A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Sad helmet incident



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #171  
Old January 23rd 20, 02:06 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
news18
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,131
Default Sad helmet incident

On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 07:21:38 -0800, Tom Kunich wrote:

On Tuesday, January 21, 2020 at 4:20:59 PM UTC-8, news18 wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 11:09:47 -0800, Tom Kunich wrote:

On Monday, January 20, 2020 at 2:46:43 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:



But... military helmets are not designed to be bullet proof, or to
phrase it a bit differently the M-16 was designed to penetrate one
side of a helmet at 500 yards.
--
cheers,

John B.

John, what the hell ever gave you the idea that military helmets were
not designed to be bulletproof?

All the armies that do not use them

This is the 21st century and I suggest
you come up to date.


1. Far too soon for 21st century products to be used in any military.
it will takes decades for the idea to sicnk in, decades for testing,
decades for budgeting and may grandchildren will get to use it.

2. Just because it is new, doesn't make it better.


For your information, the latest military headgear is bullet proof to an
extent. It is made of layers of steel and carbon fiber. Now - not in the
future. And these have been used for over ten years. What in God's name
gives you the idea that the Pentagon wants to lose highly trained
soldiers? The sheer ignorance and the negativity of you children is such
that you will never succeed at anything.


Oh, you are only talking about the US Army. I'm looking at the rest of
the world.

Ads
  #172  
Old January 23rd 20, 02:11 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
news18
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,131
Default Sad helmet incident

On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 08:05:28 -0800, sms wrote:

On 1/21/2020 4:27 PM, news18 wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 05:08:39 -0800, sms wrote:

On 1/20/2020 11:14 AM, jbeattie wrote:

Hasn't cut down or ridership in Portland.
https://www.portlandoregon.gov/trans...article/407660 To you,
it is an end-of-world issue. To the cycling population in PDX -- its
meaningless. Kids are used to wearing helmets, and people over 16 do
what they want.

For children, the compulsory helmet laws probably increase cycling in
my area. Parents have this idea that all that's necessary to keep
their child safe while cycling is for them to wear a helmet (often
incorrectly). This leads to the children being allowed to cycle but
often without any other knowledge of proper behavior or other proper
equipment.


Weird, definitely doesn't happen here. The little darlings are largely
driven the few metres to school, rather than work or horror, ride a
bicycle. i suspect their parents ar such terrible drivers, they fear
their children sharing the roads with drivers like them

The only day kids ride their bicycles to school here is when it is the
annual bike safety day and half of those actually walk them on the foot
path.


When a new middle school opened in my city they put in a small bicycle
parking area, certain that few parents would permit their children to
ride a bicycle to school. I think that was based on the fact that close
to 0% of elementary school students ride to school by themselves (I did
know of one in my neighborhood).

Surprisingly, from day 2, there was an enormous number of students
bicycling to school. They rushed to build a second secure bicycle
parking area. I'd estimate that 15-25% of students bicycle to school,
with the percentage varying by weather and time of year.


Always nice to here.

Personally, I was riding my bicycle to elementary school from 1st
grade--of course with no helmet! Plus it was 10 miles, uphill both ways,
in the snow, and it was in Florida so it was hot and humid.


Obviousy you should take a navigation class from a long term bicycle
users. They'll teach you the tricks to avoid that hill for a start. VBG

  #173  
Old January 23rd 20, 02:30 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
AMuzi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,447
Default Sad helmet incident

On 1/22/2020 5:33 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 07:21:38 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
wrote:

On Tuesday, January 21, 2020 at 4:20:59 PM UTC-8, news18 wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 11:09:47 -0800, Tom Kunich wrote:

On Monday, January 20, 2020 at 2:46:43 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:


But... military helmets are not designed to be bullet proof, or to
phrase it a bit differently the M-16 was designed to penetrate one side
of a helmet at 500 yards.
--
cheers,

John B.

John, what the hell ever gave you the idea that military helmets were
not designed to be bulletproof?
All the armies that do not use them

This is the 21st century and I suggest
you come up to date.

