I have a funny feeling that if I buy a helmet, it will last me about a
month before it's lost or stolen. So how much should I spend? Are the
cheap ones really nasty?

Thanks

On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 14:35:43 -0700 (PDT), bornfree
 said in
:

>I have a funny feeling that if I buy a helmet, it will last me about a
>month before it's lost or stolen. So how much should I spend? Are the
>cheap ones really nasty?

Why bother?

Guy
-- 
May contain traces of irony.  Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

On 6 Jul, 22:43, "Just zis Guy, you know?"  wrote:
> On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 14:35:43 -0700 (PDT), bornfree
>  said in
> :
>
> >I have a funny feeling that if I buy a helmet, it will last me about a
> >month before it's lost or stolen. So how much should I spend? Are the
> >cheap ones really nasty?
>
> Why bother?

Um. Because I like my head. In one piece.

"bornfree"  wrote in message 
news:ecde48a1-7dff-4e09-8b74-c75d093ae1e3@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>I have a funny feeling that if I buy a helmet, it will last me about a
> month before it's lost or stolen. So how much should I spend? Are the
> cheap ones really nasty?
>
> Thanks

You're obviously far too intelligent to need a helmet.

"bornfree"  wrote in message 
news:92208068-b14e-4d1f-9798-12ed5c7ea748@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On 6 Jul, 22:43, "Just zis Guy, you know?"  wrote:
>> On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 14:35:43 -0700 (PDT), bornfree
>>  said in
>> :
>>
>> >I have a funny feeling that if I buy a helmet, it will last me about a
>> >month before it's lost or stolen. So how much should I spend? Are the
>> >cheap ones really nasty?
>>
>> Why bother?
>
> Um. Because I like my head. In one piece.

and a helmet will help how exactly?  www.cyclehelmets.org
>

bornfree  wrote:

> On 6 Jul, 22:43, "Just zis Guy, you know?"  wrote:
> > On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 14:35:43 -0700 (PDT), bornfree
> >  said in
> > :
> >
> > >I have a funny feeling that if I buy a helmet, it will last me about a
> > >month before it's lost or stolen. So how much should I spend? Are the
> > >cheap ones really nasty?
> >
> > Why bother?
> 
> Um. Because I like my head. In one piece.

what Guy is alluding to is that a inch or so of plastic covered foam
helmet in terms of head in one piece not really going to do much, if any
thing at all. if you want a helmet like that you'll need a motorbike
one, bike helmets are in no way ment for keeping head in one piece but
for falls and such, ie low impacts.

interms of comfort try them on your head will be differnt to mine in
shape and size, find one that fits.

roger
-- 
www.rogermerriman.com

bornfree wrote:
> I have a funny feeling that if I buy a helmet, it will last me about a
> month before it's lost or stolen. So how much should I spend? Are the
> cheap ones really nasty?

The main advantages the more expensive ones have is that they have more 
holes for ventilation, and often more comfortable straps and padding.

If you are going to wear one, find one that fits well and is comfortable.

On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 14:47:14 -0700 (PDT), bornfree
 said in
:

>> >I have a funny feeling that if I buy a helmet, it will last me about a
>> >month before it's lost or stolen. So how much should I spend? Are the
>> >cheap ones really nasty?

>> Why bother?

>Um. Because I like my head. In one piece.

Same here.  Why bother?

Guy
-- 
May contain traces of irony.  Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 14:35:43 -0700 (PDT)
bornfree  wrote:

> I have a funny feeling that if I buy a helmet, it will last me about a
> month before it's lost or stolen. So how much should I spend? Are the
> cheap ones really nasty?
> 
I'd recommend spending about £0.00 on a helmet.  Get some good hats
instead - brims to keep the sun off, peaks to keep the rain out of your
eyes, ear flaps to keep you toasty on a frosty morning ...

bornfree wrote:
> On 6 Jul, 22:43, "Just zis Guy, you know?"  wrote:
>> On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 14:35:43 -0700 (PDT), bornfree
>>  said in
>> :
>>
>>> I have a funny feeling that if I buy a helmet, it will last me about a
>>> month before it's lost or stolen. So how much should I spend? Are the
>>> cheap ones really nasty?
>> Why bother?
> 
> Um. Because I like my head. In one piece.

