Cycle safety



"wafflycat" <w*a*ff?y?cat*@?btco*nn?ect.com> wrote:
> "MJ Ray" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > But do they give any benefit over using a good adaptive soft saddle?
>
> Soft saddle does not equate to comfort. Indeed a soft saddle can be painful.
> If a soft saddle equated to comfort then the pros would be using them given
> the number of hours a day they spend in the saddle.

I thought the main reason they didn't is that adaptive soft saddles take some
time to shape themselves, whereas pros may need to switch bikes at a moment's
notice.

> The primary key to a comfortable saddle is fit. That, combined with padded
> cycle shorts, which is where the padding needs to be = comfort.

I don't see how it's much different, as long as there's nothing silly like
chunky seams between you and the padding.

Regards,
--
MJ Ray - see/vidu http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html
Webmaster/web developer, statistician, sysadmin, trainer, koha dev,
online shop maker, GNU/Linux, debian, gobo, gnustep, mailing lists.
Workers co-op @ Weston-super-Mare, Somerset http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
 
Rob Morley <[email protected]> wrote:
> MJ Ray wrote:
> > You'll soon learn whether any near you are any good and for a spotter's
> > guide to bad ones, browse
> > http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.uk/facility-of-the-month
> > - I'm rather surprised none of the **** I've discovered in Bristol so
> > far seems to have appeared there.
> >
> You know what to do about that, don't you? :)

Yeah, I know, take the camera next time I'm in Bristol in daylight.

It's just surprising, given that there seem to be quite a few cyclists from
that area on this newsgroup.

Regards,
--
MJ Ray - see/vidu http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html
Webmaster/web developer, statistician, sysadmin, trainer, koha dev,
online shop maker, GNU/Linux, debian, gobo, gnustep, mailing lists.
Workers co-op @ Weston-super-Mare, Somerset http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
 
MJ Ray said the following on 26/02/2007 11:12:

> It's just surprising, given that there seem to be quite a few cyclists from
> that area on this newsgroup.

Wasn't the Coronation Road one on the site somewhere? I could be wrong...

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/
 
MJ Ray wrote:

> I don't see how it's much different, as long as there's nothing silly like
> chunky seams between you and the padding.

A blob of gel, which will be squeezed at pressure into spots that don't
really need pressure, and a light foam insert in a pair of shorts,
aren't really the same thing. A hard saddle of the right shape will
support your sit bones specifically with light padding in the shorts
taking the sting out of nearby areas. An "adaptive gel" will support
/everywhere/, but "everywhere" is not where you want support as you'll
get more more pressure beyond the sit bones that way. Not only will it
support beyond where you want, pressure from the sit bones will move
the gel away from where you /do/ want the support.

Note that padding is not necessary just because the seat is hard. I
don't think many people wear padded shorts to sit on wooden stools and
chairs, for example.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
 
Paul Boyd wrote:
> Wasn't the Coronation Road one on the site somewhere? I could be wrong...

It's on my farcilities page [1], and I've posted the direct link to the
picture a few times. The picture is a low quality scan, though. I
intend to take a decent digital picture when I'm next in the centre of
Bristol (probably June, but hopefully March or April) and submit it.

Feel free to pre-empt me if you get to Coronation Road with a camera
before I do, though.

[1] http://www.colyer.plus.com/danny/cycling/farcilities.html

--
Danny Colyer <URL:http://www.colyer.plus.com/danny/>
Reply address is valid, but that on my website is checked more often
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine
 
"Simon Brooke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> in message <[email protected]>, fisher
> ('[email protected]') wrote:
>
> Personally I'd advise wearing a helmet for mountain biking, but not
> wearing
> one on the road. This advice applies to both children and adults.
>

I tend to disagree.

If you come off on a corner covered with gravel, cattle poo, ice etc. Your
head can hit the road with a very solid clunk. A helmet might just reduce
the impact and could replace a fractured skull with a bit of a headache. I
started wearing one in 1985 but haven't had a crash where my head has hit
the road since then. Touch wood.

They do no harm and might just do a lot of good.

If you're planning a headon with a lorry at a closing speed of abot 80mph
...... it won't make a lot of difference.

--
Derby, England.