1. Far too soon for 21st century products to be used in any military. it
will takes decades for the idea to sicnk in, decades for testing, decades
for budgeting and may grandchildren will get to use it.

2. Just because it is new, doesn't make it better.


For your information, the latest military headgear is bullet proof to an extent. It is made of layers of steel and carbon fiber. Now - not in the future. And these have been used for over ten years. What in God's name gives you the idea that the Pentagon wants to lose highly trained soldiers? The sheer ignorance and the negativity of you children is such that you will never succeed at anything.



Well Tom, firstly, one of the design criteria for the M-16 was the
Penetration of US steel helmet one side, at 500 yards AND Penetration
of .135" steel plate at 500 yards
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.223_Remington
Doesn't sound like helmets are so bullet proof, does it.

Secondly the major cause of death in combat isn't gun shot wounds. In
fact one study showed that death by explosion, i.e., was almost twice
as common as gunshots.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1876965/

And thirdly, the major cause of death in the U.S. army is suicide
(28%) and combat deaths are only something like 9%.
https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-m...he-modern-wars

In short, you once again demonstrate that you don't know what you are
talking about.



Tom has the nub of it right.

The post-Korea steel helmet you knew is long gone. Better
minds than mine have given the thing great thought and
consistent improvement:

https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-...d-to-soldiers/

As with on-topic helmets, 100% resistance to any imaginable
injury is not the point. What they use now works better than
what they had before.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971


  #174  
Old January 23rd 20, 02:54 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
jOHN b.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,421
Default Sad helmet incident

On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 01:06:05 -0000 (UTC), news18
wrote:

On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 07:21:38 -0800, Tom Kunich wrote:

On Tuesday, January 21, 2020 at 4:20:59 PM UTC-8, news18 wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 11:09:47 -0800, Tom Kunich wrote:

On Monday, January 20, 2020 at 2:46:43 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:


But... military helmets are not designed to be bullet proof, or to
phrase it a bit differently the M-16 was designed to penetrate one
side of a helmet at 500 yards.
--
cheers,

John B.

John, what the hell ever gave you the idea that military helmets were
not designed to be bulletproof?
All the armies that do not use them

This is the 21st century and I suggest
you come up to date.

1. Far too soon for 21st century products to be used in any military.
it will takes decades for the idea to sicnk in, decades for testing,
decades for budgeting and may grandchildren will get to use it.

2. Just because it is new, doesn't make it better.


For your information, the latest military headgear is bullet proof to an
extent. It is made of layers of steel and carbon fiber. Now - not in the
future. And these have been used for over ten years. What in God's name
gives you the idea that the Pentagon wants to lose highly trained
soldiers? The sheer ignorance and the negativity of you children is such
that you will never succeed at anything.


Oh, you are only talking about the US Army. I'm looking at the rest of
the world.


The current U.S. Army helmet is the "Advanced Combat Helmet (ACH),
used since the mid-2000s", and yes it is bullet proof at close ranges
against bullets fired from a 9mm pistol. An updated helmet, the
Enhanced Combat Helmet (ECH) is in the works and said to "protect
against certain rifle projectiles" however a description of
penetration tests refers to " fragments fired by test guns", rather
than bullets fired ... whether this is an indication that the helmet
is not proof against a direct hit by a rifle is unknown. Note: The
criteria that the M-16 was developed under required the ability to
penetrate one side of the older steel army helmet at 500 yards (460
meters).
--
cheers,

John B.

  #175  
Old January 23rd 20, 05:07 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
jOHN b.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,421
Default Sad helmet incident

On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 19:30:18 -0600, AMuzi wrote:

On 1/22/2020 5:33 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 07:21:38 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
wrote:

On Tuesday, January 21, 2020 at 4:20:59 PM UTC-8, news18 wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 11:09:47 -0800, Tom Kunich wrote:

On Monday, January 20, 2020 at 2:46:43 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:


But... military helmets are not designed to be bullet proof, or to
phrase it a bit differently the M-16 was designed to penetrate one side
of a helmet at 500 yards.
--
cheers,

John B.