So since cycling isn't particularly more productive of serious head
injuries than being a pedestrian and not substantially more risky than
typical driving, just use the same one you use as a pedestrian or in a
motor vehicle.  Problem solved!

Pete.
-- 
Peter Clinch                    Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637   Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177              Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk     http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

bornfree said the following on 06/07/2008 22:35:
> I have a funny feeling that if I buy a helmet, it will last me about a
> month before it's lost or stolen. So how much should I spend? Are the
> cheap ones really nasty?

As you have rightly decided that it's your choice whether or not to wear 
a helmet, then pretty much the most important thing is the fit.  Heads 
and helmets vary in shape, so you really do need to go into a shop and 
try out various helmets to find one that fits both lengthways and side 
to side.  There's more to it than the head circumference quoted.  You 
might be lucky and find a cheap one that fits, but correct fit is more 
important than price.  A poorly fitting helmet can be even more 
dangerous than not wearing one at all.

Also, have a look at http://cyclehelmets.org/ to help you decide whether 
or not to wear one on roads.

-- 
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

On Jul 6, 4:35 pm, bornfree  wrote:
> I have a funny feeling that if I buy a helmet, it will last me about a
> month before it's lost or stolen. So how much should I spend? Are the
> cheap ones really nasty?
>
> Thanks

Will you be riding on the streets or off road? And why would you think
a helmet would get stolen?

burtthebike wrote:

> 
> "bornfree"  wrote in message
> news:92208068-b14e-4d1f-9798-12ed5c7ea748@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>> On 6 Jul, 22:43, "Just zis Guy, you know?"  wrote:
>>> On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 14:35:43 -0700 (PDT), bornfree
>>>  said in
>>> :
>>>
>>> >I have a funny feeling that if I buy a helmet, it will last me about a
>>> >month before it's lost or stolen. So how much should I spend? Are the
>>> >cheap ones really nasty?
>>>
>>> Why bother?
>>
>> Um. Because I like my head. In one piece.
> 
> and a helmet will help how exactly?  www.cyclehelmets.org
>>
AT the risk of getting flamed into a tiny pile of ashes ... :)

I would recommend one.

I was wearing a helmet when i was knocked off my bike a few years back. I
cunningly used my left shoulder to break the most of fall and used my head
to absorb the rest of the impact;  hard enough to knock my out for a few
seconds.  

damage report: shoulder buggered, lots of grazing to left arm & left knee,
several broken ribs.
Broken glasses.

No other damage (including scratches) to bonce. Helmet however is another
story ....  I still have it lying around to prove to myself just how close
a call it came (it was a mid range Met helmet, so quite holey - hey I like
to go fast!)

No I realise that YMMV - but for me I'm glad i was wearing it

tim

T  writes:

> I was wearing a helmet when i was knocked off my bike a few years back. I
> cunningly used my left shoulder to break the most of fall and used my head
> to absorb the rest of the impact;  hard enough to knock my out for a few
> seconds.  
>
> damage report: shoulder buggered, lots of grazing to left arm & left knee,
> several broken ribs.
> Broken glasses.

Sympathies.  I had a similar "accident" about six weeks ago, which
resulted in a sternoclavicular dislocation (in laymans terms,
collarbone came out of the breastbone) and associated soft tissue
injuries, a scalp injury that bled enough to ruin a perfectly good
cycle jersey, and some kind of whiplashy-type stuff that made any kind
of neck movement painful for the following two weeks.

The scalp wound healed on its own during the five hours I spent in A+E
waiting to be seen to (they were going to glue it; when they
eventually got to me, they said it wasn't worth it any more).
Difficult to say whether wearing a helmet would have helped much, and
I'm not really wild about repeating it with one.  I have had other
head-strike accidents in skating races when I was wearing a helmet, in
one of which the lining crushed - it felt harder on the head, perhaps
because a helmeted head decelerates through a smaller distance, but on
the other hand no whiplash.  But that's merely anecdata.

Happily, although my glasses flew off my head and bounced down the
road, they were still intact when found.


