Big
>>> Whiskey,
>>> Wyoming announces that he once thought he had died and gone to Hell, but
>>> it
>>> was just Nebraska!
>>>
>>> But in any event, no one who resides in that tiny kingdom by the sea
>>> known
>>> as England should ever be making any comments about anywhere else. It is
>>> well known that the English have to leave their country entirely in
>>> order to
>>> even have a vacation. They used to go to Spain (Malaga) a lot back in
>>> the
>>> 60's, but they will go anywhere they can get some ****ing sunshine.
>
> Say Ed......WTF does the movie "unforgiven" and vacations in England
> have to do with the subject at hand????? FOUR words for you. SHUT
> THE **** UP

Someone from England was denigrating Nebraska, but of course you were too
god damn ****ing stupid to know it. I don't know about you, but I will be
damned if I will ever let any Englishman denigrate any part of the US, even
lowly Nebraska.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

[Edward Dolan]

"Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fkc92r$orn$1@registered.motzarella.org...
> Harry Brogan of Lincoln, Nebraska wrote:
>> ...
>> any impact at a higher speed and I am sure that injuries sustained
>> would have been much greater. THAT'S why I CHOOSE to wear a helmet.
>> NOT because I am afraid of juries or possible implications if I don't
>> wear one.
>
> How are you sure the injuries would have been greater? Are you qualified
> to perform accident analysis, calculate the forces you head was impacted
> with, determine the amount of energy the helmet absorbed, and then
> determine how that would have likely affected the degree of head injury?
>
> I would be interested in knowing you qualifications and experience in
> accident reconstruction and forensic medicine.

Hells Bells, if you are expert in the above fields, that right there
disqualifies you from ever opening your mouth. It means you are an idiot and
need to get right behind Peter Clinch of Dundee, Scotland and Tom Sherman of
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, both self-styled "experts" who don't know **** from
shinola.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

[Edward Dolan]

"Wilson Warmouth" <ww@kilfileem.com> wrote in message
news:i5Wdncse5P70hPbanZ2dnUVZ_u-unZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "Harry (Lincoln, Nebraska)" <hbrogan57@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:epcim3p6ivevojg0sij3ef6pvflngsas8f@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 12:31:41 +0000, Peter Clinch
>> <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>Harry (Lincoln, Nebraska) wrote:
>>>
>>>> Say Ed......WTF does the movie "unforgiven" and vacations in England
>>>> have to do with the subject at hand????? FOUR words for you. SHUT
>>>> THE **** UP
>>>
>>>Welcome to Planet Troll... do you /really/ think he'll go away because
>>>you asked/told him to?
>>>
>>>If you want to avoid Trolls then killfile and ignore.
>>
>> No, I don't think he'll go away anytime soon. I get those messages
>> once in a while. Even though I plonked him a LONG time ago. I
>> usually don't even see the messages.
>
> So you don't want to read Ed's posts. And you went to the trouble of kill
> filing him to make sure you won't even see his posts. But then you claim
> you "get those messages once in a while". When that happens why do you
> bother to read them and then take the time to post another protest?
>
> My advice to you is stop reading Ed's posts and never post anything about
> him again.

But that is not possible because even a word or two from Ed Dolan the Great
galvanizes the most slothful readers of Usenet to respond. Yea, I am like a
God to these newsgroups. There is just no denying Ed Dolan the Great.

The only solution is to give in to the Great One and to consider it an honor
to even be noticed by Him. However, you do not want to ever be noticed by
Saint Edward the Great. He is a very Great Saint indeed and even Ed Dolan
the Great fears Him. God Almighty, I do not want Saint Edward the Great ever
coming down on me as it would utterly crush me.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

[Edward Dolan]

"Wilson Warmouth" <ww@spamnomore.com> wrote in message
news:L7GdnWCgcvug7_HanZ2dnUVZ_uuqnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>
> "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in message
> news:CoudnS_hwek1xPHanZ2dnUVZ_vmlnZ2d@prairiewave. com...
>>
>> "Wilson Warmouth" <ww@kilfileem.com> wrote in message
>> news:i5Wdncse5P70hPbanZ2dnUVZ_u-unZ2d@comcast.com...
>>>
>>> "Harry (Lincoln, Nebraska)" <hbrogan57@NOSPAM.yahoo.com> wrote in
>>> message news:epcim3p6ivevojg0sij3ef6pvflngsas8f@4ax.com...
>>>> On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 12:31:41 +0000, Peter Clinch
>>>> <p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Harry (Lincoln, Nebraska) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Say Ed......WTF does the movie "unforgiven" and vacations in England
>>>>>> have to do with the subject at hand????? FOUR words for you. SHUT
>>>>>> THE **** UP
>>>>>
>>>>>Welcome to Planet Troll... do you /really/ think he'll go away because
>>>>>you asked/told him to?
>>>>>
>>>>>If you want to avoid Trolls then killfile and ignore.
>>>>
>>>> No, I don't think he'll go away anytime soon. I get those messages
>>>> once in a while. Even though I plonked him a LONG time ago. I
>>>> usually don't even see the messages.
>>>
>>> So you don't want to read Ed's posts. And you went to the trouble of
>>> kill filing him to make sure you won't even see his posts. But then
>>> you claim you "get those messages once in a while". When that happens
>>> why do you bother to read them and then take the time to post another
>>> protest?
>>>
>>> My advice to you is stop reading Ed's posts and never post anything
>>> about him again.
>>
>> But that is not possible because even a word or two from Ed Dolan the
>> Great galvanizes the most slothful readers of Usenet to respond. Yea, I
>> am like a God to these newsgroups. There is just no denying Ed Dolan the
>> Great.
>>
>> The only solution is to give in to the Great One and to consider it an
>> honor to even be noticed by Him. However, you do not want to ever be
>> noticed by Saint Edward the Great. He is a very Great Saint indeed and
>> even Ed Dolan the Great fears Him. God Almighty, I do not want Saint
>> Edward the Great ever coming down on me as it would utterly crush me.
>>
> I suppose it's on account of you being a Great Saint that you can
> transcend kill files, beguile hostile readers into reading your postings,
> and then smile as they post their obnoxious replies. It's curious that
> such a Great Saint would find amusement in this way, but at least you are
> providing some form of outlet for the common cycling folk.

A temperate post I do not know how to respond to. I am only used to
responding to complete idiots. If you are going to be temperate and
reasonable I recommend that you get off of Usenet. We are all idiots here
and do not have the foggiest notion of how to deal with anyone the least bit
rational.

Saint Edward the Great only comes into the discussion when it borders on
moral issues. He is a very Great Saint indeed and right out of the High
Middle Ages (12th century) and He frankly makes me quake with fear. He is
just so holy and self-righteous! Please believe me on this, you do not want
to rile this Great Saint! He is worse than the Devil!

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

[Tom Sherman]

Duke of Hazard wrote:
> I mostly average 10 mph , do I still need to wear a helmet ? I can
> understand if you average 15+mph, but are helmets neccessary at slower
> speeds? Energy is proportional to the square of the velocity so the
> slower you travel the far less you should need one, no?

Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee! HELMET THREAD!!!

Foam bicycle hats really only offer "bump and scrape" protection in low
speed falls, so they are not really necessary during riding. The main
place where they would be useful is off-road, where they do help spread
out the impact from point loads such as rocks. Do not expect the foam
bicycle hat to reduce the risk of serious head injury or death by any
significant extent.

The primary benefit of wearing a foam bicycle hat would be to prevent
jury prejudice if you are injured by another party and are suing for
damages, since the average juror will have likely swallowed the helmet
propaganda whole without question.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"Localized intense suction such as tornadoes is created when temperature
differences are high enough between meeting air masses, and can impart
excessive energy onto a cyclist." - Randy Schlitter

[max]

In article
<0ce594b5-67eb-4b8d-a036-fe41bf99c5c7@y43g2000hsy.googlegroups.com>,
Duke of Hazard <squash@peoriadesignweb.com> wrote:

> I mostly average 10 mph , do I still need to wear a helmet ? I can
> understand if you average 15+mph, but are helmets neccessary at slower
> speeds? Energy is proportional to the square of the velocity so the
> slower you travel the far less you should need one, no?

Further research is indicated; have a friend poke a stick through your
spokes and let us know what happens.

--
The part of betatron @ earthlink . net was played by a garden gnome

[Bill Sornson]

Duke of Hazard wrote:
> I mostly average 10 mph , do I still need to wear a helmet ? I can
> understand if you average 15+mph, but are helmets neccessary at slower
> speeds? Energy is proportional to the square of the velocity so the
> slower you travel the far less you should need one, no?

Try doing a track stand and fall over, hitting your head on a squared-off
curb. Approximate speed at time of "incident": zero.

HTH!

Bill "and away we go" S.

[alanstew@sbcglobal.net]

On Nov 27, 8:46 pm, Duke of Hazard <squ...@peoriadesignweb.com> wrote:
> I mostly average 10 mph , do I still need to wear a helmet ?
Hazardous Duke,
Don't listen to these guys, amusing though they may be, you should
wear a helmet because bike helmets look cool, just think, does Levi
Leipheimer
look more cool with or without a bike helmet? How about Chris Horner?
I rest my case.
ABS

[Dennis P. Harris]

On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 20:46:39 -0800 (PST) in rec.bicycles.misc,
Duke of Hazard <squash@peoriadesignweb.com> wrote:

> I mostly average 10 mph , do I still need to wear a helmet ?

you'll be glad you have one when the drunk hits you going 35 mph
and your head hits the asphalt at 20.

anything you can do to reduce impact will help to reduce
concussion problems. imho folks that don't wear helmets don't
have much to protect.

[Roger Zoul]

"Duke of Hazard"

>I mostly average 10 mph , do I still need to wear a helmet ? I can
> understand if you average 15+mph, but are helmets neccessary at slower
> speeds? Energy is proportional to the square of the velocity so the
> slower you travel the far less you should need one, no?

It depends on if you bang your head on the pavement when you fall off your
bike.