John, what the hell ever gave you the idea that military helmets were
not designed to be bulletproof?
All the armies that do not use them

This is the 21st century and I suggest
you come up to date.

1. Far too soon for 21st century products to be used in any military. it
will takes decades for the idea to sicnk in, decades for testing, decades
for budgeting and may grandchildren will get to use it.

2. Just because it is new, doesn't make it better.

For your information, the latest military headgear is bullet proof to an extent. It is made of layers of steel and carbon fiber. Now - not in the future. And these have been used for over ten years. What in God's name gives you the idea that the Pentagon wants to lose highly trained soldiers? The sheer ignorance and the negativity of you children is such that you will never succeed at anything.



Well Tom, firstly, one of the design criteria for the M-16 was the
Penetration of US steel helmet one side, at 500 yards AND Penetration
of .135" steel plate at 500 yards
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.223_Remington
Doesn't sound like helmets are so bullet proof, does it.

Secondly the major cause of death in combat isn't gun shot wounds. In
fact one study showed that death by explosion, i.e., was almost twice
as common as gunshots.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1876965/

And thirdly, the major cause of death in the U.S. army is suicide
(28%) and combat deaths are only something like 9%.
https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-m...he-modern-wars

In short, you once again demonstrate that you don't know what you are
talking about.



Tom has the nub of it right.

The post-Korea steel helmet you knew is long gone. Better
minds than mine have given the thing great thought and
consistent improvement:

https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-...d-to-soldiers/

As with on-topic helmets, 100% resistance to any imaginable
injury is not the point. What they use now works better than
what they had before.


Yes :-)
I was replying to Tom's seeming assertion that the Pentagon doesn't
want to lose highly trained soldiers and thus sends them out wearing
super-duper helmets. The Pentagon is a lot smarter than that and are
well aware that more than 70% of hostile wounds, in modern warfare,
are caused by explosive devices, in the case of Iraq often IED's and
7.6% prove to be fatal while gunshot wounds amount to 9% of which
5.7% are fatal.

Note that I previously mentioned that in combat death by explosion,
was almost twice as common as gunshots. It now seems that in more
recent wars it is nearly 8 times more likely.
--
cheers,

John B.

  #176  
Old January 23rd 20, 05:29 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Tom Kunich[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,318
Default Sad helmet incident

On Wednesday, January 22, 2020 at 5:30:40 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/22/2020 5:33 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 07:21:38 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
wrote:

On Tuesday, January 21, 2020 at 4:20:59 PM UTC-8, news18 wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 11:09:47 -0800, Tom Kunich wrote:

On Monday, January 20, 2020 at 2:46:43 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:


But... military helmets are not designed to be bullet proof, or to
phrase it a bit differently the M-16 was designed to penetrate one side
of a helmet at 500 yards.
--
cheers,

John B.

John, what the hell ever gave you the idea that military helmets were
not designed to be bulletproof?
All the armies that do not use them

This is the 21st century and I suggest
you come up to date.

1. Far too soon for 21st century products to be used in any military. it
will takes decades for the idea to sicnk in, decades for testing, decades
for budgeting and may grandchildren will get to use it.

2. Just because it is new, doesn't make it better.

For your information, the latest military headgear is bullet proof to an extent. It is made of layers of steel and carbon fiber. Now - not in the future. And these have been used for over ten years. What in God's name gives you the idea that the Pentagon wants to lose highly trained soldiers? The sheer ignorance and the negativity of you children is such that you will never succeed at anything.



Well Tom, firstly, one of the design criteria for the M-16 was the
Penetration of US steel helmet one side, at 500 yards AND Penetration
of .135" steel plate at 500 yards
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.223_Remington
Doesn't sound like helmets are so bullet proof, does it.

Secondly the major cause of death in combat isn't gun shot wounds. In
fact one study showed that death by explosion, i.e., was almost twice
as common as gunshots.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1876965/

And thirdly, the major cause of death in the U.S. army is suicide
(28%) and combat deaths are only something like 9%.
https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-m...he-modern-wars

In short, you once again demonstrate that you don't know what you are
talking about.



Tom has the nub of it right.