-dan

T wrote:
> I was wearing a helmet when i was knocked off my bike a few years back. I
> cunningly used my left shoulder to break the most of fall and used my head
> to absorb the rest of the impact;  hard enough to knock my out for a few
> seconds.  

Similarly, my trilby has saved my life twice.
-- 
Robin Johnson

On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 23:28:28 +0100, Daniel Barlow 
wrote:

>T  writes:
>
>> I was wearing a helmet when i was knocked off my bike a few years back. I
>> cunningly used my left shoulder to break the most of fall and used my head
>> to absorb the rest of the impact;  hard enough to knock my out for a few
>> seconds.  
>>
>> damage report: shoulder buggered, lots of grazing to left arm & left knee,
>> several broken ribs.
>> Broken glasses.
>
>Sympathies.  I had a similar "accident" about six weeks ago, which
>resulted in a sternoclavicular dislocation (in laymans terms,
>collarbone came out of the breastbone) and associated soft tissue
>injuries, a scalp injury that bled enough to ruin a perfectly good
>cycle jersey, and some kind of whiplashy-type stuff that made any kind
>of neck movement painful for the following two weeks.
>
>The scalp wound healed on its own during the five hours I spent in A+E
>waiting to be seen to (they were going to glue it; when they
>eventually got to me, they said it wasn't worth it any more).
>Difficult to say whether wearing a helmet would have helped much, and
>I'm not really wild about repeating it with one.  I have had other
>head-strike accidents in skating races when I was wearing a helmet, in
>one of which the lining crushed - it felt harder on the head, perhaps
>because a helmeted head decelerates through a smaller distance, but on
>the other hand no whiplash.  But that's merely anecdata.

That sounds remarkably similar to my injuries in April last year.  If
I were to repeat the exercise I would rather do so with a helmet than
without.

I have no intention of repeating the exercise so I still don't wear a
helmet.

On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 22:33:12 +0100
T  wrote:

> I was wearing a helmet when i was knocked off my bike a few years
> back. I cunningly used my left shoulder to break the most of fall and
> used my head to absorb the rest of the impact;  hard enough to knock
> my out for a few seconds.  
> 
So the helmet decelerated your brain and knocked you out - had you not
been wearing it your head would have had more room to decelerate, and
less energy to dissipate (the mass of the helmet adds considerably to
the rotational mass of your head, being furthest from your neck).
:-)

>
>No I realise that YMMV - but for me I'm glad i was wearing it
>
Which is as things should be. I don't wear one, you prefer to. We have
a choice. I would like to leave it that way, with no legislation to
force wearing one (or force not wearing one, come to that).

Pete

Peter Grange wrote:
>> No I realise that YMMV - but for me I'm glad i was wearing it
>>
> Which is as things should be. I don't wear one, you prefer to. We have
> a choice. I would like to leave it that way, with no legislation to
> force wearing one (or force not wearing one, come to that).

Unfortuntately, the way to leave it that way is not to wear one!
-- 
Robin Johnson

On 7 Jul, 10:06, Paul Boyd  wrote:
> bornfree said the following on 06/07/2008 22:35:
>
> > I have a funny feeling that if I buy a helmet, it will last me about a
> > month before it's lost or stolen. So how much should I spend? Are the
> > cheap ones really nasty?
>
> As you have rightly decided that it's your choice whether or not to wear
> a helmet, then pretty much the most important thing is the fit.  Heads
> and helmets vary in shape, so you really do need to go into a shop and
> try out various helmets to find one that fits both lengthways and side
> to side.  There's more to it than the head circumference quoted.  You
> might be lucky and find a cheap one that fits, but correct fit is more
> important than price.  A poorly fitting helmet can be even more
> dangerous than not wearing one at all.
>
> Also, have a look at http://cyclehelmets.org/to help you decide whether
> or not to wear one on roads.
>

Paul, always the voice of restrained reason! :) Yes, I have never been
that convinced about cycle helmets, but seeing everyone cycling on
hyde park corner, 8 out of every 10th cyclist had a helmet. However I
now beleive they do it to conform - to the general ignorant view that
cycling is dangerous.

However I am still worried about my little knee.

