Helmet saved my life story.

Possibly in this instance.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTs8AG0JvAI

thirty-six wrote:
Possibly in this instance.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTs8AG0JvAI
You really do not do science do you?

thirty-six wrote:
Possibly in this instance.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTs8AG0JvAI

How can something designed for an impact speed of up to ~12 mph make a
significant difference when being hit by a car at 40 mph?

This is just yet another example of how people make decisions based on
beliefs, not facts.

On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 12:47:41 -0800 (PST), thirty-six
wrote:

Possibly in this instance.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTs8AG0JvAI

There will always be lucky escapes. The helmet broke, therefore it
failed. By their very nature we will never know what would have
happened if he'd not been wearing a helmet.

If you want a silly argument (I know you like those) he would have
been 20 yards up the road if he hadn't taken the time to fasten his
helmet, and wouldn't have been hit at all.

--

Pete

On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 11:48:02 -0000, "Adam Lea"
wrote:

thirty-six wrote:
Possibly in this instance.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTs8AG0JvAI

How can something designed for an impact speed of up to ~12 mph make a
significant difference when being hit by a car at 40 mph?

Sorry - I missed the bit where it actually said that his head was
traveling at forty when it hit whatever it hit.

How about he hit the vehicle at forty - and as a result his speed
suddenly decreased

When his head actually hit whatever it hit, it was traveling at a much
lower speed.

Anyway - do helmets actually stop working at speeds above 12 mph?

Still - you won't want an explanation as to how the helmet may have
saved his life would you.

--

British Medical Association (BMA)
View on helmets:

Several studies provided solid scientific evidence that bicycle helmets
protect against head, brain, severe brain and facial injuries,
as well as death, as a result of cycling accidents

On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 12:03:07 +0000, Peter Grange
wrote:

On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 12:47:41 -0800 (PST), thirty-six
wrote:

Possibly in this instance.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTs8AG0JvAI

There will always be lucky escapes. The helmet broke, therefore it
failed.

Really - perhaps you can care to explain the scientific reasoning
behind your thoughts?

So he hit something at such a speed that the helmet eventually broke -
But the helmet could not have contributed to reducing his injuries in
any way?

Remarkable.

I must remember that.

In an accident - if someone is wearing a cycle helmet - and the
helmet gets broken during the accident - then it has failed and
therefore cannot have contributed to the well-being of the wearer in
any way.

(You make Marc look almost intelligent)






--

British Medical Association (BMA)
View on helmets:

Several studies provided solid scientific evidence that bicycle helmets
protect against head, brain, severe brain and facial injuries,
as well as death, as a result of cycling accidents

Marc wrote:

thirty-six wrote:
Possibly in this instance.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTs8AG0JvAI
You really do not do science do you?

The video poster is fairly certain that the helmet saved his life.

The PP says that the helmet *possibly* [my emphasis] saved the video poster's
life.

And you attack him (the PP).

What was inaccurate about his statement that the helmet *possibly* saved the
video poster's life?

On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 12:25:52 +0000, Judith M Smith
wrote:

On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 12:03:07 +0000, Peter Grange
wrote:

On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 12:47:41 -0800 (PST), thirty-six
wrote:

Possibly in this instance.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTs8AG0JvAI

There will always be lucky escapes. The helmet broke, therefore it
failed.

Really - perhaps you can care to explain the scientific reasoning
behind your thoughts?

It broke. Either it was operating outside its design criteria or it
was faulty. You can presumably explain scientific reasoning for a
broken helmet being better than an unbroken one?


So he hit something at such a speed that the helmet eventually broke -
But the helmet could not have contributed to reducing his injuries in
any way?

Remarkable.

I must remember that.

In an accident - if someone is wearing a cycle helmet - and the
helmet gets broken during the accident - then it has failed and
therefore cannot have contributed to the well-being of the wearer in
any way.

(You make Marc look almost intelligent)



You can of course point out in my post precisely where I said anything
to the effect that:

"So he hit something at such a speed that the helmet eventually broke
But the helmet could not have contributed to reducing his injuries in
any way?"

or

"In an accident - if someone is wearing a cycle helmet - and the
helmet gets broken during the accident - then it has failed and
therefore cannot have contributed to the well-being of the wearer in
any way."

The man is saying he would be dead if he hadn't been wearing a helmet.
That's not "injured in any way".
Sometimes a helmet may indeed limit injuries, especially in those it's
designed for. Sometimes luckily even in situations it's not designed
for. Sometimes it may contribute to injuries. Sometimes someone may
have survived a car crash by being thrown clear where they were killed
my the telegraph pole which went through their seat they were strapped
to, had they chosen not to wear the seat belt. Problem is for each
incident it's difficult, if not impossible, to tell what would have
happened with or without the helmet, airbag, seatbelt or whatever.

I believe the balance is in favour of seat belts, and air bags come to
that. I don't believe the balance is in favour of helmets. Some people
do. Their choice. Its still (sometimes) a free country.




--

Peter Grange

Maricopa Computing Ltd

"Peter Grange" wrote
I believe the balance is in favour of seat belts, and air bags come to
that. I don't believe the balance is in favour of helmets. Some people
do. Their choice. Its still (sometimes) a free country.
People can and do choose to believe almost anything.
Have a look at John Adams' blog. http://john-adams.co.uk/
Interesting stuff on seat belts (and helmets)

Mike Sales

"Adam Lea" wrote in
news
thirty-six wrote:
Possibly in this instance.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTs8AG0JvAI

How can something designed for an impact speed of up to ~12 mph make a
significant difference when being hit by a car at 40 mph?

Because the impact speed on the head may well have been much lower than the
speed the car hit the cyclist at.