A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » Regional Cycling » Australia
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Helmet ******s



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #131  
Old February 11th 04, 10:38 PM
Just zis Guy, you know?
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Helmet ******s

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 13:01:44 +1100, "Steve"
wrote in message :

This "conclusion" conveniently ignores the energy expended during the
plastic deformation phase prior to the breakup. The aim would be to absorb
as much energy as possible b4 breakup - if the energy level exceeds that of
course it WILL break. It has still reduced the impact energy on the head.


Fine - so the helmet goes into an unplanned failure mode at some
unknown point in its plastic deformation phase - in other words it did
not work as designed. I am happy to leave it at that.

One might as well suggest that since your suspension "bottoms out" on really
big bumps once in a while, you might as well have no suspension at all.....


So suspension irons out the triival bumps, but hit a really big one
and you'll get a big hit back through the arms? Hmmm, where have I
heard something like that before... ;-)

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at the University of Washington.
Ads
  #132  
Old February 11th 04, 11:51 PM
the Baker-Bealls
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Helmet ******s


"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote in message
...
"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
...

Helmets almost certainly reduce trivial head injuries in all
classes of cyclist - i.e. mere bruises, cuts and so on. Yes,
some of the cuts may have needed hospital treatment, but they
are STILL trivial.

Helmets almost certainly make a negligible difference to the
incidence of brain damage following an accident for normal
cyclists, and the data are not good enough to tell whether the
difference is positive or negative.

Helmets probably help with extreme cycling - crashes at speeds
above 30 MPH, people who ride over broken rock and so on - the
evidence is very scanty and hence inconclusive, but is at least
fairly consistent.

Mandatory and even semi-mandatory helmet wearing reduces the
number of normal cyclists significantly, especially those that
are using cycling as a form of transport rather than recreation.
And 'significantly' is of the order of tens of percent.

The rest is politics, dogma and so on.




On the face of it it's hard to add anything to that, other than that I
believe the evidence indicates that cyclists wearing helmets have a

greater
propensity to risk-taking (risk compensation).

The helmet issue also affects the perception of the risk of cycling by
drivers, such that they are likely to attribute the death of a cyclist
wrongly as the consequence of cycling being a dangerous activity, when the
reality is that it's driving that's dangerous. What a horrible sentence.

I
think you know what I mean, though.

--
Guy
===

WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk


Could risk compensation apply to the motorist rather than the cyclist? If a
driver sees you wearing a helmet is he/she likely to take greater risks with
your safety? It would certainly be a study worth doing.

Julia


  #133  
Old February 12th 04, 02:56 AM
Tom Kunich
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Helmet ******s

"Mark Thompson" (change warm for hot)
wrote in message ...
That's the whole point here. Maybe there's some small collection of

accident
types in which helmets offer an effective solution to saving your head

from
getting knocked around.


A large collection - they'll be oodles and scroodles of minor knocks and
headbutts that the helmet helps with. Only problem is that these don't

produce
KSIs, which is what the legislation is seeking to prevent.


I didn't want to bring it up but one of the guys in the club had a minor
accident in which he went to turn right because he thought the guy he was
riding next to was going to turn right. Then clashed and he fell at slow
speed and fell into a fence.

He was just arguing with me that the helmet saved his life when the other
guy that was there explained to me that our friend's helmet caught in a
cyclone fence and that broke his neck The witness is an person with accident
experience. I forget whether he is a fireman or cop.

It all ends happily since our member was in a halo for several months and
has apparently recovered without complication.

I doubt he would have broken his neck had he not been wearing a helmet.

I think you are probably correct that a helmet can prevent oogles of very
minor injuries and if that is your intent then you are thinking well. But
let's remember that you ass is grass helmet or no in a bad accident. If your
helmet encourages you to ride more dangeously than you would without DON'T
WEAR IT.


  #134  
Old February 12th 04, 03:00 AM
Tom Kunich
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Helmet ******s

"the Baker-Bealls" wrote in message
...