On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 11:21:52 -0700 (PDT)
bornfree  wrote:

> However I
> now beleive they do it to conform - to the general ignorant view that
> cycling is dangerous.
> 
Or that helmets actually work.  :-)

burtthebike wrote:

> 
> "bornfree"  wrote in message
> news:92208068-b14e-4d1f-9798-12ed5c7ea748@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>> On 6 Jul, 22:43, "Just zis Guy, you know?"  wrote:
>>> On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 14:35:43 -0700 (PDT), bornfree
>>>  said in
>>> :
>>>
>>> >I have a funny feeling that if I buy a helmet, it will last me about a
>>> >month before it's lost or stolen. So how much should I spend? Are the
>>> >cheap ones really nasty?
>>>
>>> Why bother?
>>
>> Um. Because I like my head. In one piece.
> 
> and a helmet will help how exactly?  www.cyclehelmets.org

Thank you for the link - very interesting - i wasn't aware just how few
studies had been done. it's food for thought.

You know - i just cannot believe that any legislature wuold pass a law based
on isufficient data.  How did this happen? can we stop this kind of policy
making?  - mutter mutter grumble. humpff

t

Peter Grange wrote:

> 
>>
>>No I realise that YMMV - but for me I'm glad i was wearing it
>>
> Which is as things should be. I don't wear one, you prefer to. We have
> a choice. I would like to leave it that way, with no legislation to
> force wearing one (or force not wearing one, come to that).
> 
> Pete
which is why I didn't say "wear one" :)

I agree with you - it is a personal choice, & i have got used to wearing one
(they were made compulsory in NZ about 20yrs ago I think (can someone
confirm?) - so I was used to wearing one then (& did not like it).  One
thing now is that they are *soooo* much lighter & more comfortable now than
they used to be.

If challenged I'd probably go so far as to admit that they might provide the
illusion of safety to the wearer (a bit like the illusion of safety a
SUV/4x4 driver feels!), but i'd also say my irrational choice is to feel
that safety :) (I'm human - logic is not required!)

I think it should be up to the individual, so i'll keep on wearing one.


re: other writers - I've been told that the shape at the back of teh more
sporty helmets can cause additional neck injuries if the pointy bit catches
on the tarmac (told by a guy who wears thsi sort of helmet!)


regards

bornfree  writes:

> Paul, always the voice of restrained reason! :) Yes, I have never been
> that convinced about cycle helmets, but seeing everyone cycling on
> hyde park corner, 8 out of every 10th cyclist had a helmet. However I

As a cyclist, pedestrian and skater, some of the cyclists that I see
going through hyde park corner are such scary arrogant stuck-up brats
that I suppose I should be grateful they're not driving cars when I
encounter them.  It's a shared public pedestrian space and there's no
excuse for the Mr Toad behaviour of sailing through it at a rate of
knots while ringing ones bell and expecting everyone else to dash out
of the way.  Ditto on many of the paths through Hyde Park.

Which rant is kind of tangential to your point, but I really just
wanted to say I wouldn't look up to them as arbiters of safety or
sensible cycling or anything else really.


-dan

T wrote:

> You know - i just cannot believe that any legislature wuold pass a law based
> on isufficient data. 

Never seen a government adopt a policy based entirely on faith over
evidence?  I suspect you have... think how criminalising drugs will
solve the drugs problem.  Think how removing Saddam Hussein form Iraq
will make that place prosperous and peaceful.

In other words, it's being going on for as long as there have been
governments.  The point is it's what the people in charge have decided
ought to work, not necessarily what has any real-world relevance.

> How did this happen? 

Typically well meaning people who think they know better than reality.
Usually because they are genuinely well meaning they never stop to
consider they might be wrong.

> can we stop this kind of policy making? 

Next time it rears its head write to your MP with a distillation of the
facts because s/he's the one who gets to vote on it.

Pete.
-- 
Peter Clinch                    Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637   Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177              Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk     http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

On Tue, 08 Jul 2008 20:52:08 +0100
T  wrote:

> (a bit like the illusion of safety a SUV/4x4 driver feels!)

That's not an illusion - the larger your vehicle the less likely you
are to be hurt in a collision with another vehicle, other design
features being similar.  Of course this really just shifts the damage
onto someone else, and puts added pressure on the road system and the
environment generally, but the drivers don't seem to care as long
as /they/ are OK.  (This obviously doesn't apply to some people who have
a genuine need for a large vehicle, or me if I ever get that Unimog.)