The post-Korea steel helmet you knew is long gone. Better
minds than mine have given the thing great thought and
consistent improvement:

https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-...d-to-soldiers/

As with on-topic helmets, 100% resistance to any imaginable
injury is not the point. What they use now works better than
what they had before.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971


Since I did some work fairly recently for the military I had some idea of the things that were being used in the 80's and developments since then. As Andre pointed out even the case around his phone offers some hints of things to come in the future which obviously I have no intentions of ever talking about since I held a security clearance when I chanced upon it among other things.

I see below that John whose entire knowledge of military comes from the era of the B50 figures that since soldiers can be injured in a variety of ways one needs not attend to the most obvious.
  #177  
Old January 23rd 20, 06:35 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
jOHN b.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,421
Default Sad helmet incident

On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 20:29:00 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
wrote:

On Wednesday, January 22, 2020 at 5:30:40 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/22/2020 5:33 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 07:21:38 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
wrote:

On Tuesday, January 21, 2020 at 4:20:59 PM UTC-8, news18 wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 11:09:47 -0800, Tom Kunich wrote:

On Monday, January 20, 2020 at 2:46:43 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:


But... military helmets are not designed to be bullet proof, or to
phrase it a bit differently the M-16 was designed to penetrate one side
of a helmet at 500 yards.
--
cheers,

John B.

John, what the hell ever gave you the idea that military helmets were
not designed to be bulletproof?
All the armies that do not use them

This is the 21st century and I suggest
you come up to date.

1. Far too soon for 21st century products to be used in any military. it
will takes decades for the idea to sicnk in, decades for testing, decades
for budgeting and may grandchildren will get to use it.

2. Just because it is new, doesn't make it better.

For your information, the latest military headgear is bullet proof to an extent. It is made of layers of steel and carbon fiber. Now - not in the future. And these have been used for over ten years. What in God's name gives you the idea that the Pentagon wants to lose highly trained soldiers? The sheer ignorance and the negativity of you children is such that you will never succeed at anything.


Well Tom, firstly, one of the design criteria for the M-16 was the
Penetration of US steel helmet one side, at 500 yards AND Penetration
of .135" steel plate at 500 yards
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.223_Remington
Doesn't sound like helmets are so bullet proof, does it.

Secondly the major cause of death in combat isn't gun shot wounds. In
fact one study showed that death by explosion, i.e., was almost twice
as common as gunshots.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1876965/

And thirdly, the major cause of death in the U.S. army is suicide
(28%) and combat deaths are only something like 9%.
https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-m...he-modern-wars

In short, you once again demonstrate that you don't know what you are
talking about.



Tom has the nub of it right.

The post-Korea steel helmet you knew is long gone. Better
minds than mine have given the thing great thought and
consistent improvement:

https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-...d-to-soldiers/

As with on-topic helmets, 100% resistance to any imaginable
injury is not the point. What they use now works better than
what they had before.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971


Since I did some work fairly recently for the military I had some idea of the things that were being used in the 80's and developments since then. As Andre pointed out even the case around his phone offers some hints of things to come in the future which obviously I have no intentions of ever talking about since I held a security clearance when I chanced upon it among other things.

I see below that John whose entire knowledge of military comes from the era of the B50 figures that since soldiers can be injured in a variety of ways one needs not attend to the most obvious.


Nice try, Old Tom, eh? Knows all them there secrets?

The Army works in percentages... based on reality. Any time you go to
war a certain percent of your troops are going to die, and it behooves
the Army to know what the percentages are so they spend considerable
effort to discover the numbers, reasons why, and anything that they
can do to prolong the life, and therefore capability, of their forces.
For example, one of the things that the Army has learned is that in
any combat situation a certain percent of the soldiers don't even fire
their weapon and another percent don't aim, they just point and pull
the trigger. In fact, the ratio of rounds fired to a single enemy
fatality is currently in the 200,000 range per fatality. Which is part
of the reasoning behind the design of the M-16, i.e., lower weight,
can carry more ammunition, shoots faster, etc.