[limeylew@gmail.com]

On Nov 27, 10:46 pm, Duke of Hazard <squ...@peoriadesignweb.com>
wrote:
> I mostly average 10 mph , do I still need to wear a helmet ? I can
> understand if you average 15+mph, but are helmets neccessary at slower
> speeds? Energy is proportional to the square of the velocity so the
> slower you travel the far less you should need one, no?

Since we are on the HELMET topic, here is my opinion.

There are only 2 good reasons to NOT wear one:-

A ) You don't have a brain.

B ) You have a spare head.

Hope this helps.

Lewis.

*****

[cyclingthings@gmail.com]

On Nov 27, 11:46 pm, Duke of Hazard <squ...@peoriadesignweb.com>
wrote:
> I mostly average 10 mph , do I still need to wear a helmet ? I can
> understand if you average 15+mph, but are helmets neccessary at slower
> speeds? Energy is proportional to the square of the velocity so the
> slower you travel the far less you should need one, no?

there was study made in the uk that proved that motorist are more
aggressive when they see a rider wearing a helmet. so i have to agree,
helmets are really not necessary at low speed
carlos
www.bikingthings.com

[landotter]

On Nov 27, 10:46 pm, Duke of Hazard <squ...@peoriadesignweb.com>
wrote:
> I mostly average 10 mph , do I still need to wear a helmet ? I can
> understand if you average 15+mph, but are helmets neccessary at slower
> speeds? Energy is proportional to the square of the velocity so the
> slower you travel the far less you should need one, no?

Blah blah blah [insert physics bull**** here].

Do you: ride on the proper side of the road? Do you obey traffic laws?
Wear visible clothing? Have lights and reflectors? All of these things
are far more important to discuss than the reductionist panacea of the
Tibetan magic helmet.

[JerZFox]

On Nov 27, 11:46�pm, Duke of Hazard <squ...@peoriadesignweb.com>
wrote:
> I mostly average 10 mph , do I still need to wear a helmet ? I can
> understand if you average 15+mph, but are helmets neccessary at slower
> speeds? Energy is proportional to the square of the velocity so the
> slower you travel the far less you should need one, no?

Like chicken soup: Couldn't hurt. BTW, ever notice that no women
ever participate in the Great Helmet Debate?

[catzz66]

Duke of Hazard wrote:
> I mostly average 10 mph , do I still need to wear a helmet ? I can
> understand if you average 15+mph, but are helmets neccessary at slower
> speeds? Energy is proportional to the square of the velocity so the
> slower you travel the far less you should need one, no?

How fast you are going may have little to do with how hard your noggin
hits something if you wreck out. There are good arguments for and
against wearing a helmet all the time. I don't necessarily think people
are stupid for not wearing them, but I prefer to take my chances with a
helmet.

[It's Chris]

When you ride, is your head more than three feet above the pavement?
That's the height the government uses for test drops when certifying
helmets (Snell uses 6).

- -
Compliments of:
"Your Friendly Neighborhood Wheelman"

If you want to E-mail me use:
ChrisZCorner "at" webtv "dot" net

My website:
http://geocities.com/czcorner

[smn]

"Duke of Hazard" <squash@peoriadesignweb.com> wrote in message
news:0ce594b5-67eb-4b8d-a036-fe41bf99c5c7@y43g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
>I mostly average 10 mph , do I still need to wear a helmet ? I can
> understand if you average 15+mph, but are helmets neccessary at slower
> speeds? Energy is proportional to the square of the velocity so the
> slower you travel the far less you should need one, no?

I know of someone permaneantly paralyzed just from standing still on roller
skates and losing balance. landed on his elbow though so for him to wear a
helmut maybe not. riding different story. higher elevation.
besides they can see you better. wear a traffic vest if not sure about it.

[smn]

"Duke of Hazard" <squash@peoriadesignweb.com> wrote in message
news:0ce594b5-67eb-4b8d-a036-fe41bf99c5c7@y43g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
>I mostly average 10 mph , do I still need to wear a helmet ? I can
> understand if you average 15+mph, but are helmets neccessary at slower
> speeds? Energy is proportional to the square of the velocity so the
> slower you travel the far less you should need one, no?

depends if you want to pay a ticket according to your traffic laws.

[bluezfolk]

On Nov 27, 11:46 pm, Duke of Hazard <squ...@peoriadesignweb.com>
wrote:
> I mostly average 10 mph , do I still need to wear a helmet ? I can
> understand if you average 15+mph, but are helmets neccessary at slower
> speeds? Energy is proportional to the square of the velocity so the
> slower you travel the far less you should need one, no?

I always wear a helmet when riding off-road, and sometimes when riding
on-road. I truly believe a helmet can prevent injuries, or at least
lessen their severity at any speed.

Eric

[Cathy Kearns]

"Duke of Hazard" <squash@peoriadesignweb.com> wrote in message
news:0ce594b5-67eb-4b8d-a036-fe41bf99c5c7@y43g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
>I mostly average 10 mph , do I still need to wear a helmet ? I can
> understand if you average 15+mph, but are helmets neccessary at slower
> speeds? Energy is proportional to the square of the velocity so the
> slower you travel the far less you should need one, no?

I tend to agree with the speed versus danger thing. When I run I do hit
around 10mph for very short distances. I run on the road, as there are few
sidewalks around here. I do occasionally fall. (My latest fall was two
months ago, due to being run off the path by bikes....). I don't wear a
helmet. I do wear headphones, which I admit is probably not a good idea.

When I ride my town bike, in full upright position, wearing my going to
lunch, or shopping or meetings or other errands clothes I never hit speeds
above 10mph. I'm out on green transportation, I'm not out to work up a
sweat. My feet are not clipped in. I don't wear a helmet.

When I ride my road bike I am clipped in and hoping to hit 30mph or above,
so I do wear my helmet.

I haven't fallen over in decades on a bike.

Note: if you tend to fall over a lot, or prefer to ride a bit more on the
hairy edge of safe, I'd wear a helmet all the time. For instance, I know a
mom that tends to lead her kids on bikes into the exit of the school parking
lot while cars are trying to leave, and aren't really expecting bikes in the
road there. I'm hoping the helmets help. But I'm thinking all in all it's
not a good idea. (This lady is the only one I've ever seen turn our
residential street corner in her car on two wheels. But she is a stickler
for carseats and helmets...)

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

>I mostly average 10 mph , do I still need to wear a helmet ? I can
> understand if you average 15+mph, but are helmets neccessary at slower
> speeds? Energy is proportional to the square of the velocity so the
> slower you travel the far less you should need one, no?

If you fall in a manner in which the helmet's design offers protection, it
will help. If you fall in a manner in which the helmet design is deficient
for that type of impact, it won't.

Forward speed isn't likely to have much to do with it. A 3-foot fall to the
pavement can be enough for a fatal concussion, whether you're going zero or
30mph. Forward speed would be relevant if you planned to plow head-first
into something. but even the best helmet isn't going to do too much good in
that situation, whether you're going 10 or 15 or 30mph.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

[neil0502@yahoo.com]

On Nov 27, 10:46 pm, Duke of Hazard <squ...@peoriadesignweb.com>
wrote:
> I mostly average 10 mph , do I still need to wear a helmet ? I can
> understand if you average 15+mph, but are helmets neccessary at slower
> speeds? Energy is proportional to the square of the velocity so the
> slower you travel the far less you should need one, no?

I wear one when I ride. As a matter of public policy, I couldn't care
less whether you do or not ...

.... until and unless, that is, there's conclusive evidence that
overall health care costs are higher in non-helmet bicycle injuries,
and that those costs are affecting the health care rates for the rest
of us ... materially (not holding my breath for that one).

I actually think the primary objection of the "other side" is the
possibility that an overwhelmingly lid-wearing cycling populace makes
Mandatory Helmet Legislation far more likely.

I don't buy it, but I do get it. I wouldn't support it, either.
Prolly would actively oppose it.

I've motorcycled for 25 years. I virtually always wore mine, even
when CA didn't have the law, but I wasn't really in favor OF the law.

Ride safely!
Neil

[Bellsouth Ijit 2.0 - Global Warming Edition ®]

"Duke of Hazard" <squash@peoriadesignweb.com> wrote in message
news:0ce594b5-67eb-4b8d-a036-fe41bf99c5c7@y43g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
>I mostly average 10 mph , do I still need to wear a helmet ? I can
> understand if you average 15+mph, but are helmets neccessary at slower
> speeds? Energy is proportional to the square of the velocity so the
> slower you travel the far less you should need one, no?


How about that Daisy's hotpants?

[DougC]

Duke of Hazard wrote:
> I mostly average 10 mph , do I still need to wear a helmet ? I can
> understand if you average 15+mph, but are helmets neccessary at slower
> speeds? Energy is proportional to the square of the velocity so the
> slower you travel the far less you should need one, no?

I tend to suspect that the likelihood of need for a helmet has much to
do with what kind of bike you ride.

The problem with upright bikes is that if you strike a stationary object
the bicycle tends to flip you over the handlebars, so you land on your
head. Also, if you use the front brake too hard in a panic stop, the
same result can occur.

With many recumbent bikes, it's not possible to flip them over forward
by any amount of hard front braking, and you're also less likely to flip
over anything you strike, as you hit lower and feet-first. The most
common recumbent crash injuries tend to be the bike falling over
sideways and the rider suffering leg and hand scrapes; it's extremely
rare that anyone goes over their /recumbent/ bars.

-------

What makes this issue REALLY funny is that safety bikes were supposed to
fix this problem, the "falling-over-forward" issues that the previous
penny-farthings had. But in our modern age, instead of switching to an
improved design that makes crash-induced head injuries less likely to
occur in the first place, the powers that be would rather have you wear
a styrofoam hat instead.

So much for progress.
~

[Tim McTeague]

"Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fiisfl$32j$1@registered.motzarella.org...
> Duke of Hazard wrote:
>> I mostly average 10 mph , do I still need to wear a helmet ? I can
>> understand if you average 15+mph, but are helmets neccessary at slower
>> speeds? Energy is proportional to the square of the velocity so the
>> slower you travel the far less you should need one, no?
>
> Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee! HELMET THREAD!!!
>
> Foam bicycle hats really only offer "bump and scrape" protection in low
> speed falls, so they are not really necessary during riding. The main
> place where they would be useful is off-road, where they do help spread
> out the impact from point loads such as rocks. Do not expect the foam
> bicycle hat to reduce the risk of serious head injury or death by any
> significant extent.
>
> The primary benefit of wearing a foam bicycle hat would be to prevent jury
> prejudice if you are injured by another party and are suing for damages,
> since the average juror will have likely swallowed the helmet propaganda
> whole without question.
>
> --
> Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
> "Localized intense suction such as tornadoes is created when temperature
> differences are high enough between meeting air masses, and can impart
> excessive energy onto a cyclist." - Randy Schlitter

Only "bump and scrape" protection? You can crack your skull open by
falling standing still if you hit it right, or wrong. Helmets are not total
protection by any means but valuable insurance any time you ride. Of
course, helmets in cars would most likely save lives as well but who does
that other than race car drivers?

Tim McTeague

[Gooserider]

"Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fiisfl$32j$1@registered.motzarella.org...
> Duke of Hazard wrote:
>> I mostly average 10 mph , do I still need to wear a helmet ? I can
>> understand if you average 15+mph, but are helmets neccessary at slower
>> speeds? Energy is proportional to the square of the velocity so the
>> slower you travel the far less you should need one, no?
>
> Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee! HELMET THREAD!!!
>
> Foam bicycle hats really only offer "bump and scrape" protection in low
> speed falls, so they are not really necessary during riding. The main
> place where they would be useful is off-road, where they do help spread
> out the impact from point loads such as rocks. Do not expect the foam
> bicycle hat to reduce the risk of serious head injury or death by any
> significant extent.
>
> The primary benefit of wearing a foam bicycle hat would be to prevent jury
> prejudice if you are injured by another party and are suing for damages,
> since the average juror will have likely swallowed the helmet propaganda
> whole without question.
>

As much as it PAINS me to get involved in a helmet thread, here goes. I was
hit in the back of the head by a pickup truck mirror and survived with no
head injury---and I was wearing a helmet. Helmet cracked and was toast, but
the skull and brain are fine. They're not just "bump and scrape" protection.
Unless, of course, you think my skull would have survived a 25mph rear
impact from a GMC dually with no ill effect.

[frkrygow@gmail.com]

On Nov 28, 12:02 am, max <betat...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> In article
> <0ce594b5-67eb-4b8d-a036-fe41bf99c...@y43g2000hsy.googlegroups.com>,
> Duke of Hazard <squ...@peoriadesignweb.com> wrote:
>
> > I mostly average 10 mph , do I still need to wear a helmet ? I can
> > understand if you average 15+mph, but are helmets neccessary at slower
> > speeds? Energy is proportional to the square of the velocity so the
> > slower you travel the far less you should need one, no?
>
> Further research is indicated; have a friend poke a stick through your
> spokes and let us know what happens.

.... and if you ever run for exercise, have a friend trip you as you
sprint. And if you ever walk down stairs, have a friend push you so
you fall. And if you ever walk on an icy sidewalk, have a friend kick
your feet out from under you.

What? Those don't matter? You claim a helmet should be used only
while bicycling??? Why??

- Frank Krygowski

[Tom Sherman]

Dennis P. Harris wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 20:46:39 -0800 (PST) in rec.bicycles.misc,
> Duke of Hazard <squash@peoriadesignweb.com> wrote:
>
>> I mostly average 10 mph , do I still need to wear a helmet ?
>
> you'll be glad you have one when the drunk hits you going 35 mph
> and your head hits the asphalt at 20.
>
> anything you can do to reduce impact will help to reduce
> concussion problems. imho folks that don't wear helmets don't
> have much to protect.
>
The people who believe that bicycle foam hats offer some mystical
protection that is not backed up by either engineering mechanics (the
relatively small amount of energy a light foam hat can absorb) or
statistics (credible population studies show no statistically
significant benefit from foam bicycle hat use) would seem to be the ones
who do not have much to protect.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"Localized intense suction such as tornadoes is created when temperature
differences are high enough between meeting air masses, and can impart
excessive energy onto a cyclist." - Randy Schlitter

[frkrygow@gmail.com]

On Nov 28, 2:17 am, NO_SPAM_TO_dphar...@gci.net (Dennis P. Harris)
wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 20:46:39 -0800 (PST) in rec.bicycles.misc,
> Duke of Hazard <squ...@peoriadesignweb.com> wrote:
>
> > I mostly average 10 mph , do I still need to wear a helmet ?
>
> you'll be glad you have one when the drunk hits you going 35 mph
> and your head hits the asphalt at 20.
>
> anything you can do to reduce impact will help to reduce
> concussion problems. imho folks that don't wear helmets don't
> have much to protect.

It's amazing how quickly the helmet nazis turn to insults.

Did you intend for the helmeted head to hit the ground in a direct 20
mph impact? That exceeds the energy absorbing capacity of any bike
helmet by roughly 100%. IOW, the helmet wearer would be only a little
less dead.

Or did you intend for the helmeted head to hit in a glancing blow, so
the larger radius and greater friction of the helmet would impart more
rotational acceleration to the brain than it would with a bare head?
Rotational acceleration has been shown to be much more damaging to
brain tissue than linear acceleration - yet helmet designs don't even
address rotation.

In any case, it's well documented that massive increases in helmet use
don't cause reductions in bicyclist head injury rates. They just
aren't working. If anyone is discussing helmets and doesn't know
that, he's speaking from a position of ignorance.

- Frank Krygowski

[Tom Sherman]

Roger Zoul wrote:
> "Duke of Hazard"
>
>> I mostly average 10 mph , do I still need to wear a helmet ? I can
>> understand if you average 15+mph, but are helmets neccessary at slower
>> speeds? Energy is proportional to the square of the velocity so the
>> slower you travel the far less you should need one, no?
>
> It depends on if you bang your head on the pavement when you fall off your
> bike.
>
The more laid back one is, the less likely the head will be at the point
of impact.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"Localized intense suction such as tornadoes is created when temperature
differences are high enough between meeting air masses, and can impart
excessive energy onto a cyclist." - Randy Schlitter

[Tom Sherman]

Tim McTeague wrote:
> "Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:fiisfl$32j$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>> Duke of Hazard wrote:
>>> I mostly average 10 mph , do I still need to wear a helmet ? I can
>>> understand if you average 15+mph, but are helmets neccessary at slower
>>> speeds? Energy is proportional to the square of the velocity so the
>>> slower you travel the far less you should need one, no?
>>
>> Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee! HELMET THREAD!!!
>>
>> Foam bicycle hats really only offer "bump and scrape" protection in low
>> speed falls, so they are not really necessary during riding. The main
>> place where they would be useful is off-road, where they do help spread
>> out the impact from point loads such as rocks. Do not expect the foam
>> bicycle hat to reduce the risk of serious head injury or death by any
>> significant extent.
>>
>> The primary benefit of wearing a foam bicycle hat would be to prevent jury
>> prejudice if you are injured by another party and are suing for damages,
>> since the average juror will have likely swallowed the helmet propaganda
>> whole without question.
>>
> Only "bump and scrape" protection? You can crack your skull open by
> falling standing still if you hit it right, or wrong. Helmets are not total
> protection by any means but valuable insurance any time you ride.

Really? All the credible population studies show no reduction in serious
head injuries or deaths when bicycle helmet use increases.

> Of
> course, helmets in cars would most likely save lives as well but who does
> that other than race car drivers?

What does that have to do with bicycle foam hats?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"Localized intense suction such as tornadoes is created when temperature
differences are high enough between meeting air masses, and can impart
excessive energy onto a cyclist." - Randy Schlitter

[Ozark Bicycle]

On Nov 28, 5:02 am, "Tim McTeague" <mctea...@comcast.net> wrote:
> "Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:fiisfl$32j$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>
>
>
> > Duke of Hazard wrote:
> >> I mostly average 10 mph , do I still need to wear a helmet ? I can
> >> understand if you average 15+mph, but are helmets neccessary at slower
> >> speeds? Energy is proportional to the square of the velocity so the
> >> slower you travel the far less you should need one, no?
>
> > Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee! HELMET THREAD!!!
>
> > Foam bicycle hats really only offer "bump and scrape" protection in low
> > speed falls, so they are not really necessary during riding. The main
> > place where they would be useful is off-road, where they do help spread
> > out the impact from point loads such as rocks. Do not expect the foam
> > bicycle hat to reduce the risk of serious head injury or death by any
> > significant extent.
>
> > The primary benefit of wearing a foam bicycle hat would be to prevent jury
> > prejudice if you are injured by another party and are suing for damages,
> > since the average juror will have likely swallowed the helmet propaganda
> > whole without question.
>
> > --
> > Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
> > "Localized intense suction such as tornadoes is created when temperature
> > differences are high enough between meeting air masses, and can impart
> > excessive energy onto a cyclist." - Randy Schlitter
>
> Only "bump and scrape" protection? You can crack your skull open by
> falling standing still if you hit it right, or wrong. Helmets are not total
> protection by any means

As Peter Chisholm puts it: "Can't hurt, might help".


> but valuable insurance any time you ride.


How "valuable" is open to debate. But, see above.


Whether or not to wear a helmet (always/sometimes/never) is a
*personal decision*. Zealots and psychotics on either side of the
question, pro or con, tend to irritate me.

[frkrygow@gmail.com]

On Nov 28, 6:02 am, "Tim McTeague" <mctea...@comcast.net> wrote:
> "Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> > Foam bicycle hats really only offer "bump and scrape" protection...
>
> Only "bump and scrape" protection? You can crack your skull open by
> falling standing still if you hit it right, or wrong.

Hmm. I doubt that's realistic. And anyway, most people do most of
their "falling standing still" while using their feet, not their
bicycles.

> Helmets are not total
> protection by any means but valuable insurance any time you ride.

But why wouldn't they also be valuable insurance while walking or
jogging? You _do_ know there are many, many more pedestrian
fatalities than bike fatalities every year, don't you?