Rob Morley wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Jul 2008 20:52:08 +0100
> T  wrote:
> 
>> (a bit like the illusion of safety a SUV/4x4 driver feels!)
> 
> That's not an illusion - the larger your vehicle the less likely you
> are to be hurt in a collision with another vehicle, other design
> features being similar.

Though SUVs are higher and consequently that bit easier to roll, all
else is /not/ equal.

Pete.
-- 
Peter Clinch                    Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637   Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177              Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk     http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

On Wed, 09 Jul 2008 09:35:21 +0100
Peter Clinch  wrote:

> Rob Morley wrote:
> > On Tue, 08 Jul 2008 20:52:08 +0100
> > T  wrote:
> > 
> >> (a bit like the illusion of safety a SUV/4x4 driver feels!)
> > 
> > That's not an illusion - the larger your vehicle the less likely you
> > are to be hurt in a collision with another vehicle, other design
> > features being similar.
> 
> Though SUVs are higher and consequently that bit easier to roll, all
> else is /not/ equal.
> 
That's precisely why I qualified with "other design features being
similar" - I have no idea whether the propensity for rollover
significantly contributes to serious injury, either unaided or in
combination with a collision pre/post-rollover.

On 7 Jul, 19:32, Marz  wrote:
> On Jul 6, 4:35 pm, bornfree  wrote:
>
> > I have a funny feeling that if I buy a helmet, it will last me about a
> > month before it's lost or stolen. So how much should I spend? Are the
> > cheap ones really nasty?
>
> > Thanks
>
> Will you be riding on the streets or off road? And why would you think
> a helmet would get stolen?

Because I live in a place called London.

On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 09:28:56 +0100, Rob Morley  wrote:
>  On Tue, 08 Jul 2008 20:52:08 +0100
>  T  wrote:
> 
> > (a bit like the illusion of safety a SUV/4x4 driver feels!)
> 
>  That's not an illusion - the larger your vehicle the less likely you
>  are to be hurt in a collision with another vehicle, other design
>  features being similar.

But they aren't.  As well as being more likely to roll, SUVs typically 
have a more rigid body, fewer crumple zones, and conduct more force to 
the occupants in a given speed collision than a 'normal' car.

Putting bull bars on the front makes it even worse, in a collision 
with a reasonably solid object (such as for example, a tree or a 
building, or probably even a bull).

It _is_ an illusion of safety.

Your argument boils down to "it wouldn't be an illusion of safety if 
it weren't".

regards,   Ian SMith
-- 
  |\ /|      no .sig
  |o o|
  |/ \|

In article <20080709102624.41796568@bluemoon>, Rob Morley wrote:
>Peter Clinch  wrote:
>> Rob Morley wrote:
>> > T  wrote:
>> >> (a bit like the illusion of safety a SUV/4x4 driver feels!)
>> > 
>> > That's not an illusion - the larger your vehicle the less likely you
>> > are to be hurt in a collision with another vehicle, other design
>> > features being similar.
>> 
>> Though SUVs are higher and consequently that bit easier to roll, all
>> else is /not/ equal.
>> 
>That's precisely why I qualified with "other design features being
>similar" - I have no idea whether the propensity for rollover
>significantly contributes to serious injury, either unaided or in
>combination with a collision pre/post-rollover.

Based on the discussions of SUV statistics I've seen, it does make a 
significant contribution and the idea that such a car gains you increased 
overall safety _is_ an illusion.
(Not just because of the increased rollover danger - the poorer low level
rear visibility increases the number of "child run over by parent reversing
in their own driveway" type accidents.)

Alan Braggins wrote:
> In article <20080709102624.41796568@bluemoon>, Rob Morley wrote:
>> Peter Clinch  wrote:
>>> Though SUVs are higher and consequently that bit easier to roll, all
>>> else is /not/ equal.
>>>
>> That's precisely why I qualified with "other design features being
>> similar" - I have no idea whether the propensity for rollover
>> significantly contributes to serious injury, either unaided or in
>> combination with a collision pre/post-rollover.
> 
> Based on the discussions of SUV statistics I've seen, it does make a 
> significant contribution and the idea that such a car gains you increased 
> overall safety _is_ an illusion.

