Warning: H*lm*t content

"But let us, who are of the day, be sober, putting on the breastplate
of faith and love; and for an helmet, the hope of salvation."
1 Thessalonians 5

So, don't drink and don't wear a helmet and you'll have to hope for
salvation. I assume you have been wearing a helmet? Religions is always
riddles to me.

I am not sure who Faith is though.

Resound wrote:
"Theo Bekkers" wrote

Umm, yes, the velocity at which you hit the ground is dependent on
the height from which you fell. Your horizontal velocity will
determine how far you slide and how much skin you lose from
abrasion. Hence the leathers.

Ok, that's valid, assuming a dead flat surface wherever you ride a
bike...you know, no gutters, rocks, logs, parked cars etc.

I think I said that. A bicycle helmet is only useful for an impact with the
ground. Light poles are a serious health hazard.

Theo

flaco wrote:

I am not sure who Faith is though.

It's my wife middle name. :-)

Theo

Kathy wrote:


Bleve wrote:
I prefer not to entrust my safety to what is

essentially a piece of polystyrene designed to absorb the kinetic energy
of a fall from head height. That's all it does.



"all" it does? "I refuse to breath because all it does is oxygenate my

blood". Mine without doubt saved me from significant head injury. I'm
mighty glad that polystyrene saved my bonce from a fall from
head-height. I landed head-first (back of head). Helmets work.

I second that - although Dave swears that my head only hit the concrete
path AFTER I'd stopped falling, I KNOW that I hit my head - and I for
one am VERY happy with the fact that the helmet absorbed the impact, not
my head - and so I had no bruise or scrape or anything - not even a
headache :-)



You landed on your shoulder. Your shoulder hurts.
Your hands hot the road as you rolled.. your gloves worked.

Helemts are useful against magpies and thats pretty much it. Mind you
thats enough.

Gemma_k wrote:
"Bleve" wrote in message
ups.com...

Euan wrote:

"Bob" == Bob writes:

Bob The only link is that mandatory wearing of helmets, at one
Bob point in time, discouraged cyclists, reducing cyclist
Bob numbers. I think everyone is over that by now - does it really
Bob discourage anyone anymore?

Absolutely. It's a hot and smelly inconvenience which is off-putting to
the fashion conscious.

Stackhats went out in, oh, 1980? Modern helmets are light, well
ventilated and comfortable.


You miss the point. It doesn't matter how good a helmet is to wear, or how
safe you feel in one, or how many vents there are or what kind of hairstyle
you have. It's all about the choice of whther you WANT to wear a helmet,
rather than mandating that you do....
Gemma



Yup

And if you wanted sensible effective legislation mandating stuff for
safety (and I dont) Then legislate for gloves, your hands always hit
the road.

till! wrote:
Gemma_k Wrote:

You miss the point....It's all about the choice of whther you WANT to
wear a helmet,
rather than mandating that you do....

Not at all true, I mean there is no mandate that requires you ride a
bike.



Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Now thats low. There is no mandate that requires you to breathe either.

Resound wrote:
"Gemma_k" wrote in message
u...

"Bleve" wrote in message
roups.com...

Euan wrote:

"Bob" == Bob writes:

Bob The only link is that mandatory wearing of helmets, at one
Bob point in time, discouraged cyclists, reducing cyclist
Bob numbers. I think everyone is over that by now - does it really
Bob discourage anyone anymore?

Absolutely. It's a hot and smelly inconvenience which is off-putting to
the fashion conscious.

Stackhats went out in, oh, 1980? Modern helmets are light, well
ventilated and comfortable.


You miss the point. It doesn't matter how good a helmet is to wear, or
how safe you feel in one, or how many vents there are or what kind of
hairstyle you have. It's all about the choice of whther you WANT to wear
a helmet, rather than mandating that you do....
Gemma



I'm still undecided about whether the law should mandate helmet use for
adults. However, children don't have the sort of decision making abilities
that adults do, that's why they're considered children. In the same way that
it's illegal for children to smoke tobacco, drink alcohol etc it should be
illegal for them to partake of risk taking behaviour like riding without a
helmet. Once they're an adult they should perhaps be allowed to make up
their own minds. Then there's the issue of the public health system
subsidising people's voluntary risk taking behaviour. But that's another
rant.



