Compulsory Bicycle Helmets cost Australia almost $500 million p.a.

http://www.cycle-helmets.com/

"terryc" wrote in message ...
http://www.cycle-helmets.com/

terryc wrote:
http://www.cycle-helmets.com/

It's just propaganda. Ignore it.

"terryc" wrote in message ...
http://www.cycle-helmets.com/

The analysis is way too simple.

The number of car drivers has increased 80% since 1992, so the risk to cyclists has been multiplied.

The increase in car drivers includes cyclists who have dropped out. The 2008 figures are different.

I bought a Bell back in 77 and liked it. More recent helmets seem to have a ****** factor built in.

I've also seen a skull that's wacked pavement and respect the helmet advantage.

Maybe the helmeted cyclists are prone to higher risk? Maybe MTB usage (since 92) have contributed to higher risk?

Maybe cycle education (which used to be wise "word of mouth" has failed in keeping cyclists safe. Earlier, lots of kids cycled to school, so had instincts...

Tomasso.

"terryc" wrote in message ...
http://www.cycle-helmets.com/

The analysis is way too simple.

The number of car drivers has increased 80% since 1992, so the risk to cyclists has been multiplied.

The increase in car drivers includes cyclists who have dropped out. The 2008 figures are different.

I bought a Bell helmet back in 77 and liked it. More recent helmets seem to have a ****** factor built in.

I've also seen a skull that's wacked pavement and respect the helmet advantage.

Maybe the helmeted cyclists are prone to higher risk? Maybe MTB usage (since 92) have contributed to higher risk?

Maybe cycle education (which used to be wise "word of mouth" has failed in keeping cyclists safe). Earlier, lots of kids cycled to school, so had instincts...

Tomasso.

Tomasso wrote:
"terryc" wrote in message ...
http://www.cycle-helmets.com/

The analysis is way too simple.

The number of car drivers has increased 80% since 1992, so the risk to cyclists has been multiplied.

The increase in car drivers includes cyclists who have dropped out. The 2008 figures are different.

I bought a Bell helmet back in 77 and liked it. More recent helmets seem to have a ****** factor built in.

I've also seen a skull that's wacked pavement and respect the helmet advantage.

Maybe the helmeted cyclists are prone to higher risk? Maybe MTB usage (since 92) have contributed to higher risk?

Maybe cycle education (which used to be wise "word of mouth" has failed in keeping cyclists safe). Earlier, lots of kids cycled to school, so had instincts...

Tomasso.

Who cares about statistics, I'm wearing my helmet no matter what!

Davo wrote:
Tomasso wrote:
"terryc" wrote in message
...
http://www.cycle-helmets.com/

The analysis is way too simple.

The number of car drivers has increased 80% since 1992, so the risk to
cyclists has been multiplied.

slight snip

Tomasso.

Who cares about statistics, I'm wearing my helmet no matter what!
I'm wearing my helmet too, but am under no illusions about its nature
and function. The common misconception is that riding with a helmet on
makes it safer. Not exactly, more a last line of defense when all else
fails.
And when you're cleaned up by two tonnes of metal doing 100 k/mh, you
are dead however you cut it. The dramatic increase in Australia's (and
the world's) car population is a threat to all other road users.
Unfortunately, the planet seems increasingly addicted to large
carbon-farting tin boxes.
Here in Melbourne, we've just had another new freeway announced. Of what
conceivable use is this? It simply increases everyone's car dependency.
I'd like to maintain some optimism for the future, but it's difficult
when confronted with stupidity such as this on so massive a scale.
Regards,
Ray

On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 07:50:21 +1100, ray wrote:


And when you're cleaned up by two tonnes of metal doing 100 k/mh, you
are dead however you cut it.

I doubt if it is even that fast. I think is it something in the 40's.

In aus.bicycle on 02 Apr 2009 21:32:36 GMT
terryc wrote:
On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 07:50:21 +1100, ray wrote:


And when you're cleaned up by two tonnes of metal doing 100 k/mh, you
are dead however you cut it.

I doubt if it is even that fast. I think is it something in the 40's.

In US states without motorcycle helmet laws, there's evidence that bods
who die who are not wearing helmets and were in multi vehicle crashes
had injuries that would have killed them anyway... they had head injuries
but tended to have other fatal injuries as well.

(Good data is hard to find as there's so much emotion about the
issue.)

I don't have any data for the G forces bicycle helmets are supposed to
attenuate.
http://www.motorcyclistonline.com/ge...iew/index.html
is a good overview of motorcycle helmets - what they are supposed to
do and how they do it. If you compare the average bicycle helmet to a
motorcycle helmet, you can see that there's a lot less protection.

(but is there? does the hard shell matter? Read the story.)

Question is... how much of an impact will you get in a bicycle crash?
You want to have less than 200Gs of acelleration passed to your noggin
because much over that is severe head injury territory.

Does anyone know what the Oz standard for helmets is? What the max G
force should be and how it is measured?

If you are racing along on the drops and your front wheel stops so you
end up headbutting the ground then how much will that helmet
decellerate the head? Enough?

If you fall over because you mess up your clipping out and your
shoulder hits the ground then your head, how many Gs will the head
take?

If it hit the kerbing, a smaller impact surface than the road, what
then?

I don't know... I suspect that most helmets don't fit well enough not
to move (I know I have a hell of a time getting mine to fit well and
that is no matter the price of them because tight chinstraps are
uncomfortable) and I don't know what forces they are supposed to
handle.

I'd bet that you'd be happier to headbutt the ground at slow speeds in
one than without, but that much above walking pace you might find that
the lid doesn't save you.

LIke leathers for motorcyclists - it won't save you from the nasty
crashes people scare others with, but will help with the slow stuff.

Zebee

On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 01:18:49 +0000, Zebee Johnstone wrote:

In aus.bicycle on 02 Apr 2009 21:32:36 GMT terryc
wrote:
On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 07:50:21 +1100, ray wrote:


And when you're cleaned up by two tonnes of metal doing 100 k/mh, you
are dead however you cut it.

I doubt if it is even that fast. I think is it something in the 40's.

In US states without motorcycle helmet laws, there's evidence that bods
who die who are not wearing helmets and were in multi vehicle crashes
had injuries that would have killed them anyway... they had head
injuries but tended to have other fatal injuries as well.

(Good data is hard to find as there's so much emotion about the issue.)

I don't have any data for the G forces bicycle helmets are supposed to
attenuate.

They are supposed to impart less than 300g to a headform dropped from
1.5m onto an anvil. This would correspond with a direct impact of about
20kph.
Various links from
http://www.bhsi.org/standard.htm

Peter


--
The Kiwi is very aptly New Zealand's national emblem.
It is a bird which cannot fly.
It only comes out at night.
It has nostrils at the end of its beak,
and it is always poking its nose into things.