> Of course, helmets in cars would most likely save lives as well but who does
> that other than race car drivers?

Indeed. We _never_ recommend helmets for the one activity that causes
half the brain injury fatalities in the US: Driving. But so many
people think helmets are necessary to prevent the 1% of brain injury
fatalities that happen while cycling...

.... even though they've never been shown to cause any improvement in
that figure!

The inconsistencies are enormous. They're clear evidence that most
people just accept sales propaganda on this issue, rather than
exercising their foam-encased brains.

- Frank Krygowski

[joseph.santaniello@gmail.com]

On Nov 28, 1:17 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
wrote:
> Dennis P. Harris wrote:
> > On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 20:46:39 -0800 (PST) in rec.bicycles.misc,
> > Duke of Hazard <squ...@peoriadesignweb.com> wrote:
>
> >> I mostly average 10 mph , do I still need to wear a helmet ?
>
> > you'll be glad you have one when the drunk hits you going 35 mph
> > and your head hits the asphalt at 20.
>
> > anything you can do to reduce impact will help to reduce
> > concussion problems. imho folks that don't wear helmets don't
> > have much to protect.
>
> The people who believe that bicycle foam hats offer some mystical
> protection that is not backed up by either engineering mechanics (the
> relatively small amount of energy a light foam hat can absorb) or
> statistics (credible population studies show no statistically
> significant benefit from foam bicycle hat use) would seem to be the ones
> who do not have much to protect.
>

Today I did it. I left the hat at home. In no small part due to the
information presented in earlier threads.

Joseph

[Skip]

"Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fijm7t$t34$1@registered.motzarella.org...
> Dennis P. Harris wrote:

> (credible population studies show no statistically significant benefit
> from foam bicycle hat use)

To those who cite studies or other literature (on either side of the
question):
Your arguments would be MUCH more pusuasive if you cited your source for the
information.
Until you identify who you are quoting and in what context, everything you
say is nothing more than your (possibly biased) OPINION. Nothing more.

It is okay to have an opinion. But when you claim "fact" please support the
ability to check.
Otherwise label your reply as "opinion" and not "fact".

In the interest if discussion, note that I personally have a strong opinion
on this topic. I believe that it is strongly supported by facts. (and if
you guess my opinion from my message and/or my phrasing, you have a 50% or
better chance of guessing wrong)

The purpose of this note is to ask for factual information to support
"factual" claims -- so I am NOT expressing my personal opinion in this
reply.

- Skip

[Skip]

"Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fijm9l$t34$2@registered.motzarella.org...

> The more laid back one is, the less likely the head will be at the point
> of impact.

A good argument for riding a recumbant :-) <note smiley>

- Skip

[Dane Buson]

limeylew@gmail.com <limeylew@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 27, 10:46 pm, Duke of Hazard <squ...@peoriadesignweb.com>
> wrote:
>> I mostly average 10 mph , do I still need to wear a helmet ? I can
>> understand if you average 15+mph, but are helmets neccessary at slower
>> speeds? Energy is proportional to the square of the velocity so the
>> slower you travel the far less you should need one, no?
>
> Since we are on the HELMET topic, here is my opinion.
>
> There are only 2 good reasons to NOT wear one:-
>
> A ) You don't have a brain.
>
> B ) You have a spare head.
>
> Hope this helps.

Not particularly. You are talking from the assumed truth that a helmet
is efficacious in reducing injury. I'm not even close to being
convinced of that salient fact. [1]

I *am* convinced that all the helmet brouhaha turns a lot of people off
cycling. Which means less people cycle. Which means the roads are
*more* dangerous to me.

So please, would you all stop your baseless (as far as I can tell) fear
mongering about bicycling. You are committing actions injurious to my
safety.

[1] I wear mine most of the time because of the MHL in my municipality.
I just don't have any illusions it does much good.

--
Dane Buson - sigdane@unixbigots.org
The wind doth taste so bitter sweet,
Like Jaspar wine and sugar,
It must have blown through someone's feet,
Like those of Caspar Weinberger.
-- P. Opus

[Tom Sherman]

limeylew@gmail.com aka Lewis Campbell wrote:
> On Nov 27, 10:46 pm, Duke of Hazard <squ...@peoriadesignweb.com>
> wrote:
>> I mostly average 10 mph , do I still need to wear a helmet ? I can
>> understand if you average 15+mph, but are helmets neccessary at slower
>> speeds? Energy is proportional to the square of the velocity so the
>> slower you travel the far less you should need one, no?
>
> Since we are on the HELMET topic, here is my opinion.
>
> There are only 2 good reasons to NOT wear one:-
>
> A ) You don't have a brain.
>
> B ) You have a spare head.
>
> Hope this helps.

I do not see a helmet OR shoes on this rider:
<http://www.bikeforest.com/limey.jpg>. ;)

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"Localized intense suction such as tornadoes is created when temperature
differences are high enough between meeting air masses, and can impart
excessive energy onto a cyclist." - Randy Schlitter

[Bill Sornson]

cyclingthings@gmail.com wrote:
> On Nov 27, 11:46 pm, Duke of Hazard <squ...@peoriadesignweb.com>
> wrote:
>> I mostly average 10 mph , do I still need to wear a helmet ? I can
>> understand if you average 15+mph, but are helmets neccessary at
>> slower speeds? Energy is proportional to the square of the velocity
>> so the slower you travel the far less you should need one, no?
>
> there was study made in the uk that proved that motorist are more
> aggressive when they see a rider wearing a helmet. so i have to agree,
> helmets are really not necessary at low speed

That study was completely bogus. Look up "unscientific", and there's that
study. HTH! (BKIW)

[It's Chris]

>Like chicken soup: Couldn't hurt. BTW,
>ever notice that no women ever
>participate in the Great Helmet Debate?

I'm still trying to figure out how 51% of cyclists are supposed to be
women, when only 20% of cyclists I ever see on the road are women!

- -
Compliments of:
"Your Friendly Neighborhood Wheelman"

If you want to E-mail me use:
ChrisZCorner "at" webtv "dot" net

My website:
http://geocities.com/czcorner

[Dane Buson]

JerZFox <JerZFox@aol.com> wrote:
> On Nov 27, 11:46???pm, Duke of Hazard <squ...@peoriadesignweb.com>
> wrote:
>> I mostly average 10 mph , do I still need to wear a helmet ? I can
>> understand if you average 15+mph, but are helmets neccessary at slower
>> speeds? Energy is proportional to the square of the velocity so the
>> slower you travel the far less you should need one, no?
>
> Like chicken soup: Couldn't hurt. BTW, ever notice that no women
> ever participate in the Great Helmet Debate?

Maybe they have better sense than most of the males involved and are out
riding their bikes or doing something else rewarding?

Anyway, the majority (but the not necessarily the most egregious)
examples of net wankery do seem to come from the XY portion of the
population.

--
Dane Buson - sigdane@unixbigots.org
"You know you're a loser when you try to sell your soul to
the devil and he asks you for your credit card number."

[John Kane]

On Nov 28, 9:59 am, JerZFox <JerZ...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Nov 27, 11:46�pm, Duke of Hazard <squ...@peoriadesignweb.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I mostly average 10 mph , do I still need to wear a helmet ? I can
> > understand if you average 15+mph, but are helmets neccessary at slower
> > speeds? Energy is proportional to the square of the velocity so the
> > slower you travel the far less you should need one, no?
>
> Like chicken soup: Couldn't hurt.
Actually it might : see rotational injuries and risk compensation.

BTW, ever notice that no women
> ever participate in the Great Helmet Debate?

Dorre Robinson would be surprised :)

John Kane, Kingston ON Canada

[Bill Sornson]

Skip wrote:
> "Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:fijm7t$t34$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>> Dennis P. Harris wrote:
>
>> (credible population studies show no statistically significant
>> benefit from foam bicycle hat use)

That's not only not what he wrote, it's in complete opposition to it. And
yet you go on to chastise him for not labeling it "opinion"! LOL

BS (heaped high)

*********

> To those who cite studies or other literature (on either side of the
> question):
> Your arguments would be MUCH more pusuasive if you cited your source
> for the information.
> Until you identify who you are quoting and in what context,
> everything you say is nothing more than your (possibly biased)
> OPINION. Nothing more.
> It is okay to have an opinion. But when you claim "fact" please
> support the ability to check.
> Otherwise label your reply as "opinion" and not "fact".
>
> In the interest if discussion, note that I personally have a strong
> opinion on this topic. I believe that it is strongly supported by
> facts. (and if you guess my opinion from my message and/or my
> phrasing, you have a 50% or better chance of guessing wrong)
>
> The purpose of this note is to ask for factual information to support
> "factual" claims -- so I am NOT expressing my personal opinion in this
> reply.

ROTFL

> - Skip {the BS}

[Tom Sherman]

Skip who? wrote:
> "Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:fijm7t$t34$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>> Dennis P. Harris wrote:
>
>> (credible population studies show no statistically significant benefit
>> from foam bicycle hat use)
>
> To those who cite studies or other literature (on either side of the
> question):
> Your arguments would be MUCH more pusuasive if you cited your source for
> the information.
> Until you identify who you are quoting and in what context, everything
> you say is nothing more than your (possibly biased) OPINION. Nothing more.
>
> It is okay to have an opinion. But when you claim "fact" please support
> the ability to check.
> Otherwise label your reply as "opinion" and not "fact"....

These cites have been posted over and over in past helmet flame wars on
rec.bicycles.*.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"Localized intense suction such as tornadoes is created when temperature
differences are high enough between meeting air masses, and can impart
excessive energy onto a cyclist." - Randy Schlitter

[Tom Sherman]

Skip ? wrote:
> "Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:fijm9l$t34$2@registered.motzarella.org...
>
>> The more laid back one is, the less likely the head will be at the
>> point of impact.
>
> A good argument for riding a recumbant :-) <note smiley>
^
I prefer to ride a recumbent (sic) bicycle.
^
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"Localized intense suction such as tornadoes is created when temperature
differences are high enough between meeting air masses, and can impart
excessive energy onto a cyclist." - Randy Schlitter

[JP]

"catzz66" <catzz66@threeletterservice.com> wrote in message
news:5r5h39F135v0oU1@mid.individual.net...
> Duke of Hazard wrote:
>> I mostly average 10 mph , do I still need to wear a helmet ? I can
>> understand if you average 15+mph, but are helmets neccessary at slower
>> speeds? Energy is proportional to the square of the velocity so the
>> slower you travel the far less you should need one, no?
>
> How fast you are going may have little to do with how hard your noggin
> hits something if you wreck out. There are good arguments for and against
> wearing a helmet all the time. I don't necessarily think people are
> stupid for not wearing them, but I prefer to take my chances with a
> helmet.