Don't try to email me using "REPLY" as the email address is NoSpam. Our
email address is "thewoodies2 at ntlworld dot com"
 
On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 22:26:58 GMT, "Stanley" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>
>
>"Simon Brooke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> in message <[email protected]>, fisher
>> ('[email protected]') wrote:
>>
>> Personally I'd advise wearing a helmet for mountain biking, but not
>> wearing
>> one on the road. This advice applies to both children and adults.
>>
>
>I tend to disagree.
>
>If you come off on a corner covered with gravel, cattle poo, ice etc. Your
>head can hit the road with a very solid clunk. A helmet might just reduce
>the impact and could replace a fractured skull with a bit of a headache. I
>started wearing one in 1985 but haven't had a crash where my head has hit
>the road since then. Touch wood.
>
>They do no harm and might just do a lot of good.
>
>If you're planning a headon with a lorry at a closing speed of abot 80mph
>..... it won't make a lot of difference.

Can you back up the statement that they do no harm? I'm not convinced.
I'm certainly more comfortable in summer wthout an insulating
polystyrene hat. I also find it easier to turn my head to look behind
without the headgear.

ME
 
Stanley wrote:
> "Simon Brooke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> in message <[email protected]>, fisher
>> ('[email protected]') wrote:
>>
>> Personally I'd advise wearing a helmet for mountain biking, but not
>> wearing
>> one on the road. This advice applies to both children and adults.
>>
>
> I tend to disagree.
>
> If you come off on a corner covered with gravel, cattle poo, ice etc. Your
> head can hit the road with a very solid clunk. A helmet might just reduce
> the impact and could replace a fractured skull with a bit of a headache. I
> started wearing one in 1985 but haven't had a crash where my head has hit
> the road since then. Touch wood.
>
> They do no harm and might just do a lot of good.

possibly increased rotational injuries, increased head size meaning an
increased chance of hitting your head, and increased head mass.

I saw a calcuation recently on this group that showed that the energy
adsorbed by a helmet a a certain speed was the same as the kinetic
energy of the helmet at that speed.

They also increase your chances of being hit by another vehicle.

Me thinks you should google the subject and look at www.cyclehelmets.org
(or am I feeding a troll)

Martin.
 
in message <[email protected]>, Stanley
('[email protected]') wrote:

> "Simon Brooke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> in message <[email protected]>,
>> fisher ('[email protected]') wrote:
>>
>> Personally I'd advise wearing a helmet for mountain biking, but not
>> wearing
>> one on the road. This advice applies to both children and adults.
>
> I tend to disagree.
>
> If you come off on a corner covered with gravel, cattle poo, ice etc.
> Your head can hit the road with a very solid clunk. A helmet might just
> reduce
> the impact

Yes...

> and could replace a fractured skull with a bit of a headache.

No. The helmet is very, very much less strong than your skull - if the
impact is sufficient to break your skull the helmet is an irrelevance.

> They do no harm and might just do a lot of good.

They do significant harm, actually, in aggravating rotational injury (which
is what causes the nastier kinds of brain damage). They also do some good.
Whether in your particular accident the harm outweighs the good is in the
lap of the gods, but overall the risk of being killed or seriously injured
is not significantly changed whether you wear one or not.

> If you're planning a headon with a lorry at a closing speed of abot 80mph
> ..... it won't make a lot of difference.

Agreed.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

---===***<<< This space to let! >>>***===---
Yes! You, too, can SPAM in the Famous Brooke Rotating .sig!
---===***<<< Only $300 per line >>>***===---
 
On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 22:43:12 GMT, Martin Dann
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Stanley wrote:

>>
>> They do no harm and might just do a lot of good.
>
>possibly increased rotational injuries, increased head size meaning an
>increased chance of hitting your head, and increased head mass.
>
>I saw a calcuation recently on this group that showed that the energy
>adsorbed by a helmet a a certain speed was the same as the kinetic
>energy of the helmet at that speed.
>
>They also increase your chances of being hit by another vehicle.
>
>Me thinks you should google the subject and look at www.cyclehelmets.org
>(or am I feeding a troll)
>

Once is ignorance.

Twice is suspicious.

Thrice is a troll.
 
Danny Colyer said the following on 26/02/2007 19:53:

> It's on my farcilities page [1]

Ah - yes, that's where I saw it.

> Feel free to pre-empt me if you get to Coronation Road with a camera
> before I do, though.

I don't live in Bristol any more, so it might be some time...

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/
 
In news:[email protected],
Stanley <[email protected]> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:

> If you come off on a corner covered with gravel, cattle poo, ice etc.
> Your head can hit the road with a very solid clunk. A helmet might
> just reduce the impact and could replace a fractured skull with a bit of a
> headache. I started wearing one in 1985 but haven't had a
> crash where my head has hit the road since then. Touch wood.
>
> They do no harm and might just do a lot of good.


You ain't from round 'ere, are you...

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
Pepperoni and green peppers, mushrooms, olives, chives!
 
[email protected] wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 22:43:12 GMT, Martin Dann
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Stanley wrote:
>
>>> They do no harm and might just do a lot of good.
>> possibly increased rotational injuries, increased head size meaning an
>> increased chance of hitting your head, and increased head mass.
>>
>> I saw a calcuation recently on this group that showed that the energy
>> adsorbed by a helmet a a certain speed was the same as the kinetic
>> energy of the helmet at that speed.
>>
>> They also increase your chances of being hit by another vehicle.
>>
>> Me thinks you should google the subject and look at www.cyclehelmets.org
>> (or am I feeding a troll)
>>
>
> Once is ignorance.

Or a difference of opinion.

> Twice is suspicious.

Or a strong belief or conviction that all is not as straight-forward as
others try to make it appear.

> Thrice is a troll.

Or a passion for the truth rather than preconceptions to prevail.

--
Matt B
 
> If you're planning a headon with a lorry at a closing speed of abot
> 80mph ..... it won't make a lot of difference.

Um, impacts much above 12mph IIRC.
 
Stanley wrote on 26/02/2007 22:26 +0100:
>
> I tend to disagree.

> A helmet might just reduce
> the impact and could replace a fractured skull with a bit of a headache.

How's that going to happen given that a helmet fails at just 10% of the
impact energy needed to fracture the Mk1 human skull?

>
> They do no harm and might just do a lot of good.
>

You must be new around here. How about going to http://cyclehelmets.org
and saving us all the bother of teaching you the basics of helmets?


--
Tony

"...has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least
wildly inaccurate..."
Douglas Adams; The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
 
Quoting Simon Brooke <[email protected]>:
>('[email protected]') wrote:
>>But do they give any benefit over using a good adaptive soft saddle?
>Yes. Adaptive soft saddles cause injuries and make you sterile.

Oooh. If I'd known that I could have saved myself some surgery in 2005.
--
OPTIONS=name:Kirsty,menustyle:C,female,lit_corridor,standout,time,showexp,hilit
e_pet,catname:Akane,dogname:Ryoga,fruit:eek:konomiyaki,pickup_types:"!$?=/,scores:
5 top/2 around,color,boulder:0,autoquiver,autodig,disclose:yiyayvygyc,pickup_bu
rden:burdened,!cmdassist,msg_window:reversed,!sparkle,horsename:Rumiko,showrace
 
Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:

> Stanley wrote on 26/02/2007 22:26 +0100:

> > A helmet might just reduce
> > the impact and could replace a fractured skull with a bit of a headache.
>
> How's that going to happen given that a helmet fails at just 10% of the
> impact energy needed to fracture the Mk1 human skull?

> > They do no harm and might just do a lot of good.

> You must be new around here. How about going to http://cyclehelmets.org
> and saving us all the bother of teaching you the basics of helmets?

I went off and read much of that last night. I had been wondering
whether to bother with a new helmet, having previously been in the 'they
do no harm' camp.

What I still don't understand is why the UCI made helmets compulsory.
The cynic in me would believe that it was a result of pressure from
helmet manufacturers.

Cheers,
Luke


--
Lincoln City 0-2 Southend United (AET)
Swansea City 2-2 Southend United
We went up twice with Tilly and Brush
 
On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 22:37:35 +0000,
[email protected] (Ekul Namsob) wrote:

>Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Stanley wrote on 26/02/2007 22:26 +0100:
>
>> > A helmet might just reduce
>> > the impact and could replace a fractured skull with a bit of a headache.
>>
>> How's that going to happen given that a helmet fails at just 10% of the
>> impact energy needed to fracture the Mk1 human skull?
>
>> > They do no harm and might just do a lot of good.
>
>> You must be new around here. How about going to http://cyclehelmets.org
>> and saving us all the bother of teaching you the basics of helmets?
>
>I went off and read much of that last night. I had been wondering
>whether to bother with a new helmet, having previously been in the 'they
>do no harm' camp.
>
>What I still don't understand is why the UCI made helmets compulsory.
>The cynic in me would believe that it was a result of pressure from
>helmet manufacturers.
>

Bingo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

L
Cycle facility safety
Replies
12
Views
357
UK and Europe
Mark McNeill
M
C
Re: So which 'safety' equipment do you cycle with?
Replies
3
Views
427
UK and Europe
Chris Malcolm
C
A
Re: So which 'safety' equipment do you cycle with?
Replies
0
Views
463
UK and Europe
Andrew Price
A
P
Re: So which 'safety' equipment do you cycle with?
Replies
4
Views
477
UK and Europe
Paul Boyd
P
E
Re: So which 'safety' equipment do you cycle with?
Replies
0
Views
411
UK and Europe
Ekul Namsob
E
Top Bottom Back