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

"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.

Peter Keller wrote:

I love the European idea where, when there is an accident
involving a bicyclist and a motorist, negotiations start off from the
standpoint that the motorist is at fault.

That concept appeals to me, too. But, as evidenced by the concurrent
thread "Young cyclist killed," there are many who think otherwise. :-(

Perhaps this is one reason why
bicycle accident and death rates there are only 1/3 - 1/7 those in NZ (I
believe USA has similar accident rates to NZ), despite no compulsion to
wear helmets.

Yes, that concept certainly should contribute toward pedestrian and
bicyclist safety.

Unfortunately, in the US anyway, driver convenience seems to come first.

--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, omit what's between "at" and "cc"]

"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.