I started riding again in my fifties, trails and roads.
The LBS salesguy, a twentysomething cyclist from Poland, pushed hard on the
helmet.
I wore it.
I have fallen, trail and road, mostly under 10mph.
I'm glad it was on and I wear it every ride.
Just my opinion.

JP

[Matt O'Toole]

On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 09:51:02 -0600, catzz66 wrote:

> Duke of Hazard wrote:

>> I mostly average 10 mph , do I still need to wear a helmet ? I can
>> understand if you average 15+mph, but are helmets neccessary at slower
>> speeds? Energy is proportional to the square of the velocity so the
>> slower you travel the far less you should need one, no?
>
> How fast you are going may have little to do with how hard your noggin
> hits something if you wreck out. There are good arguments for and
> against wearing a helmet all the time. I don't necessarily think people
> are stupid for not wearing them, but I prefer to take my chances with a
> helmet.

I disagree. Speed greatly increases the chance of a hard knock to
your head. Go down at 35 MPH and you may land hard on your head before
you even realize you're going down. There's nothing you can do about it.
But hitting your head during a low speed fall is rare, plus, most people
have some control of how they fall in low speed collisions.

Speed is why we've required helmets for motorcycle riders for a long time,
but not bicyclists.

I personally will ride without a helmet for low speed travel around town
(and get abused by self-righteous helmet nazis), but I feel naked without
one for open road riding, especially in the mountains.

Matt O.

[Mike A Schwab]

On Nov 28, 9:51 am, catzz66 <catz...@threeletterservice.com> wrote:
> Duke of Hazard wrote:
> > I mostly average 10 mph , do I still need to wear a helmet ? I can
> > understand if you average 15+mph, but are helmets neccessary at slower
> > speeds? Energy is proportional to the square of the velocity so the
> > slower you travel the far less you should need one, no?
>
> How fast you are going may have little to do with how hard your noggin
> hits something if you wreck out. There are good arguments for and
> against wearing a helmet all the time. I don't necessarily think people
> are stupid for not wearing them, but I prefer to take my chances with a
> helmet.

Actually, when you add the vectors of the forward speed plus the
falling speed, the faster you go the higher the horizontal force. So
a high speed crash along an unobstructed road results in more road
rash from scraping and less head trama from falling down.

[smn]

"It's Chris" <dedendaddy4spammers@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:18612-474D8F15-47@storefull-3238.bay.webtv.net...
> When you ride, is your head more than three feet above the pavement?
> That's the height the government uses for test drops when certifying
> helmets (Snell uses 6).
>
> - -
> Compliments of:
> "Your Friendly Neighborhood Wheelman"
>
> If you want to E-mail me use:
> ChrisZCorner "at" webtv "dot" net
>
> My website:
> http://geocities.com/czcorner

I like the scare value of the commercial where they drop a watermelon
comparing it to hitting a windshield while driving without a seat belt.
OTOH it could be you bouncing off the windshield on the reverse side.
You do not have to hit the road to make impact with your melon : )

[Tom Sherman]

It's Chris wrote:
> When you ride, is your head more than three feet above the pavement?...

No - when I am on my trike or lowracers.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"Localized intense suction such as tornadoes is created when temperature
differences are high enough between meeting air masses, and can impart
excessive energy onto a cyclist." - Randy Schlitter

[Doc O'Leary]

In article <pan.2007.11.28.17.22.34.512265@letterboxes.org>,
Matt O'Toole <mattotoole@letterboxes.org> wrote:

> I disagree. Speed greatly increases the chance of a hard knock to
> your head.

It does no such thing. Velocity increases momentum and kinetic energy,
but that says nothing about the probability of head injury. Sounds like
you've been brainwashed by that "speed kills" rubbish.

> Go down at 35 MPH and you may land hard on your head before
> you even realize you're going down. There's nothing you can do about it.

Explain what more can be done in the *exact same* amount of time it
would take to fall the same distance while traveling at a slower
velocity.

> But hitting your head during a low speed fall is rare, plus, most people
> have some control of how they fall in low speed collisions.

Simply untrue given the time to react to a fall is the same. The only
difference is the damage done because of the greater energy involved at
a higher velocity.

> Speed is why we've required helmets for motorcycle riders for a long time,
> but not bicyclists.

Also untrue. Even though I always ride my motorcycle wearing a helmet,
local laws do not require it. Speed has never been cited for helmet
laws I've seen proposed, only safety.

> I personally will ride without a helmet for low speed travel around town
> (and get abused by self-righteous helmet nazis), but I feel naked without
> one for open road riding, especially in the mountains.

I personally follow the safety principle on my bike as well as my
motorcycle. For the motorcycle, I'm on a vehicle that can (easily) hit
80mph surrounded by other more massive vehicles that can also hit 80mph;
you can bet your ass I'm going to protect my skull. For the bicycle, I
still have no control over those massive vehicles, so I'm still going to
protect my skull. Unlike you, though, I assert that the "open road" (or
a bike path) is actually safer, *regardless* of your speed, because
there is no motor vehicle traffic.

--
My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, 4ax.com, buzzardnews.com, googlegroups.com,
heapnode.com, localhost, ntli.net, teranews.com, vif.com, x-privat.org

[dgk]

On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 13:58:32 -0800 (PST), frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:

>On Nov 28, 12:02 am, max <betat...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> In article
>> <0ce594b5-67eb-4b8d-a036-fe41bf99c...@y43g2000hsy.googlegroups.com>,
>> Duke of Hazard <squ...@peoriadesignweb.com> wrote:
>>
>> > I mostly average 10 mph , do I still need to wear a helmet ? I can
>> > understand if you average 15+mph, but are helmets neccessary at slower
>> > speeds? Energy is proportional to the square of the velocity so the
>> > slower you travel the far less you should need one, no?
>>
>> Further research is indicated; have a friend poke a stick through your
>> spokes and let us know what happens.
>
>... and if you ever run for exercise, have a friend trip you as you
>sprint. And if you ever walk down stairs, have a friend push you so
>you fall. ...

My cat will do it for nothing.

[Bob]

On Nov 28, 4:36 pm, Dane Buson <d...@unseen.edu> wrote:
> JerZFox <JerZ...@aol.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 27, 11:46???pm, Duke of Hazard <squ...@peoriadesignweb.com>
> > wrote:
> >> I mostly average 10 mph , do I still need to wear a helmet ? I can
> >> understand if you average 15+mph, but are helmets neccessary at slower
> >> speeds? Energy is proportional to the square of the velocity so the
> >> slower you travel the far less you should need one, no?
>
> > Like chicken soup: Couldn't hurt. BTW, ever notice that no women
> > ever participate in the Great Helmet Debate?
>
> Maybe they have better sense than most of the males involved and are out
> riding their bikes or doing something else rewarding?
>
> Anyway, the majority (but the not necessarily the most egregious)
> examples of net wankery do seem to come from the XY portion of the
> population.
>

Of course, that conclusion is based solely on self-reported data. ;-)

Regards,
Bob Hunt

[It's Chris]

You guys should start a new discussion group. "rec.bicycles.helmets".
and take all these ultra-long what will eventually become flame threads
there.

That way this group can discuss things that will ultimately reach a
logical conclusion. Something this topic NEVER will.

JMHO

- -
Compliments of:
"Your Friendly Neighborhood Wheelman"

If you want to E-mail me use:
ChrisZCorner "at" webtv "dot" net

My website:
http://geocities.com/czcorner

[catzz66]

Dane Buson wrote:
>
>
> I *am* convinced that all the helmet brouhaha turns a lot of people off
> cycling. Which means less people cycle. Which means the roads are
> *more* dangerous to me.
>
>

A does not necessarily lead to B which does not necessarily lead to C.

If people are turned off cycling by the helmet brouhaha, it is hard for
me to believe that they were that motivated to ride in the first place.

[Bill Sornson]

Gooserider wrote:
> "Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:fiisfl$32j$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>> Duke of Hazard wrote:
>>> I mostly average 10 mph , do I still need to wear a helmet ? I can
>>> understand if you average 15+mph, but are helmets neccessary at
>>> slower speeds? Energy is proportional to the square of the velocity
>>> so the slower you travel the far less you should need one, no?
>>
>> Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee! HELMET THREAD!!!
>>
>> Foam bicycle hats really only offer "bump and scrape" protection in
>> low speed falls, so they are not really necessary during riding. The
>> main place where they would be useful is off-road, where they do
>> help spread out the impact from point loads such as rocks. Do not
>> expect the foam bicycle hat to reduce the risk of serious head
>> injury or death by any significant extent.
>>
>> The primary benefit of wearing a foam bicycle hat would be to
>> prevent jury prejudice if you are injured by another party and are
>> suing for damages, since the average juror will have likely
>> swallowed the helmet propaganda whole without question.
>>
>
> As much as it PAINS me to get involved in a helmet thread, here goes.
> I was hit in the back of the head by a pickup truck mirror and
> survived with no head injury---and I was wearing a helmet. Helmet
> cracked and was toast, but the skull and brain are fine. They're not
> just "bump and scrape" protection. Unless, of course, you think my
> skull would have survived a 25mph rear impact from a GMC dually with
> no ill effect.

Goose, Goose, Goose... Doncha know that anecdotes are only allowed in lid
threads when they support the AHZ template?

HTH!