Could risk compensation apply to the motorist rather than the cyclist? If

a
driver sees you wearing a helmet is he/she likely to take greater risks

with
your safety? It would certainly be a study worth doing.


Motorists seem to be at fault about half the time regardless of any other
variable if I've read the reports correctly.


  #135  
Old February 12th 04, 09:17 AM
Steve
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Helmet ******s


Tom Kunich wrote in message ...
"Steve" wrote in message
...
Apparently if a helmet breaks this
is an indication that it has moved from plastic deformation to

brittle
failure, a mode in which it absorbs virtually no energy. So all

those
cracked helmets which "saved people's lives" actually simply failed!


This "conclusion" conveniently ignores the energy expended during the
plastic deformation phase prior to the breakup.


Maybe you missed the part above where it said "brittle failure, a mode in
which it absorbs virtually no energy." If so you will note that breaking a
helmet doesn't absorb very much energy. This is a COMMON mode of helmet
failure and contrary to your visualization, it doesn't absorb very much
energy BEFORE it starts to break up.

Actually I noticed that it said "...has moved from plastic deformation to
brittle...." so I took it that both phases occured, buthe second brittle
phase didn't absorb much energy.
Think about this - when a helmet is working under perfect conditions it
hardly works at all. Reducing it's ability by 60 or 70 percent sure as hell
isn't going to improve matters even when you do mention that it is better
than nothing.

I used to avoid wearing a helmet, but my intelligence finally overtook my
ego.


It ain't a matter of ego. I suggest that you're the one exhibiting ego if
you think that your choice to wear a helmet is any better, intelligent or
more effective than the guy who chooses otherwise.

Interesting thought. I suppose ego is what drives people to bother with
posting That was my personal feeling about why I started wearing a
helmet.

That's the whole point here. Maybe there's some small collection of

accident
types in which helmets offer an effective solution to saving your head from
getting knocked around. But there is pretty obviously another spectrum of
accidents in which wearing a helmet leads to more accidents, more serious
accidents or redirects one type of accident into another type of accident

in
which a person is injured or killed. The statistics are pretty plain that
helmet wearing doesn't change the numbers or severity of head injuries.

That's surprising - & interesting - have you got some studies/references we
can peruse?
ta
Steve


  #136  
Old February 12th 04, 07:04 PM
burt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Helmet ******s

"the Baker-Bealls" wrote in message
...


Could risk compensation apply to the motorist rather than the cyclist? If

a
driver sees you wearing a helmet is he/she likely to take greater risks

with
your safety? It would certainly be a study worth doing.

Julia


I have certainly read something which supports this. CTC member riding in
the US wrote that many drivers gave them more room than helmeted riders,
with some taking extreme measures to avoid them.



  #137  
Old February 13th 04, 06:43 AM
Tom Kunich
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Helmet ******s

"Steve" wrote in message
...
Tom Kunich wrote in message ...
The statistics are pretty plain that
helmet wearing doesn't change the numbers or severity of head injuries.

That's surprising - & interesting - have you got some studies/references

we
can peruse?


http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/hfaq.html

http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/kunich.html

http://www.helmets.org/veloaust.htm

http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/scuffham.html

Scuffham is the most important since it was a study done by a group who were
pro-helmet and unabashedly say that they intended to find a positive effect
for helmet use and instead no matter how they manipulated the data it showed
no effects. A later 're-interpretation' using complex mathematical methods
claims to have found a very slightly positive effect. That an $2.95 will get
you a Latte' at Starbucks.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Helmet Wankers Tom Kunich General 263 February 13th 04 06:43 AM
Helmet Wankers CSB UK 138 February 13th 04 06:43 AM
Fule face helmet - review Mikefule Unicycling 8 January 14th 04 06:56 PM
Reports from Sweden Garry Jones General 17 October 14th 03 05:23 PM
Reports from Sweden Garry Jones Social Issues 14 October 14th 03 05:23 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:41 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.