Helmet saved my life story.

On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 14:04:01 -0000, "Mike Sales"
wrote:


"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

OK, will read that thanks. Won't be for a day or two though, Real Life
is interrupting for the weekend....

--

Pete

On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 13:55:55 +0000, Peter Grange
wrote:

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 every helmet that breaks - "fails" - remarkable - must be a design
fault.




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.


And you know that is not true, precisely how?

Why not just admit it - the helmet could have saved his life.


--

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

Judith M Smith wrote in
:

Why not just admit it - the helmet could have saved his life.

Asking that is like asking a follower of a religion to accept that there
isn't a god.

"Mr. Benn" wrote in message
...
Judith M Smith wrote in
:

Why not just admit it - the helmet could have saved his life.

Asking that is like asking a follower of a religion to accept that there
isn't a god.

Yes, I have given up on that one too.

There is the possibility that the breaking helmet (designed for impacts up
to 12mph) did actually absorb *some* shock and protected the wearer from
*some* abrasion. It's a far fetched theory I know.

Not as far fetched as a 14 year old girl getting pregnant, (not by her
boyfriend but by some superior being) and then 2 weeks later giving birth to
the Son of Him.

It truly is amazing what people will believe if they want to. Meanwhile, I
will believe that helmets offer cyclists some protection and Joseph was
likely to be the daddy.

On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 17:52:31 -0000, "mileburner"
wrote:


"Mr. Benn" wrote in message
...
Judith M Smith wrote in
:

Why not just admit it - the helmet could have saved his life.

Asking that is like asking a follower of a religion to accept that there
isn't a god.

Yes, I have given up on that one too.

There is the possibility that the breaking helmet (designed for impacts up
to 12mph) did actually absorb *some* shock and protected the wearer from
*some* abrasion.



Good - so it is quite possible that the helmet saved his life.

I'm glad we have cleared that up.

PS - how do they actually design and build those cycle helmets such
that they only work up to a certain speed and then stop working or
worse become a liability?



--

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

"thirty-six" wrote in message
...
Possibly in this instance.

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

Four m/c riders were killed in the week I got knocked off and they all had
full face m/c helmets on. I didn't wear one and was OK.


--
Simon Mason
http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/

"mileburner" wrote in
:


"Mr. Benn" wrote in message
...
Judith M Smith wrote in
:

Why not just admit it - the helmet could have saved his life.

Asking that is like asking a follower of a religion to accept that
there isn't a god.

Yes, I have given up on that one too.

You missed my point completely.

"Judith M Smith" wrote in message
PS - how do they actually design and build those cycle helmets such
that they only work up to a certain speed and then stop working or
worse become a liability?

It's the nature of expanded polystyrene. Simple physics.

"It has to be one of everybody's worst fears: a brain injury which leaves
you a vegetable. Helmet promoters talk about these kinds of injuries a lot -
right before telling you that helmets prevent 88% of brain injuries.


It's all down to the definition of brain injury. The most common form of
brain injury appears to be concussion. That's the headache and residual
malaise you get when you fall and bang your head. This is, officially, a
traumatic brain injury and when helmet promoters talk about preventing brain
injury or traumatic brain injury, this is mostly what they are talking
about. Concussion is very common and rarely causes lasting damage. It's
undesirable of course but not something that inspires dread. And that, of
course, is why helmet promoters refer to brain injury not concussion: the
term brain injury conjures up the spectre of permanent disability or worse
whereas concussion is one of those things that just happens.


Obviously some brain injuries are more serious than mere concussion, but
just think for a minute: is it credible that a couple of centimetres of
polystyrene foam could prevent a concussion? well, yes, it is. Is it
credible that it could prevent brain injury sufficient to cause permanent
impairment? Problematic.


Problematic for two reasons: first, the way helmets work: the foam crushes
until it can crush no more. *A large impact will rapidly reach that point,
after which no further energy is absorbed. Indeed, the foam may fracture, in
which case the helmet will have absorbed much less energy than designed -
polystyrene foam absorbs little energy in brittle fracture*. You can verify
this for yourself with a bit of packing some time. It has been stated by
Britain's leading helmet tester that the energies car v. cyclists collisions
routinely exceed the capacity of Formula 1 racing helmets.

Second, and more controversially, it is now thought that the dominant cause
of serious traumatic brain injury is something called diffuse axonal injury,
caused by rapid twisting of the head causing the two lobes of the brain to
be torn apart. These rotational injuries have been documented in car crash
victims (who form the bulk of seriously brain injured people). The worst
injuries come from side impacts. That's why side curtain airbags are now
becoming common."



--
Simon Mason
http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/

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?

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



Lets see, it would lesson the impact & how do you know that the impact
speed was 40mph?


--
Tony Dragon

Tony Dragon wrote:
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?

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



Lets see, it would lesson the impact & how do you know that the impact
speed was 40mph?

Text on the video "The car hit me at 40 mph".

Note that I said "significant difference" not "any difference".