Helmet Nazis at It Again!

On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 17:35:59 -0700, Pat wrote:

You might want to check out http://www.hjchelmets.com/helmet_usage.htm
It says to replace helmet after 1 accident (or fall from 4') because
that's all they are designed for -- or every few years.

Granted, these are for motorcycles, where speeds, impacts and risks are
higher, but I would imaging the same things apply to bicycle helmets.
Esp. when you consider that these are for much heavier duty than
bicycle helmets.

If all those conditions are different --- why would you imagine the same
things apply? What relevant conditions are _not_ different between bike
helmets and motorcycle helmets? They are not made of the same stuff, and
they are not designed similarly, nor are they designed to take the same
impacts.

We have to recognize that cautions about replacing a helmet every year or
two, or replacing it if it happens to fall all of 4 feet, or if you
actually hit the ground with it --- all these things make the helmet
makers cream their pants. They are in the business of selling foam hats,
not saving your head.

So, what of this is real? The tests aren't real, the protection is not as
they are selling it unless you know of anyone struck head-on by a tractor
trailer and has walked away. The "need" to replace it is not real.

On the other hand, I always wear one. Have since 1970 --- back then it
was all leather hairnets. They do make it more comfortable if you fall
down and hit the road. Worth it for that. But these are not panaceas,
they will not "save your life" any more than gloves do (I wear them as
well, for similar reasons).

--

David L. Johnson

__o | It is a scientifically proven fact that a mid life crisis can
_`\(,_ | only be cured by something racy and Italian. Bianchis and
(_)/ (_) | Colnagos are a lot cheaper than Maserattis and Ferraris. --
Glenn Davies

In article ,
dgk writes:

I always thought that equating cars with bikes was stupid.

Then you might find interesting, as I do, this collection of thoughts:

http://www.wright.edu/~jeffrey.hiles.../contents.html

I find particular appeal in the concept of "folk transportation",
which I take as getting around safely without impinging on other
people regardless of, or despite traffic laws.

Hiles' essay is overtly bike-lane propaganda, but he sneaks-in
some intriguing points of view which fly in the face of
Effective Cycling.

For myself, I've found giving precedence to Right Of Way rules
(regardless of contrary signage, by-laws or other complicating
razmatazz) always pretty much gets me and everybody else around
safely and effectively. That, and being nice to other people
who wanna go, too -- if it doesn't stick my own neck on the
chopping block. AFAIC, Right Of Way is sacrosanct -- if somebody
else has it, it's our duty to respect it. If we have it, it's
our duty to receive & timelily deal with it. And when we do so,
traffic flows oh so beautifully well.

It also helps to be pyschic and back-off, knowing when a driver up
ahead is gonna pull a U-ey instead of a left turn. But that's
pretty easy.


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

"NYC XYZ" wrote in message
ups.com...

WRT the helmet lobby, it's mainly liberals I see pushing this helmet thing
around

Liberal Nazis.

Only in America...

Two years ago my father, now 80 was riding. He ducked under a bunch of
branches,
stuck his head up, and there was a tree limb.

Without a helmet, he's dead.

"Pat" wrote in message
oups.com...
I don't really follow football, but I bet the QB in Pittsburgh who got
smacked this summer wishes he was wearing a helmet. He was on a
motorcycle, but once you go airborne it doesn't really matter how you
got that way. It isn't the falling that hurts you, it is the landing.

The wind beneath you; the open road in your face.

David L. Johnson wrote:
On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 17:35:59 -0700, Pat wrote:

You might want to check out http://www.hjchelmets.com/helmet_usage.htm
It says to replace helmet after 1 accident (or fall from 4') because
that's all they are designed for -- or every few years.

Granted, these are for motorcycles, where speeds, impacts and risks are
higher, but I would imaging the same things apply to bicycle helmets.
Esp. when you consider that these are for much heavier duty than
bicycle helmets.

If all those conditions are different --- why would you imagine the same
things apply? What relevant conditions are _not_ different between bike
helmets and motorcycle helmets? They are not made of the same stuff, and
they are not designed similarly, nor are they designed to take the same
impacts.

We have to recognize that cautions about replacing a helmet every year or
two, or replacing it if it happens to fall all of 4 feet, or if you
actually hit the ground with it --- all these things make the helmet
makers cream their pants. They are in the business of selling foam hats,
not saving your head.

So, what of this is real? The tests aren't real, the protection is not as
they are selling it unless you know of anyone struck head-on by a tractor
trailer and has walked away. The "need" to replace it is not real.

On the other hand, I always wear one. Have since 1970 --- back then it
was all leather hairnets. They do make it more comfortable if you fall
down and hit the road. Worth it for that. But these are not panaceas,
they will not "save your life" any more than gloves do (I wear them as
well, for similar reasons).

My only response to this thread is about the same as before. If you get
run over by a car, truck, semi, or a train, a helmet might save your
head, if they can find it after a horrendous and messy accident. Dying
at the hands of a car, truck, semi is going to be probably fatal
regardless of the helmet. It might save you from yourself if you are
crash prone and in that case you should use a full face motorcycle
helmet anyway. The point is, if your body is fatally injured, what good
is a helmet except to prolong the pain involved with dying from some
horrendous body wounds? I had a bike helmet on that did nothing to save
2 of my front teeth when I bit some rocks on a trail. The odd part of
this is that I did not hit the top of my head where the helmet might
have done some good. My dentist is the only lucky one here since he is
quoting multi thousands of dollars in dental work now which is way
beyond my $2,000 annual insurance allotment. He's happy, I'm not.
Bill Baka

In article .com,
"Pat" writes:

Tom Keats wrote:
In article .com,
"Pat" writes:

As an aside, many helmets are not used correctly and therefore have
their safety compromized. They are really "one use" items. If you
bonk your head or even drop the helmet, its time for a new one.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I'm curious -- what happens to the styrofoam if a helmet is dropped on
the floor from, say, handlebar height? How /exactly/ does it fracture
or fail? And if currently available helmets are so fragile, what good
are they?

If you drop one once or even maybe a few times, it'll look okay. But
the question is: what will happen if you take a hard impact and need
the helmet. Is it still okay?

No.

My question is: What happens to a helmet that renders it needing
to be replaced if it falls on the floor?

Note I didn't even qualify between a carpeted living room floor
or a concrete-slab basement floor. Heretofore nobody else has, either.

The foam can compress, break apart,
fracture, etc. under the plastic shell and you'd never know it.

/How/? What deformations does it incur? And why are bicycle helmets
allowed to be so frail?

And as I previously asked -- if bicycle helmets are so fragile,
what good are they?

It is
just like a car bumper that takes a 5 mph impact, bounce back, looks
okay but inside all of the foam is wiped out.

A car front bumper has about 2.n tons of accelerating
mass behind it, and usually drivers don't accidentally
drop their bumpers on the living room carpeted floor
and have to buy a new bumper.

Are you sure a bicycle helmet isn't more like a styrofoam
1-dozen egg carton? (They don't work too good either.)


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

In article ,
Bill Baka writes:

My only response to this thread is about the same as before.

Everybody's an expert.

Especially you.


--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

In article ,
(Tom Keats) writes:
In article .com,
"Pat" writes:

Tom Keats wrote:
In article .com,
"Pat" writes:

As an aside, many helmets are not used correctly and therefore have
their safety compromized. They are really "one use" items. If you
bonk your head or even drop the helmet, its time for a new one.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I'm curious -- what happens to the styrofoam if a helmet is dropped on
the floor from, say, handlebar height? How /exactly/ does it fracture
or fail? And if currently available helmets are so fragile, what good
are they?

If you drop one once or even maybe a few times, it'll look okay. But
the question is: what will happen if you take a hard impact and need
the helmet. Is it still okay?

No.

My question is: What happens to a helmet that renders it needing
to be replaced if it falls on the floor?

Note I didn't even qualify between a carpeted living room floor
or a concrete-slab basement floor. Heretofore nobody else has, either.

The foam can compress, break apart,
fracture, etc. under the plastic shell and you'd never know it.

/How/? What deformations does it incur? And why are bicycle helmets
allowed to be so frail?

And as I previously asked -- if bicycle helmets are so fragile,
what good are they?

Hello? Hello-oh!! Is there anybody out there to answer my questions?

Especially the one about how if a bicycle helmet is so fragile that
it must be replaced if dropped on the floor, what good is such a frail
structure while riding?


cheers,
Tom


-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 18:49:50 -0700, (Tom
Keats) wrote:

In article ,
Bill Baka writes:

My only response to this thread is about the same as before.

Everybody's an expert.

Especially you.

Whoa....! Keats Attacks Baka .......!