Interesting.

> (Not just because of the increased rollover danger - the poorer low level
> rear visibility increases the number of "child run over by parent reversing
> in their own driveway" type accidents.)

That's back to the confusion of driver safety and road safety.
-- 
Robin Johnson

In news:slrng79blo.88t.ian@acheron.smithnet,
Ian Smith  tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:

> But they aren't.  As well as being more likely to roll, SUVs typically
> have a more rigid body, fewer crumple zones, and conduct more force to
> the occupants in a given speed collision than a 'normal' car.
>
> Putting bull bars on the front makes it even worse, in a collision
> with a reasonably solid object (such as for example, a tree or a
> building, or probably even a bull).
>
> It _is_ an illusion of safety.

A couple of years ago "5th Gear" staged a crash test between a Lard-Rover 
Discovery and a Renault Espace and, IIRC, conclude that the Espace driver 
would likely have walked away, while the Disco driver would have been lucky 
to escape alive at all.

-- 
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
We had that Maurits C. Escher in to do some building work once.
I haven't been able to leave the house since.

Dave Larrington wrote:
> In news:slrng79blo.88t.ian@acheron.smithnet,
> Ian Smith  tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:
> 
>> But they aren't.  As well as being more likely to roll, SUVs typically
>> have a more rigid body, fewer crumple zones, and conduct more force to
>> the occupants in a given speed collision than a 'normal' car.
>>
>> Putting bull bars on the front makes it even worse, in a collision
>> with a reasonably solid object (such as for example, a tree or a
>> building, or probably even a bull).
>>
>> It _is_ an illusion of safety.
> 
> A couple of years ago "5th Gear" staged a crash test between a Lard-Rover 
> Discovery and a Renault Espace and, IIRC, conclude that the Espace driver 
> would likely have walked away, while the Disco driver would have been lucky 
> to escape alive at all.

SUVs are built to much less exacting safety standards than MPVs like the
Espace.  Why is that?  Because they can be (without gfalling fould of
legislation, at least in the US), and it makes them a lot cheaper to build.

Pete.
-- 
Peter Clinch                    Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637   Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177              Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk     http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

In article <Dt2dk.267802$M63.37280@newsfe13.ams2>, Robin Johnson wrote:
>Alan Braggins wrote:
>> In article <20080709102624.41796568@bluemoon>, Rob Morley wrote:
>>> Peter Clinch  wrote:
>>>> Though SUVs are higher and consequently that bit easier to roll, all
>>>> else is /not/ equal.
>>>>
>>> That's precisely why I qualified with "other design features being
>>> similar" - I have no idea whether the propensity for rollover
>>> significantly contributes to serious injury, either unaided or in
>>> combination with a collision pre/post-rollover.
>> 
>> Based on the discussions of SUV statistics I've seen, it does make a 
>> significant contribution and the idea that such a car gains you increased 
>> overall safety _is_ an illusion.
>
>Interesting.
>
>> (Not just because of the increased rollover danger - the poorer low level
>> rear visibility increases the number of "child run over by parent reversing
>> in their own driveway" type accidents.)
>
>That's back to the confusion of driver safety and road safety.

Yes, but people who justify the purchase of an SUV on safety grounds
generally do so with reference to the vehicle occupants in general, 
not just to the driver. So increased likelyhood of accidents to their
immediate family does affect how illusionary the benefits are in a
way that increased danger to random other road users doesn't.

On Jul 9, 7:13 am, bornfree  wrote:
> On 7 Jul, 19:32, Marz  wrote:
>
> > On Jul 6, 4:35 pm, bornfree  wrote:
>
> > > I have a funny feeling that if I buy a helmet, it will last me about a
> > > month before it's lost or stolen. So how much should I spend? Are the
> > > cheap ones really nasty?
>
> > > Thanks
>
> > Will you be riding on the streets or off road? And why would you think
> > a helmet would get stolen?
>
> Because I live in a place called London.

Where will you be leaving your helmet that'll mean it'll get stolen. I
know that bikes can vanish in under 30 seconds in London, but the
helmet goes with you.

