Helmets - mean time betweef failures

Theo Bekkers wrote:

Tamyka Bell wrote:
Theo Bekkers wrote:

Because you were too stupid to wear a helmet in a car, where most of
these injuries occur?

Theo, do you have stats on that? I thought seatbelts were meant to
protect you from head injuries - you should be able to move far enough
to hit your head. Of course there's side impacts but that's probably
why cars now have side airbags.

Seatbelts protect your head from going through the windscreen, not the side
pillars. Few crashes are head-on and side pillars cause a lot of head
injuries. Very few cars have side airbags. Mine doesn't, does yours, how
many people you know have side airbags? My son's Merc is the only car of the
people I know personally that does but it cost $105K.

Nah, my car is a 15-y.o. pos which is one of the reasons I ride my bike.

Here's a good place to start

http://www.pcug.org.au/~psvansch/crag/cars.htm

Compulsory Bicycle Helmets: Unfair Discrimination
Wearing of helmets has been compulsory for cyclists in Australia for years,
but how many people know that reports of the Federal Office of Road Safety,
in 1987 and 1998, recommend them for occupants of motor vehicles too?

Hoping that helmet wearing would reduce serious head injury and satisfied
that the costs and inconvenience to bicycle riders were "more than balanced
by the savings to the community", Australian governments made it compulsory
for cyclists. They have not applied this reasoning to vehicle occupants,
whose head injuries cost $1.5 billion a year! Instead, FORS published the
1998 report "so that the community can make informed choices" and emphasised
helmet wearing as a voluntary measure only - in contrast to giving cyclists
no choice.
snip

That would be so fscking cool, wouldn't it, if it was compulsory to wear
helmets in cars, people would have no excuse to not ride bikes!

Tam*doesn't give a **** about her hair*

On Tue, 3 Jan 2006, Andrew Price wrote:

Big chunk of styrofoam fell out of the Limar helmet on the way home from
work tonight, right where the strap attaches at the back.

5 years constant use, a few minor scrapes (there was that low tree branch
once as I recall) so I guess I can't complain - but I really think it was
the rash threat to wash it because it was getting a bit pongy in the heat
that caused it to give up the ghost.

Recommendations for one with significantly longer life span?


I probably destroy a helmet in 2 or 3 years, mainly through branches. I
think the best thing to do is simply check it every time after you have a
bad contact.

The last *real bad* contact went through the styrofoam, and then that sort
of weakened it.

For me there is no mileage in getting a mega buck helmet as branches don't
respect price.

I often think I should try an army disposal store and get one of those
steel helmets, but the guvment might decree it unsafe



Owen

On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 10:45:06 +0000, Andrew Price wrote:


8. Less expensive Giro lookalikes (called Tec I think) are starting to
appear for about 1/3 the price if the top of the line jobs and seemed to
weigh much the same - no info on longevity of the knock offs yet
available - had the relevant AS approved sticker attached to them for
what that's worth.

I've had one of these for about 18 months now. Still in tact, though the
pads are going, and it's had a lot of use. The only problem I find is that
the pads funnel sweat onto my glasses, but the addition of an
"Aaaar Cap'n" type bandanna solves that problem.

And at $100 it's much nicer on the wallet next time I kill a helmet

--
Dave Hughes |
"The wages of sin is death, but so's the salary of virtue, and at least
the Evil get to go home early on Fridays" - Pratchett

On Fri, 06 Jan 2006 08:01:47 +0000, Owen Cook wrote:


On Tue, 3 Jan 2006, Andrew Price wrote:

Big chunk of styrofoam fell out of the Limar helmet on the way home from
work tonight, right where the strap attaches at the back.

5 years constant use, a few minor scrapes (there was that low tree branch
once as I recall) so I guess I can't complain - but I really think it was
the rash threat to wash it because it was getting a bit pongy in the heat
that caused it to give up the ghost.

Recommendations for one with significantly longer life span?


I probably destroy a helmet in 2 or 3 years, mainly through branches. I
think the best thing to do is simply check it every time after you have a
bad contact.

The last *real bad* contact went through the styrofoam, and then that sort
of weakened it.

For me there is no mileage in getting a mega buck helmet as branches don't
respect price.

I often think I should try an army disposal store and get one of those
steel helmets, but the guvment might decree it unsafe



Owen

A steel helmet would satisfy the penetration test, but would not satisfy
the shock absorbing 300G deceleration to headform test on dropping on
anvil from 1.5m

Peter

--
No Microsoft involved. Certified virus free --

Owen Cook wrote:

I probably destroy a helmet in 2 or 3 years, mainly through branches. I
think the best thing to do is simply check it every time after you have a
bad contact.

Depends on what you mean by a "bad contact". Remember that modern
bicycle helmets work by breaking apart on impact. How do you check for
fractures in the foam?

The last *real bad* contact went through the styrofoam, and then that sort
of weakened it.

For me there is no mileage in getting a mega buck helmet as branches don't
respect price.

I often think I should try an army disposal store and get one of those
steel helmets, but the guvment might decree it unsafe

You could try one of those puddingbowl helmets the kids wear at
skateparks.

Rayc wrote:
Theo Bekkers wrote:

Again not want to start a personal attack or holy war. If you as an
adult choose to
wear on older helmet that exceeds the acceptable working life, that is
your choice.

Your tone conveys to me that I must be mad or stupid. :-)

The OP has stated that upon inspection of his helmet that had had no
major accidents,
"5 years constant use, a few minor scrapes"
" 3. When we pulled the old one apart the polystyrene really had
deteriorated
badly, especially where the straps were attached to it - crumbled with
not
much applied force in the weakest bits - was clearly past its use by
date"

My helmet has the straps attached to the hard shell. I don't think I'd want
to trade it for one where the strap is attached to the styrofoam and with no
hard shell. I just can't see that as an "upgrade".