[frkrygow@gmail.com]

On Nov 28, 6:52 pm, "Gooserider" <Gooseri...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>
> As much as it PAINS me to get involved in a helmet thread, here goes. I was
> hit in the back of the head by a pickup truck mirror and survived with no
> head injury---and I was wearing a helmet. Helmet cracked and was toast, but
> the skull and brain are fine. They're not just "bump and scrape" protection.
> Unless, of course, you think my skull would have survived a 25mph rear
> impact from a GMC dually with no ill effect.

Would you have been fine without the helmet? We don't know. But to
be fair, you shouldn't exaggerate. Your skull survived an impact with
a mirror, not a "GMC dually."

It's obvious that in some such cases, the helmet offers useful
protection. It's less obvious, but still true, that in some such
cases, the helmet took an impact that the head would have never
experienced, simply because it's smaller. See
http://washcycle.typepad.com/home/images/xray.jpg

And it's possible that in some cases, the helmet may make brain damage
worse, through rotational acceleration caused by its larger radius and
higher coefficient of friction. This isn't proven, but it's being
strongly considered as partial explanation for the fact that serious
head injuries actually seem to increase, on a per-rider basis, when
helmet use increases significantly.

I'm sure you're completely convinced your helmet worked a near-
miracle. But people who are "healed" by faith healers feel the same.
Even if some such stories are true, most of them are probably not.

- Frank Krygowski

[Bob]

On Nov 28, 5:52 pm, "Gooserider" <Gooseri...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:

> As much as it PAINS me to get involved in a helmet thread, here goes. I was
> hit in the back of the head by a pickup truck mirror and survived with no
> head injury---and I was wearing a helmet. Helmet cracked and was toast, but
> the skull and brain are fine. They're not just "bump and scrape" protection.
> Unless, of course, you think my skull would have survived a 25mph rear
> impact from a GMC dually with no ill effect.

With no ill effect? Unlikely. OTOH, the helmet didn't survive
unscathed so if one wants to say helmets save lives and prevent
serious injury the real question is what amount of force was exerted
to damage the helmet and would that same force have crushed your skull
or otherwise caused severe injury? Personally, I think wearing or not
wearing a helmet is a matter of personal choice. I also don't buy the
argument that helmetless riders cost everyone money through higher
insurance premiums and/or higher health care costs simply because
there is no evidence of that happening or not.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

[Zoot Katz]

On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 19:37:20 -0500, dedendaddy4spammers@webtv.net
(It's Chris) wrote:

>You guys should start a new discussion group. "rec.bicycles.helmets".
>and take all these ultra-long what will eventually become flame threads
>there.
>
>That way this group can discuss things that will ultimately reach a
>logical conclusion. Something this topic NEVER will.
>
>JMHO

hmm, Google finds only 37,700 messages for this group containing the
H-word since January 1981. There are 16,600 messages with an
additional 8,100 messages featuring the pluralised version of it in
the Subject field during the same period

Hopefully there would be enough votes throughout the rec.bicyles.*
hierarchy to carry through the whole *config battle. Possibly even
support enough so we'd not have to settle for
alt.rec.bicycles.helmets like the recumbentists.

Let's be honest though,
"rec.bicycles.mandated-and-or-fetish-headgear"
is a lot more accurate.
--
zk

[Dane Buson]

It's Chris <dedendaddy4spammers@webtv.net> wrote:
> You guys should start a new discussion group. "rec.bicycles.helmets".
> and take all these ultra-long what will eventually become flame threads
> there.
>
> That way this group can discuss things that will ultimately reach a
> logical conclusion. Something this topic NEVER will.

Ah, but it's never the people getting involved who change their mind.
It's the uninterested observers who don't have 'face' or ego on the
line. People who don't feel threatened can change their minds.

--
Dane Buson - sigdane@unixbigots.org
"We all know Linux is great...it does infinite loops in 5 seconds."
(Linus Torvalds about the superiority of Linux on the Amterdam
Linux Symposium)

[Gooserider]

"Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote in message
news:474e1e27$0$2303$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> Gooserider wrote:
>> "Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:fiisfl$32j$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>>> Duke of Hazard wrote:
>>>> I mostly average 10 mph , do I still need to wear a helmet ? I can
>>>> understand if you average 15+mph, but are helmets neccessary at
>>>> slower speeds? Energy is proportional to the square of the velocity
>>>> so the slower you travel the far less you should need one, no?
>>>
>>> Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee! HELMET THREAD!!!
>>>
>>> Foam bicycle hats really only offer "bump and scrape" protection in
>>> low speed falls, so they are not really necessary during riding. The
>>> main place where they would be useful is off-road, where they do
>>> help spread out the impact from point loads such as rocks. Do not
>>> expect the foam bicycle hat to reduce the risk of serious head
>>> injury or death by any significant extent.
>>>
>>> The primary benefit of wearing a foam bicycle hat would be to
>>> prevent jury prejudice if you are injured by another party and are
>>> suing for damages, since the average juror will have likely
>>> swallowed the helmet propaganda whole without question.
>>>
>>
>> As much as it PAINS me to get involved in a helmet thread, here goes.
>> I was hit in the back of the head by a pickup truck mirror and
>> survived with no head injury---and I was wearing a helmet. Helmet
>> cracked and was toast, but the skull and brain are fine. They're not
>> just "bump and scrape" protection. Unless, of course, you think my
>> skull would have survived a 25mph rear impact from a GMC dually with
>> no ill effect.
>
> Goose, Goose, Goose... Doncha know that anecdotes are only allowed in lid
> threads when they support the AHZ template?
>
> HTH!

Yes, because God forbid someone with REAL WORLD EXPERIENCE in the matter be
listened to. :-) I am only here because my helmet took the impact. Period. I
understand some people wanting to not wear helmets. That's OK. I believe in
the freedom of people to do what they want as long as they don't hurt anyone
else. I'm a Libertarian. BUT when the anti-helmet brigade try to justify
their desires with stats and "do you wear a helmet in the shower" and
"helmets are only good for bumps and scrapes" they're clouding the issue.
Helmets work. Helmet laws don't affect the amount of head injuries or
bicycle fatalities----because if you get hit center mass by a 4000 pound
vehicle even a MOTORCYCLE helmet wouldn't help. But if you're ever in the
position to test one in the real world you'll never ride without one. I
figure that the impact I sustained from the truck mirror was equivalent to a
baseball bat shot. Would anyone volunteer to take one of those bareheaded?
>

[nmp]

frkrygow wrote:

> And anyway, most people do most of their "falling standing still" while
> using their feet, not their bicycles.

So all pedestrians should be wearing helmets.

[Gooserider]

<frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:127d9347-339b-4edf-adc5-7446969bce5b@x69g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 28, 6:02 am, "Tim McTeague" <mctea...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> "Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> > Foam bicycle hats really only offer "bump and scrape" protection...
>>
>> Only "bump and scrape" protection? You can crack your skull open by
>> falling standing still if you hit it right, or wrong.
>
> Hmm. I doubt that's realistic. And anyway, most people do most of
> their "falling standing still" while using their feet, not their
> bicycles.
>

No, that's actually pretty accurate. Skull fractures can occur from a simple
fall.

[catzz66]

Cathy Kearns wrote:
>
>
> Note: if you tend to fall over a lot, or prefer to ride a bit more on
> the hairy edge of safe, I'd wear a helmet all the time. For instance, I
> know a mom that tends to lead her kids on bikes into the exit of the
> school parking lot while cars are trying to leave, and aren't really
> expecting bikes in the road there. I'm hoping the helmets help. But
> I'm thinking all in all it's not a good idea. (This lady is the only
> one I've ever seen turn our residential street corner in her car on two
> wheels. But she is a stickler for carseats and helmets...)

I see a lot of parents in my neighborhood who ride with their kids. I
am surprised by how many of them appear to require their kids to use
helmets but they don't use them.

[Gooserider]

<frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ef088e48-055b-48d9-b64d-099936cc1e92@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 28, 6:52 pm, "Gooserider" <Gooseri...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>>
>> As much as it PAINS me to get involved in a helmet thread, here goes. I
>> was
>> hit in the back of the head by a pickup truck mirror and survived with no
>> head injury---and I was wearing a helmet. Helmet cracked and was toast,
>> but
>> the skull and brain are fine. They're not just "bump and scrape"
>> protection.
>> Unless, of course, you think my skull would have survived a 25mph rear
>> impact from a GMC dually with no ill effect.
>
> Would you have been fine without the helmet? We don't know. But to
> be fair, you shouldn't exaggerate. Your skull survived an impact with
> a mirror, not a "GMC dually."
>
>
The mirror was travelling at 25mph with 4000 pounds of truck behind it. It
wasn't a 2 pound mirror floating along Harry Potter-style.

[Ozark Bicycle]

On Nov 28, 9:32 pm, "Gooserider" <Gooseri...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> "Bill Sornson" <as...@ask.me> wrote in message
>
> news:474e1e27$0$2303$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>
>
>
> > Gooserider wrote:
> >> "Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
> >>news:fiisfl$32j$1@registered.motzarella.org...
> >>> Duke of Hazard wrote:
> >>>> I mostly average 10 mph , do I still need to wear a helmet ? I can
> >>>> understand if you average 15+mph, but are helmets neccessary at
> >>>> slower speeds? Energy is proportional to the square of the velocity
> >>>> so the slower you travel the far less you should need one, no?
>
> >>> Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee! HELMET THREAD!!!
>
> >>> Foam bicycle hats really only offer "bump and scrape" protection in
> >>> low speed falls, so they are not really necessary during riding. The
> >>> main place where they would be useful is off-road, where they do
> >>> help spread out the impact from point loads such as rocks. Do not
> >>> expect the foam bicycle hat to reduce the risk of serious head
> >>> injury or death by any significant extent.
>
> >>> The primary benefit of wearing a foam bicycle hat would be to
> >>> prevent jury prejudice if you are injured by another party and are
> >>> suing for damages, since the average juror will have likely
> >>> swallowed the helmet propaganda whole without question.
>
> >> As much as it PAINS me to get involved in a helmet thread, here goes.
> >> I was hit in the back of the head by a pickup truck mirror and
> >> survived with no head injury---and I was wearing a helmet. Helmet
> >> cracked and was toast, but the skull and brain are fine. They're not
> >> just "bump and scrape" protection. Unless, of course, you think my
> >> skull would have survived a 25mph rear impact from a GMC dually with
> >> no ill effect.
>
> > Goose, Goose, Goose... Doncha know that anecdotes are only allowed in lid
> > threads when they support the AHZ template?
>
> > HTH!
>
> Yes, because God forbid someone with REAL WORLD EXPERIENCE in the matter be
> listened to. :-) I am only here because my helmet took the impact. Period. I
> understand some people wanting to not wear helmets. That's OK. I believe in
> the freedom of people to do what they want as long as they don't hurt anyone
> else. I'm a Libertarian. BUT when the anti-helmet brigade try to justify
> their desires with stats and "do you wear a helmet in the shower" and
> "helmets are only good for bumps and scrapes" they're clouding the issue.
> Helmets work. Helmet laws don't affect the amount of head injuries or
> bicycle fatalities----because if you get hit center mass by a 4000 pound
> vehicle even a MOTORCYCLE helmet wouldn't help. But if you're ever in the
> position to test one in the real world you'll never ride without one. I
> figure that the impact I sustained from the truck mirror was equivalent to a
> baseball bat shot. Would anyone volunteer to take one of those bareheaded?
>
>

I hereby nominate Frank "Don Quixote of the Helmets" Krygowski!
Seconds?