And the Army does all these studies and writes all these reports and
they aren't usually classified. In fact they are quite frequently
deliberately made public. After all, the army has to generate some
kind of justification to get their budget increased next year.

So most of the "secrets" are freely available and all you have to do
is look.
--
cheers,

John B.

  #178  
Old January 23rd 20, 07:13 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
news18
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,131
Default Sad helmet incident

On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 20:29:00 -0800, Tom Kunich wrote:

Since I did some work fairly recently for the military I had some idea
of the things that were being used in the 80's


80's, Recent?
  #179  
Old January 23rd 20, 12:41 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Sir Ridesalot
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,270
Default Sad helmet incident

On Wednesday, 22 January 2020 20:30:40 UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/22/2020 5:33 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 07:21:38 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
wrote:

On Tuesday, January 21, 2020 at 4:20:59 PM UTC-8, news18 wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 11:09:47 -0800, Tom Kunich wrote:

On Monday, January 20, 2020 at 2:46:43 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:


But... military helmets are not designed to be bullet proof, or to
phrase it a bit differently the M-16 was designed to penetrate one side
of a helmet at 500 yards.
--
cheers,

John B.

John, what the hell ever gave you the idea that military helmets were
not designed to be bulletproof?
All the armies that do not use them

This is the 21st century and I suggest
you come up to date.

1. Far too soon for 21st century products to be used in any military. it
will takes decades for the idea to sicnk in, decades for testing, decades
for budgeting and may grandchildren will get to use it.

2. Just because it is new, doesn't make it better.

For your information, the latest military headgear is bullet proof to an extent. It is made of layers of steel and carbon fiber. Now - not in the future. And these have been used for over ten years. What in God's name gives you the idea that the Pentagon wants to lose highly trained soldiers? The sheer ignorance and the negativity of you children is such that you will never succeed at anything.



Well Tom, firstly, one of the design criteria for the M-16 was the
Penetration of US steel helmet one side, at 500 yards AND Penetration
of .135" steel plate at 500 yards
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.223_Remington
Doesn't sound like helmets are so bullet proof, does it.

Secondly the major cause of death in combat isn't gun shot wounds. In
fact one study showed that death by explosion, i.e., was almost twice
as common as gunshots.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1876965/

And thirdly, the major cause of death in the U.S. army is suicide
(28%) and combat deaths are only something like 9%.
https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-m...he-modern-wars

In short, you once again demonstrate that you don't know what you are
talking about.



Tom has the nub of it right.

The post-Korea steel helmet you knew is long gone. Better
minds than mine have given the thing great thought and
consistent improvement:

https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-...d-to-soldiers/

As with on-topic helmets, 100% resistance to any imaginable
injury is not the point. What they use now works better than
what they had before.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971


I demonstrated how a fully lead non-jacketed .308 caliber (7.62 NATO)bullet would go right through a steel M1 helmet and liner. Most people were quite shocked at the ranges that would happen at.

Cheers
  #180  
Old January 23rd 20, 11:31 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Tom Kunich[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,318
Default Sad helmet incident

On Wednesday, January 22, 2020 at 10:13:16 PM UTC-8, news18 wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 20:29:00 -0800, Tom Kunich wrote:

Since I did some work fairly recently for the military I had some idea
of the things that were being used in the 80's


80's, Recent?


I worked at Sandia National Labs and Lawrence Livermore Labs which is next door in the 2005 time period and the improvement of the old tin hat started in the 1980's with improvements every couple of years and enough improvement to make full scale changes about every 5 years. That means that the latest improvements have gone on-line about something in the last five years.

But the stuff I was hearing about is still at least 10 years off. Through with the papers I have recently read I can see pretty much how it will be done.

What have you done with your time besides posting here?
 




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
Another RLJ incident Simon Mason UK 6 September 30th 11 07:31 AM
An Incident Jorg Lueke General 28 June 17th 08 04:51 PM
First incident in ages Chris Eilbeck UK 12 September 22nd 06 07:52 PM
Strange incident Tom Crispin UK 7 March 3rd 06 06:54 PM
Another incident MikeyOz Australia 18 January 17th 06 09:48 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:04 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.