#131
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |