more helmet lies

David Martin

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> Presumably the guys in your chain gang also all wear team replica kit
> - anyone who does not do so is playing with fire...

I've been using the brazing kit.. I *enjoy* playing with fire. Something
to do with a chemistry degree and a (late) Father in Law who was a
professional combustion chemist.

Fire is great stuff to play with.
(Don't do this at home kids!)

...d

Just zis Guy, you know?

On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 17:27:26 +0000, Tony B
<tonySPAMTRAPbramah@involutedesign.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
<cqs57j$deu$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>:

>> the studies showing motorcycle helmets do not actually improve
>> motorcyclist safety, the facts about broken helmets and so on.

>er, "bicycle helmets" shurely??? M/C helmets do actually improve
>motorcyclist safety.

PP said: " I am a motorbike rider and I know of people who survived
some crashes that destroyed their helmet."

Guy
--
"then came ye chavves, theyre cartes girded wyth candels
blue, and theyre beastes wyth straynge horn-lyke thyngs
onn theyre arses that theyre fartes be herde from myles
around." Chaucer, the Sheppey Tales

Zog The Undeniable

Tony B wrote:

> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>
>> the studies showing motorcycle helmets do not actually improve
>> motorcyclist safety, the facts about broken helmets and so on.
>
>
> er, "bicycle helmets" shurely??? M/C helmets do actually improve
> motorcyclist safety. Although again, I'm against compulsion even for
> m/c, or car seatbelts for that matter. In fact, compulsion generally.


This is enlightening:
http://www.forbes.com/fyi/1999/0503/041.html

You can make an economic argument for car seatbelts if you ignore the
risk compensation effect (and the effect on vulnerable road users) and
purely look at the cost of car occupant injuries that are prevented.

However, for cycle helmets the numbers of serious injuries are so small
that it's a waste of effort - on cost grounds the Govt should mandate
car helmets instead!

Tony W

"BARRY" <activator@beeteeinternet.com> wrote in message
news:cqugb1$hoc$1@sparta.btinternet.com...
> All a cycle helmet can give you is additional protection to your
> head......this could save your life in a slow or fast fall and possibly a
> collision.

Intuitively yes -- but te statistics simple do not show it.

> It might help if you were hit by a car and then hit the
> ground........depends on a lot of things....

It might -- but thestatistics don't show it.

> It wont help you a lot if you
> are attacked by a shark or a pack of rabid dogs.

Probably true -- though I don't know of any relevant statistics to prove or
disprove the claim.

> Some people think that their heads important enough to have extra
> protection. ..myself included

I think my head is very, very important. But I see no evidence that
encasing it in a polystyrene beanie will help me maintain it in pristine
condition.

> Come on lads ...its not law (yet) Enjoy the freedom of choice.

The problem is that the Health and Safety Nazis have this wild idea that we
will all be safer if we wear these rediculous beanies. Some of us want to
enjoy the freedom of choice a while longer.

T

Tony B

> This is enlightening:
> http://www.forbes.com/fyi/1999/0503/041.html

oh dear, I'm about to make an arse of myself...

I can't see the m/c helmet is no use thing. Honestly, I really can't. No
matter what the septics think, they also think Sadam runs Al-Q and GWB
is a force for good in the world...

That 7mph accident, that's just bollocks, a head-to-head impact where
the full impact is taken by a riders head is as unlikely as a slow-speed
one. So the testing involves a limited drop on the floor, so what? What
about the more realistic sliding accident?

Every time I've written off a helmet on my m/c (three so far) it's been
by abrasion along the road, they wear holes in as you slide along,
waiting to stop.

They also usefully keep the flies out of yer face, and the snow, and the
rain... a fly in the nose at sixty mph hurts, honest...

Bicycle helmets are a different thing entirely, in application and
construction. My bicycle lid is a crappy piece of credit card (in fact
proly not even that) thin plastic, over a bit of polystyrene. My m/c
shell is made from proper stuff - carbon/kevlar mix that will resist
abrasion.

I appreciate fully the rotational injury issues, equally applicable no
doubt to m/c accidents but in the main I like my helmet because it will
prevent my skull being worn away in a slide. Which is a highly likely
accident scenario. On balance, I'll accept the additional rotational
risk for the abrasion protection. But that's my choice (as it should be).

I don't think for a second that my lid will stop a lorry. However, I
also don't accept it as useless. Unlike my bicycle helmet, which is just
crap. Also it is not at all onerous to wear a motorcycle helmet, whereas
the bicycle helmet is a right PIA.

So, am I wrong to think my m/c helmet is useful, whereas my bicycle
helmet is not? This newsgroup has convinced me of the latter, although
it will need a paradigm shift in my thinking to transfer similar
reasoning to my m/c lid. But i do try and keep an open mind.

bfn,

Tony B

David Martin

BARRY wrote:
> All a cycle helmet can give you is additional protection to your
> head.....

Not true. A cycle helmet can also give you additional risk of serious
head injury through two clear mechanisms and additional risk of neck injury.

Head injury mechanism 1: helmets increase the effective size of the
head, turning near misses into glancing blows at the peripherary of the
skull.
HI mech 2: blows tangentical to the head (rather than in line with the
centre of motion) will cause rotational acceleration. You need 50 times
less rotational acceleration to get a permanent brain injury than from a
direct linear blow. Helmets can increase the rotational component of an
impact, increasing the likelyhood of HI, and are only designed to cope
with linear blows.

Neck injury: The increased size and weight of the head with a helmet on
increases the risk of neck injury (whiplash type).

So helmets do protect against minor linear blows and against scratches
and bruises, but the payoff is that they may kill you as well. You
really don't know which is more likely without looking at full
population studies. I'd suggest you do so.

...d

Al C-F

On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 16:13:29 +0000, Tony B
<tonySPAMTRAPbramah@involutedesign.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

>So, am I wrong to think my m/c helmet is useful, whereas my bicycle
>helmet is not?

Interesting question. I'm sure I remember reading that the m/c helmet
law saw a rise in the number of injured but surviving motorcyclists -
so rather than being killed, they get to live their lives in
wheelchairs.

Has anyone got any evidence one way or the other?

Zog The Undeniable

Al C-F wrote:

> On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 16:13:29 +0000, Tony B
> <tonySPAMTRAPbramah@involutedesign.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>So, am I wrong to think my m/c helmet is useful, whereas my bicycle
>>helmet is not?
>
>
> Interesting question. I'm sure I remember reading that the m/c helmet
> law saw a rise in the number of injured but surviving motorcyclists -
> so rather than being killed, they get to live their lives in
> wheelchairs.
>
> Has anyone got any evidence one way or the other?

I believe the impact speed a m/c helmet is designed for isn't very
different to the speed for a bicycle helmet. This means that either
bicycle helmets are exceptionally good considering their weight and
ventilation, or motorcycle helmets are very poorly designed!

Peter Keller

On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 17:18:25 +0000, Zog The Undeniable wrote:


>
> I believe the impact speed a m/c helmet is designed for isn't very
> different to the speed for a bicycle helmet. This means that either
> bicycle helmets are exceptionally good considering their weight and
> ventilation, or motorcycle helmets are very poorly designed!

The energy available to mangle you in a crash is proportional to the
square of the impact velocity (approx.)
Therefore, if a bicycle helmet provides some protection at up to 20kph,
for a motorcycle helmet to provide equivalent protection at up to 40kph it
would need to have FOUR times the energy-absorbent value of a bicycle
helmet.
To say nothing of the effects of these vastly increased forces on the neck!

Peter

--
If you are careful enough in life, nothing bad -- or
good -- will ever happen to you.