[frkrygow@gmail.com]

On Nov 28, 10:32 pm, "Gooserider" <Gooseri...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>
> ...God forbid someone with REAL WORLD EXPERIENCE in the matter be
> listened to. :-)

And God forbid we ever be skeptical to folks healed by the application
of crystals! Or Bach flower remedies! Or lucky charms! :-)

> I am only here because my helmet took the impact. Period.

That's a statement of faith, not of fact. It cannot possibly be
proven.

> I understand some people wanting to not wear helmets. That's OK. I believe in
> the freedom of people to do what they want as long as they don't hurt anyone
> else. I'm a Libertarian. BUT when the anti-helmet brigade try to justify
> their desires with stats and "do you wear a helmet in the shower" and
> "helmets are only good for bumps and scrapes" they're clouding the issue.

Sorry, but those are not clouds.

The first is simply questioning which activities "need" helmets, and
how do we tell. Why _is_ it that helmets are strongly recommended for
cycling 10 mph, but not for jogging at the same speed? Why is it that
about half the head injuries in America occur inside motor vehicles,
but nobody recommends helmets for use in cars?

The second comes from examining the actual certification standards of
helmets, and their actual effect in large populations. Despite all
the "saved my life" crap we hear, they have NOT been shown to decrease
serious head injuries, let alone fatalities, in large population
studies when their use rises suddenly . And they are NOT designed for
car-bike impacts anyway, as minimal understanding of their
certification standards would prove.

Helmet proponents operate under the assumption that cycling is an
unusually large source of serious head injuries, perhaps at least on a
per hour basis; and that helmet use tremendously reduces the number of
those serious head injuries. Both assumptions are false, period.

> Helmets work. Helmet laws don't affect the amount of head injuries or
> bicycle fatalities----because if you get hit center mass by a 4000 pound
> vehicle even a MOTORCYCLE helmet wouldn't help.

You're admitting they don't help reduce fatalities? OK, that puts you
at odds with the majority of helmet promoters, AFAICT.

You're admitting they don't affect the number of head injuries? OK,
that puts you at odds with the rest of the helmet promoters. It does
put you in agreement with the best research, though - like
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/332/7543/722-a

So what exactly do you mean by the phrase "helmets work"? That they
increase sales of styrofoam?

Do you simply mean that helmets reduce injury in cases so rare as to
be statistically undetectable? If so, we're back to statements of
faith, not science.

And of course, the same logic can be used to sell Zippo lighters for
use in shirt pockets. You know - protection from enemy bullets!

I know. Don't argue with the guy whose Zippo stopped a bullet. Just
get out there and buy your own lighter. And never, ever, ever leave
home without it.

- Frank Krygowski

[Tom Keats]

In article <474e32d5$0$8814$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
"Gooserider" <Gooserider@mouse-potato.com> writes:

> I
> figure that the impact I sustained from the truck mirror was equivalent to a
> baseball bat shot. Would anyone volunteer to take one of those bareheaded?

I wouldn't volunteer to take one of those
even if I was wearing a bicycle helmet.


cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

[Pat]

One thing I know: people who wear helmets always know of a friend or
acquaintance who needed that helmet in a crash of some sort. Evidently,
people who rail against helmet wear do not know anyone who ever benefited
from a helmet. Maybe it's a Darwin survival of the fittest thing....

[Tom Sherman]

Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> On Nov 28, 9:32 pm, "Gooserider" <Gooseri...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>> "Bill Sornson" <as...@ask.me> wrote in message
>>
>> news:474e1e27$0$2303$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>> Gooserider wrote:
>>>> "Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:fiisfl$32j$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>>>>> Duke of Hazard wrote:
>>>>>> I mostly average 10 mph , do I still need to wear a helmet ? I can
>>>>>> understand if you average 15+mph, but are helmets neccessary at
>>>>>> slower speeds? Energy is proportional to the square of the velocity
>>>>>> so the slower you travel the far less you should need one, no?
>>>>> Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee! HELMET THREAD!!!
>>>>> Foam bicycle hats really only offer "bump and scrape" protection in
>>>>> low speed falls, so they are not really necessary during riding. The
>>>>> main place where they would be useful is off-road, where they do
>>>>> help spread out the impact from point loads such as rocks. Do not
>>>>> expect the foam bicycle hat to reduce the risk of serious head
>>>>> injury or death by any significant extent.
>>>>> The primary benefit of wearing a foam bicycle hat would be to
>>>>> prevent jury prejudice if you are injured by another party and are
>>>>> suing for damages, since the average juror will have likely
>>>>> swallowed the helmet propaganda whole without question.
>>>> As much as it PAINS me to get involved in a helmet thread, here goes.
>>>> I was hit in the back of the head by a pickup truck mirror and
>>>> survived with no head injury---and I was wearing a helmet. Helmet
>>>> cracked and was toast, but the skull and brain are fine. They're not
>>>> just "bump and scrape" protection. Unless, of course, you think my
>>>> skull would have survived a 25mph rear impact from a GMC dually with
>>>> no ill effect.
>>> Goose, Goose, Goose... Doncha know that anecdotes are only allowed in lid
>>> threads when they support the AHZ template?
>>> HTH!
>> Yes, because God forbid someone with REAL WORLD EXPERIENCE in the matter be
>> listened to. :-) I am only here because my helmet took the impact. Period. I
>> understand some people wanting to not wear helmets. That's OK. I believe in
>> the freedom of people to do what they want as long as they don't hurt anyone
>> else. I'm a Libertarian. BUT when the anti-helmet brigade try to justify
>> their desires with stats and "do you wear a helmet in the shower" and
>> "helmets are only good for bumps and scrapes" they're clouding the issue.
>> Helmets work. Helmet laws don't affect the amount of head injuries or
>> bicycle fatalities----because if you get hit center mass by a 4000 pound
>> vehicle even a MOTORCYCLE helmet wouldn't help. But if you're ever in the
>> position to test one in the real world you'll never ride without one. I
>> figure that the impact I sustained from the truck mirror was equivalent to a
>> baseball bat shot. Would anyone volunteer to take one of those bareheaded?
>>
>>
>
> I hereby nominate Frank "Don Quixote of the Helmets" Krygowski!
> Seconds?
>
Yeah, let us go with the faith that a foam bicycle hat will do wonders,
when the credible evidence indicates the contrary. Why not just throw
out science and go back to the Dark Ages? Oops, a substantial portion of
the population wants to do just that - they despise science, since their
intellect is not up to it. Sheesh!

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"Localized intense suction such as tornadoes is created when temperature
differences are high enough between meeting air masses, and can impart
excessive energy onto a cyclist." - Randy Schlitter

[Gooserider]

"Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fildk1$vqr$1@registered.motzarella.org...
> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>> On Nov 28, 9:32 pm, "Gooserider" <Gooseri...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>>> "Bill Sornson" <as...@ask.me> wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:474e1e27$0$2303$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Gooserider wrote:
>>>>> "Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:fiisfl$32j$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>>>>>> Duke of Hazard wrote:
>>>>>>> I mostly average 10 mph , do I still need to wear a helmet ? I can
>>>>>>> understand if you average 15+mph, but are helmets neccessary at
>>>>>>> slower speeds? Energy is proportional to the square of the velocity
>>>>>>> so the slower you travel the far less you should need one, no?
>>>>>> Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee! HELMET THREAD!!!
>>>>>> Foam bicycle hats really only offer "bump and scrape" protection in
>>>>>> low speed falls, so they are not really necessary during riding. The
>>>>>> main place where they would be useful is off-road, where they do
>>>>>> help spread out the impact from point loads such as rocks. Do not
>>>>>> expect the foam bicycle hat to reduce the risk of serious head
>>>>>> injury or death by any significant extent.
>>>>>> The primary benefit of wearing a foam bicycle hat would be to
>>>>>> prevent jury prejudice if you are injured by another party and are
>>>>>> suing for damages, since the average juror will have likely
>>>>>> swallowed the helmet propaganda whole without question.
>>>>> As much as it PAINS me to get involved in a helmet thread, here goes.
>>>>> I was hit in the back of the head by a pickup truck mirror and
>>>>> survived with no head injury---and I was wearing a helmet. Helmet
>>>>> cracked and was toast, but the skull and brain are fine. They're not
>>>>> just "bump and scrape" protection. Unless, of course, you think my
>>>>> skull would have survived a 25mph rear impact from a GMC dually with
>>>>> no ill effect.
>>>> Goose, Goose, Goose... Doncha know that anecdotes are only allowed in
>>>> lid
>>>> threads when they support the AHZ template?
>>>> HTH!
>>> Yes, because God forbid someone with REAL WORLD EXPERIENCE in the matter
>>> be
>>> listened to. :-) I am only here because my helmet took the impact.
>>> Period. I
>>> understand some people wanting to not wear helmets. That's OK. I believe
>>> in
>>> the freedom of people to do what they want as long as they don't hurt
>>> anyone
>>> else. I'm a Libertarian. BUT when the anti-helmet brigade try to justify
>>> their desires with stats and "do you wear a helmet in the shower" and
>>> "helmets are only good for bumps and scrapes" they're clouding the
>>> issue.
>>> Helmets work. Helmet laws don't affect the amount of head injuries or
>>> bicycle fatalities----because if you get hit center mass by a 4000 pound
>>> vehicle even a MOTORCYCLE helmet wouldn't help. But if you're ever in
>>> the
>>> position to test one in the real world you'll never ride without one. I
>>> figure that the impact I sustained from the truck mirror was equivalent
>>> to a
>>> baseball bat shot. Would anyone volunteer to take one of those
>>> bareheaded?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I hereby nominate Frank "Don Quixote of the Helmets" Krygowski!
>> Seconds?
> >
> Yeah, let us go with the faith that a foam bicycle hat will do wonders,
> when the credible evidence indicates the contrary. Why not just throw out
> science and go back to the Dark Ages? Oops, a substantial portion of the
> population wants to do just that - they despise science, since their
> intellect is not up to it. Sheesh!

Let me restate it for you----I was HIT IN THE HEAD by the mirror of a GMC
dually pickup truck. I was knocked unconscious and awoke with a cracked
helmet and no concussion. What do you think would have happened to my head
if I'd been wearing just a cycling cap?

[Gooserider]

<frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fbb6ed63-e09d-49ae-a8e8-ff9eefe3e574@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 28, 10:32 pm, "Gooserider" <Gooseri...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>>
>> ...God forbid someone with REAL WORLD EXPERIENCE in the matter be
>> listened to. :-)
>
> And God forbid we ever be skeptical to folks healed by the application
> of crystals! Or Bach flower remedies! Or lucky charms! :-)
>
>> I am only here because my helmet took the impact. Period.
>
> That's a statement of faith, not of fact. It cannot possibly be
> proven.

OK Frank---what effect do you think a truck mirror travelling at 25mph would
have had on my skull? Please elaborate.

[Ozark Bicycle]

On Nov 29, 12:51 am, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <mik...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >I mostly average 10 mph , do I still need to wear a helmet ? I can
> > understand if you average 15+mph, but are helmets neccessary at slower
> > speeds? Energy is proportional to the square of the velocity so the
> > slower you travel the far less you should need one, no?
>
> If you fall in a manner in which the helmet's design offers protection, it
> will help. If you fall in a manner in which the helmet design is deficient
> for that type of impact, it won't.

IOW, to once again quote Peter Chisholm: "Can't hurt, might help".

One wonders why the anti-helmet zealots (we have one posting
repeatedly in this thread) are so adamantly opposed to what is really
a matter of personal choice.

Wear a helmet or don't wear a helmet. It's your choice folks, agenda
driven Gasbags not withstanding. Do what feels right to you. And enjoy
your ride.

[Matt O'Toole]

On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 06:51:52 +0000, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:

>>I mostly average 10 mph , do I still need to wear a helmet ? I can
>> understand if you average 15+mph, but are helmets neccessary at slower
>> speeds? Energy is proportional to the square of the velocity so the
>> slower you travel the far less you should need one, no?
>
> If you fall in a manner in which the helmet's design offers protection,
> it will help. If you fall in a manner in which the helmet design is
> deficient for that type of impact, it won't.
>
> Forward speed isn't likely to have much to do with it. A 3-foot fall to
> the pavement can be enough for a fatal concussion, whether you're going
> zero or 30mph. Forward speed would be relevant if you planned to plow
> head-first into something. but even the best helmet isn't going to do
> too much good in that situation, whether you're going 10 or 15 or 30mph.

Forward speed has a lot to do with it. Look at a video of a motorcycle
crash, or even a bike racing crash, and watch the motion of the victim's
body compared to your own experience with low speed falls.

Football and baseball players routinely make diving catches at ~10mph.
But even with full leathers on, I doubt anyone in their right mind would
dive out of a moving vehicle at 35mph. It isn't the drop to the ground
they're afraid of either.

At that speed your body can be set tumbling, your head driven into the
ground, limbs twisted, etc. -- much quicker than you can react. Hit a
pothole or drop a wheel off the side of the road at speed, and your whole
body rotates around your front wheel at whatever speed you were going,
possibly sending your head straight into the ground. Road racers
frequently fall sideways and break collarbones in high speed crashes,
while a similar crash at low speed would be no worse than being tackled in
a casual football game. Note that MTB/cyclocross racing crashes rarely
result in broken bones.

C'mon people, use your common sense.

Speed may not be the cause of accidents, but it does kill, so to speak.

Matt O.

[frkrygow@gmail.com]

On Nov 29, 6:28 am, nmp <addr...@is.invalid> wrote:
> frkrygow wrote:
> > And anyway, most people do most of their "falling standing still" while
> > using their feet, not their bicycles.
>
> So all pedestrians should be wearing helmets.

Well, that makes as much sense as saying "all bicyclists should wear
helmets."

- Frank Krygowski

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

>> >I mostly average 10 mph , do I still need to wear a helmet ? I can
>> > understand if you average 15+mph, but are helmets neccessary at slower
>> > speeds? Energy is proportional to the square of the velocity so the
>> > slower you travel the far less you should need one, no?
>>
>> If you fall in a manner in which the helmet's design offers protection,
>> it
>> will help. If you fall in a manner in which the helmet design is
>> deficient
>> for that type of impact, it won't.
>
> IOW, to once again quote Peter Chisholm: "Can't hurt, might help".
>
> One wonders why the anti-helmet zealots (we have one posting
> repeatedly in this thread) are so adamantly opposed to what is really
> a matter of personal choice.
>
> Wear a helmet or don't wear a helmet. It's your choice folks, agenda
> driven Gasbags not withstanding. Do what feels right to you. And enjoy
> your ride.

That's pretty much the size of it. For me, I'll wear it just 'cuz. It's what
I do. Funny thing, though. I ask that people wear helmets on my regular
Tuesday/Thursday-morning ride, but I'm dead-set against mandatory helmet
laws, even for kids. Sorry, but I just can't look at a kid out on the
streets, riding a bike, and think of him or her as a criminal. And if
requiring helmets means fewer kids think riding bikes is cool, well, I think
that's the most-criminal thing of all.

--Mike--
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com

[It's Chris]

From: bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com (Ozark*Bicycle):

>One wonders why the anti-helmet
>zealots (we have one posting repeatedly
>in this thread) are so adamantly opposed
>to what is really a matter of personal
>choice.

>Wear a helmet or don't wear a helmet.
>It's your choice folks, agenda driven
>Gasbags not withstanding. Do what feels
>right to you. And enjoy your ride.

Finally, a glimmer of wisdom in an inferno of opinionted chaos.

- -
Compliments of:
"Your Friendly Neighborhood Wheelman"

If you want to E-mail me use:
ChrisZCorner "at" webtv "dot" net

My website:
http://geocities.com/czcorner

[Bill Sornson]

Gooserider wrote:
> Let me restate it for you----I was HIT IN THE HEAD by the mirror of a
> GMC dually pickup truck. I was knocked unconscious and awoke with a
> cracked helmet and no concussion. What do you think would have
> happened to my head if I'd been wearing just a cycling cap?

Having plonked most of the "AHZ Regulars", I'm curious: get any replies to
this? Other than insults, perhaps, I'm guessing...not.

[frkrygow@gmail.com]

On Nov 29, 6:50 am, "Gooserider" <Gooseri...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>
>
> Let me restate it for you----I was HIT IN THE HEAD by the mirror of a GMC
> dually pickup truck. I was knocked unconscious and awoke with a cracked
> helmet and no concussion.

You need to study up on your medical terms. If you were knocked
unconscious, you certainly had a concussion.

> What do you think would have happened to my head
> if I'd been wearing just a cycling cap?

It depends on the site of impact. There's certainly the possibility
that the mirror would have missed entirely. The helmet is a
significantly bigger target than your head.

And of course, it may be that the impact was close enough to dead
center that your bare head would have fared worse. But, as with the
Zippo lighter in the shirt pocket, one incidence of protection doesn't
prove the general value of a protective measure. You need to look at
the large population data.

And that's the data that belies the miracle of flimsy foam helmets.

- Frank Krygowski

[Stephen Harding]

Gooserider wrote:

> Let me restate it for you----I was HIT IN THE HEAD by the mirror of a GMC
> dually pickup truck. I was knocked unconscious and awoke with a cracked
> helmet and no concussion. What do you think would have happened to my head
> if I'd been wearing just a cycling cap?

I think you probably would have been seriously injured.
Dead or not I can't say. Perhaps. Perhaps brain dead.

However, I also hear quite commonly the claim that persons
wearing helmets would be dead if not for the lid. I
find it difficult to believe so many survivors of bike
activity now exist due to it, when no one I know ever
died while biking during my youth when *everyone* biked
to school or around the neighborhood: they died by car
crashes, drowning, falling, and in one case, by stepping
on a nail and developing "lockjaw". But never biking.

My primary concern focus against helmet proponents is
that they seem to reserve the marvelous benefits of
helmet use ("can it hurt to wear one?") to bicycling.

Apparently it *does* hurt to wear one while driving/riding
in a car, or walking around the house or yard, where it
would seem, people believe head injuries never occur.

Wear a helmet if you wish: while bicycling, or motoring
or walking. I just wish helmet proponents would not,
explicitly or implicitly, promote only bicycling as an
activity that is so dangerous one is being irresponsible
in not wearing one.


SMH

[frkrygow@gmail.com]

On Nov 29, 6:52 am, "Gooserider" <Gooseri...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > Would you have been fine without the helmet? We don't know. But to
> > be fair, you shouldn't exaggerate. Your skull survived an impact with
> > a mirror, not a "GMC dually."
>
> The mirror was travelling at 25mph with 4000 pounds of truck behind it. It
> wasn't a 2