On Jul 7, 10:33 pm, T  wrote:
> burtthebike wrote:
>
> > "bornfree"  wrote in message
> >news:92208068-b14e-4d1f-9798-12ed5c7ea748@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com..> >> On 6 Jul, 22:43, "Just zis Guy, you know?"  wrote:
> >>> On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 14:35:43 -0700 (PDT), bornfree
> >>>  said in
> >>> :
>
> >>> >I have a funny feeling that if I buy a helmet, it will last me about a
> >>> >month before it's lost or stolen. So how much should I spend? Are the
> >>> >cheap ones really nasty?
>
> >>> Why bother?
>
> >> Um. Because I like my head. In one piece.
>
> > and a helmet will help how exactly?  www.cyclehelmets.org
>
> AT the risk of getting flamed into a tiny pile of ashes ... :)
>
> I would recommend one.
>
> I was wearing a helmet when i was knocked off my bike a few years back. I
> cunningly used my left shoulder to break the most of fall and used my head
> to absorb the rest of the impact;  hard enough to knock my out for a few
> seconds.  
>
> damage report: shoulder buggered, lots of grazing to left arm & left knee> several broken ribs.
> Broken glasses.
>
> No other damage (including scratches) to bonce. Helmet however is another
> story ....  I still have it lying around to prove to myself just how close
> a call it came (it was a mid range Met helmet, so quite holey - hey I like
> to go fast!)
>
> No I realise that YMMV - but for me I'm glad i was wearing it
>
> tim

I like the YMMV (Your Mileage May Vary) term (I had to look it up).

I bought a 1940s bike a couple of years ago from a pal. A week after,
on a ride going down a hill (on a CRABS ride in Dorset) the front
mudguard screw fell out and the mudguard wrapped around the front
wheel stopping me instantly. I flew (according to a friend who was
riding behind me) 10 feet in the air and landed on my head. I was
unconscious for 5 minutes and in Southampton General hospital for 3
days (I dont remember any of this period). Fully recovered on the
forth day.

I consider it fortunate that I was wearing a cycle helmet - which had
a large lump taken out of it. Better that than my head!

YMMV!

BeSeenOnABike.com wrote:

> I consider it fortunate that I was wearing a cycle helmet - which had
> a large lump taken out of it. Better that than my head!
> 
> YMMV!

May not be as clear cut as you think.  If the lid had "a large lump
taken out of it" that suggests it didn't simply deform which is how they
absorb energy by design, but after shattering, where they absorb very
little.  It may have deformed before shattering, but the degree to which
it will absorb energy is actually quite limited (read the specification
if you don't believe that, and then consider they're built down /to/ a
specification, not up from one).

Lids are made of expanded polystyrene.  It's quite easy to break it and
take lumps out of it.  Skulls are made of bones, which are hard to break
and take lumps out of, so you can't just assume that a lump out of a
helmet would be a lump out of your skull.  In fact probably the
opposite, you'd have a lump /on/ your head (rather than out of it) like
an egg and that would be worth avoiding, but assuming the
unconsciousness or hospital stay would have been worse is actually well
beyond a safe conclusion.  But if you're thinking you wouldn't want to
repeat without a lid to know for sure, well, that's fair enough!

Me, I don't wear a helmet.  I also use SKS mudguards which are designed
to fail a bit more gracefully.

It's not beyond the realms of possibility that you could fly 10 feet and
land on your head tripping or slipping while descending stairs.  Not in
a different league of possibility to a mudguard sending you over your
bars at speed.  But nobody seems to think wearing helmets on stairs is a
worthwhile thing to do, even if they've survived having done it and
after a few days in hospital.  That's not to say you shouldn't wear your
lid, but just that you should be aware that wearing one for cycling and
not for similarly dangerous activities is a double standard in logic to
some degree, or in other words that your reason to be really glad of a
helmet is again not as clear cut as you may have thought.

Pete.
-- 
Peter Clinch                    Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637   Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177              Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk     http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 22:45:40 -0700 (PDT)
"BeSeenOnABike.com"  wrote:

> I bought a 1940s bike a couple of years ago from a pal. A week after,
> on a ride going down a hill (on a CRABS ride in Dorset) the front
> mudguard screw fell out and the mudguard wrapped around the front
> wheel stopping me instantly.