See the problem with that is that it assumes not wearing a helmet is
rink taking behaviour.

NOw with motorcycles its fairly well established that 1) helmets by and
large work but 2) they also lead to a significant increase in rotational
type brain stem injuries.. the type that leave you hoping one of your
mates will pull the plug.

As i said this is fairly well established stuff with lots of statistics
supporting the above_ The pro and anti people are still fighting (of
course) I must say with motorcyles I am in the pro catagory, feeling
that overall you are better of but there is one hell of a down side.

With pushy helmets there is soo little realistic evidence that they do
more than save you from scratches.... It may be that they do. But the
evidence shoud be pretty convincing by now.. and everything published
seems as dodgy as a queensland election

Legislation.. even if you have to have it.. should be on unequivical
grounds.. its usually on emotional grounds and often flat wrong.

"Theo Bekkers" wrote in message
...
Resound wrote:
"Theo Bekkers" wrote

Umm, yes, the velocity at which you hit the ground is dependent on
the height from which you fell. Your horizontal velocity will
determine how far you slide and how much skin you lose from
abrasion. Hence the leathers.

Ok, that's valid, assuming a dead flat surface wherever you ride a
bike...you know, no gutters, rocks, logs, parked cars etc.

I think I said that. A bicycle helmet is only useful for an impact with
the ground. Light poles are a serious health hazard.

Theo

So anything that could mitigate the consequences of colliding with one by
absorbing kinetic energy would be a good thing, I'm thinking. Yes, I said
"mitigate" not "negate".

I for one, can not understand how someone can say that helmets do n
good. Must be me that is thick. Put a soft veggie in a helmet, drop i
on the ground so the helmet hits the ground first, veggie will proll
survive from head height. Drop veggie from same height, veggie will g
"splat". To me that shows it could help in accident, and I really ca
not see how it could make an injury worse. Sure, if you hit you chin o
the ground, the helmet did not help, but that is not a fault of th
helmet, it is desgined to do a certain thing and will not protect yo
elbow or other parts of your body.

That type of argumentation was also used for Air bags. Lots of peopl
got injured by them, since they did not use a seat belt, hence, ai
bags are dangerous. Hmm. Does not work for me.

Also, seat belts, that is just a piece of synthetic fibers bunche
together, I will not entrust my safety to that. Well you do not, yo
entrust it to the person that drives the car, and other people drivin
on the same roads as you. The belt only protects when that trust fails
IE you have an accident.
Sure, in some cases, the belt itself can cause you injury, but you ca
not really show what the belt protetected you from, same goes wit
helmets. We do not really know, in a particular instance, what th
helmet protected us from.

Why do people want to believe that helmets do NOT work? I do not ge
it

--
Claes

Resound wrote:
"Theo Bekkers" wrote in message
...

Resound wrote:

"Theo Bekkers" wrote

Err, if you fall off your bike you will hit the ground at approx
20km/h regardless of the speed at which you are travelling.

So completely irrespective of the speed at which you are travelling,
you'll hit the ground at the same speed? Why do motorcyclists wear
leathers then?

Umm, yes, the velocity at which you hit the ground is dependent on the
height from which you fell. Your horizontal velocity will determine how
far you slide and how much skin you lose from abrasion. Hence the
leathers.

Theo


Ok, that's valid, assuming a dead flat surface wherever you ride a
bike...you know, no gutters, rocks, logs, parked cars etc.



No its a case of you do what you can.. YOu know if you come off you will
lose skin.. That bit you can sort. Modern leathers are also armoured
in cunning ways

When Bazza Sheens crashed at Siverstone and broke his legs in upwards of
6 places the surgeons said that amputation was never a real risk becouse
his leathers were so good he had lost almost no skin and so their was no
great fear of infection

Seems like a good reason to me.