I do not have much faith in helmets, not much in AS1698, and even less in
helmet manufacturers morals. I do however, think that the wonderful people
in parliament have our best interest at heart at all times. My mate says he
used to think he was cynical till he met me.

What I was trying to convey is that there are limits of acceptable
working lives of everything. An example - no one can give the exact
lifespan of a light bulb, only a guide line. Run to much current and
the bulb wont last as long, drop the bulb or turn on and off too many
times the bulb will have a shorter lifespan.

Agreed.

Best to stay in bed then.

By ensuring I have a helmet that the best shock abssorbtion
capability, I feel that I am giving myself the best odds. I have
after all choosen to accept the dangers and consequences of cycling
on and offroad.

I, on the other hand, have never considered cycling to be dangerous. I've
been cycling since the age of four and it was never considered to be a
dangerous pastime, ...... until we got helmet laws.

Theo

On 2006-01-06, Tamyka Bell (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
Theo Bekkers wrote:
Seatbelts protect your head from going through the windscreen, not the side
pillars. Few crashes are head-on and side pillars cause a lot of head
injuries. Very few cars have side airbags. Mine doesn't, does yours, how
many people you know have side airbags? My son's Merc is the only car of the
people I know personally that does but it cost $105K.

Nah, my car is a 15-y.o. pos which is one of the reasons I ride my bike.

Tam, don't ever get a new car!



--
TimC
Can you keep your witty comments shorter dude? I can't
make that my sig! --Hipatia

Theo Bekkers wrote:

Your tone conveys to me that I must be mad or stupid. :-)

No, I said that, you as an adult can choose to do what you want.

I do not have much faith in helmets, not much in AS1698, and even less in
helmet manufacturers morals. I do however, think that the wonderful people
in parliament have our best interest at heart at all times. My mate says he
used to think he was cynical till he met me.

If you do not have faith in the helmet manufacturers, or the AS
standard and are of the belief that cycling is completely safe, then
what do you have to lose by getting rid of your old bell helmet and
getting one that is a third or less in weight and tenfold in terms of
ventilation? you stll comply with the laws and as a bonus there's less
weight on your head and its cooler ( in temp) anyways!

What I was trying to convey is that there are limits of acceptable
working lives of everything.

Agreed.

So you do agree that there is a fixed lengtth to the working life of a
helmet?
Name a few safety equipment things that work as well as they did,
twenty years on?
Let alone a twenty year old safety item that works as well or better
than a current version?

Seatbelts in cars are supposed to be replaced after a good crash, Rock
climbing gear ropes, harness's and hardware all need be inspected and
prehaps replaced not only after a fall, but after considerable use.

You as an adult can also chosse not to do these things, its YOUR choice
to accept or ignore these acceptable rules. It is your head/body - how
you protect them is your decision.

I, on the other hand, have never considered cycling to be dangerous. I've
been cycling since the age of four and it was never considered to be a
dangerous pastime, ...... until we got helmet laws.

Theo

Rayc wrote:
Theo Bekkers wrote:

Your tone conveys to me that I must be mad or stupid. :-)

No, I said that, you as an adult can choose to do what you want.

OK, maybe I inferred more than you implied.

If you do not have faith in the helmet manufacturers, or the AS
standard and are of the belief that cycling is completely safe, then
what do you have to lose by getting rid of your old bell helmet and
getting one that is a third or less in weight and tenfold in terms of
ventilation? you stll comply with the laws and as a bonus there's
less weight on your head and its cooler ( in temp) anyways!

What, spend money on what I believe to be an inferior product? A non
hard-shell helmet is, to me, an oxymoron. If you think cycling is unsafe,
why do you do it. Don't you think it's irresponsible with regards to your
family, society, and your insurance company to partake in dangerous
pastimes?

So you do agree that there is a fixed lengtth to the working life of a
helmet?

No. There is definitely a life but I don't think anyone can tell you what it
is. The life is certainly far shorter for a styrofoam and hairnet helmet.

Name a few safety equipment things that work as well as they did,
twenty years on?
Let alone a twenty year old safety item that works as well or better
than a current version?

Hard shell bicycle helmets. :-)

Seatbelts in cars are supposed to be replaced after a good crash,

I'm not a great believer in secondary safety, particularly when it takes
precedence over primary safety. Which do you think is more important in a
car, seatbelts and airbags, or a braking system, chassis design, and driver
training that enables you to avaiod that brick wall? For a cyclist, a road
awareness training session will be much more value in preventing accidents,
than a helmet will be of value in an accident that would be less likely to
happen after the training?

You as an adult can also chosse not to do these things, its YOUR
choice to accept or ignore these acceptable rules. It is your
head/body - how you protect them is your decision.

Am I wrong again in inferring that you consider my choices to be silly
choices? :-) I apologise not to be using your rulebook.

Theo

TimC wrote:

On 2006-01-06, Tamyka Bell (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
Theo Bekkers wrote:
Seatbelts protect your head from going through the windscreen, not the side
pillars. Few crashes are head-on and side pillars cause a lot of head
injuries. Very few cars have side airbags. Mine doesn't, does yours, how
many people you know have side airbags? My son's Merc is the only car of the
people I know personally that does but it cost $105K.

Nah, my car is a 15-y.o. pos which is one of the reasons I ride my bike.

Tam, don't ever get a new car!



No worries. I was thinking about selling this one, buying a bike
trailer, and using the leftover money as a "car hire" fund for when I
REALLY need a car. Of course my rego would go into this fund every year,
and it would be a high interest account

Tam