So if the bike was properly maintained this wouldn't have happened.
Did you ever hear of "primary safety measures"?

> I flew (according to a friend who was
> riding behind me) 10 feet in the air and landed on my head. I was
> unconscious for 5 minutes and in Southampton General hospital for 3
> days (I dont remember any of this period). Fully recovered on the
> forth day.
> 
> I consider it fortunate that I was wearing a cycle helmet - which had
> a large lump taken out of it. Better that than my head!
> 
Of course it's possible that the helmet caught on the road surface,
whipping your head around so forcefully that /that/ caused your
(temporary) brain injury.  It certainly wouldn't have provided much
protection, as bringing your entire body weight down on the helmet at
speed is way beyond what it's designed to withstand (and helmets aren't
manufactured to exceed the minimum standards by much, or they'd be too
hot/heavy/bulky/expensive) as evidenced by the fact that the structure
failed.

On 06/07/2008 22:35, bornfree wrote:
> I have a funny feeling that if I buy a helmet, it will last me about a
> month before it's lost or stolen. So how much should I spend? Are the
> cheap ones really nasty?

If you really want a cheap helmet, Aldi are getting them in on Thursday:
<http://www.aldi.co.uk/uk/html/offers/58_6592.htm?WT.mc_id=2008-07-14-12-30>

I would suggest that their description of the product is somewhat 
inaccurate:
"Essential head protection that no committed cyclist should be without."

-- 
Danny Colyer  <http://www.redpedals.co.uk>
Reply address is valid, but that on my website is checked more often
"The plural of anecdote is not data" - Frank Kotsonis

On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 19:01:59 +0100, Danny Colyer wrote:

> If you really want a cheap helmet, Aldi are getting them in on Thursday:
> <http://www.aldi.co.uk/uk/html/offers/58_6592.htm?WT.mc_id=2008-07-14-12-30>
> 
> I would suggest that their description of the product is somewhat 
> inaccurate:
> "Essential head protection that no committed cyclist should be without."

The Works in Wrexham had some on special offer for £5 each.  Some people
were seriously considering buying them.

peter

On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 14:17:54 -0500
naked_draughtsman  wrote:

> On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 19:01:59 퍝, Danny Colyer wrote:
> 
> > If you really want a cheap helmet, Aldi are getting them in on
> > Thursday:
> > <http://www.aldi.co.uk/uk/html/offers/58_6592.htm?WT.mc_id=2008-07-14-12-30>
> > 
> > I would suggest that their description of the product is somewhat 
> > inaccurate:
> > "Essential head protection that no committed cyclist should be
> > without."
> 
> The Works in Wrexham had some on special offer for £5 each.  Some
> people were seriously considering buying them.
> 
"If you have a ten dollar head wear a ten dollar helmet."  :-)

Rob Morley  wrote:

> On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 14:17:54 -0500
> naked_draughtsman  wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 19:01:59 +0100, Danny Colyer wrote:
> > 
> > > If you really want a cheap helmet, Aldi are getting them in on
> > > Thursday:
> > >
<http://www.aldi.co.uk/uk/html/offers/58_6592.htm?WT.mc_id=2008-07-14-12
-30>
> > > 
> > > I would suggest that their description of the product is somewhat
> > > inaccurate:
> > > "Essential head protection that no committed cyclist should be
> > > without."
> > 
> > The Works in Wrexham had some on special offer for £5 each.  Some
> > people were seriously considering buying them.
> > 
> "If you have a ten dollar head wear a ten dollar helmet."  :-)

for our honeymoon we are off to Australia and will have bikes to use
when there, most likely, so we will need some helmets, as they will be
used for maybe a few rides before we come back not likely to want to
spend much as not likely to use them here.

roger
-- 
www.rogermerriman.com

On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 13:30:14 +0100
NEWS@wodger.demon.co.uk (Roger Merriman) wrote:

> Rob Morley  wrote:
> 
> > "If you have a ten dollar head wear a ten dollar helmet."  :-)
> 
> for our honeymoon we are off to Australia

That's OK if you don't mind supporting a fascist regime, I suppose.  :-P