Biros out, chaps



Ian Smith wrote:
>
> No, I don't agree.
>
> I thought I might, so I've just tried it. I've just gone
> outside, stood beside a brick wall and leant my head into
> it while having my legs slightly bent. I've then stood up,
> sliding my head up the wall.
>
> Without helmet, it slides easily.
>
> With helmet, it locks up - the helmet seems to dig into
> teh surface texture of teh wall (or vice versa). While my
> bare head slides up very easily, I can't slide my helmeted
> head up without choking myself on the straps - the helmet
> jams and wrenches round.
>
> Did you actually try this experiment? Can you explain why
> I get such dramatically different results to those that
> you claim?
>
> Incidently, on an indoor wall (with wallpaper) I can't
> detect a difference in retarding force between head
> and helmet.
>
> regards, Ian SMith

So how many people here have been sliding there heads up
and down walls with and without helmets? Enquiring minds
need to know.

What about trying the experiment with a hat made of tinfoil
as well for a comparison?

Is it just me or is this thread sliding dangerously close to
the surreal.
 
In news:[email protected],
W K <[email protected]> typed:
> "Simon Brooke" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:mce8i1-
> [email protected]...
>> in message <[email protected]>, W K
>> ('[email protected]') wrote:
>>>
>>> SO, basically - You ignore all my points. (and frankly
>>> you have already made some **** assumptions to support
>>> your own supposition). So I'll try them again.
>>
>> ... and you ignore all his (and his experiment) and make
>> a whole lot of unsupported assumptions of your own,
>> without an experiment.
>
> I did not ignore his "experiment" - I made comparisons to
> point out how and why the original one was not valid.
>
>> Without experiments this is all noise and handwaving. We
>> don't know, and the answer isn't clear.
>
> He had been making claims based on his flawed
> "experiment". The answer is not clear,

I wasn't the first one to make a claim. The experiment was
more of a thought experiment to argue that hair can be at
least as slippy as helmet shells, because everyone seems to
think that it's obvious that helmet shells are slippy and
hair isn't, even though that's not true.

I wasn't trying to simulate what happens in an impact, just
trying to show that there's a good case to be made for hair
being slippier than a helmet.

A
 
In news:[email protected],
W K <[email protected]> typed:
> "Simon Brooke" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:mce8i1-
> [email protected]...
>> in message <[email protected]>, W K
>> ('[email protected]') wrote:
>>>
>>> SO, basically - You ignore all my points. (and frankly
>>> you have already made some **** assumptions to support
>>> your own supposition). So I'll try them again.
>>
>> ... and you ignore all his (and his experiment) and make
>> a whole lot of unsupported assumptions of your own,
>> without an experiment.
>
> I did not ignore his "experiment" - I made comparisons to
> point out how and why the original one was not valid.
>
>> Without experiments this is all noise and handwaving. We
>> don't know, and the answer isn't clear.
>
> He had been making claims based on his flawed
> "experiment". The answer is not clear,

I wasn't the first one to make a claim. The experiment was
more of a thought experiment to argue that hair can be at
least as slippy as helmet shells, because everyone seems to
think that it's obvious that helmet shells are slippy and
hair isn't, even though that's not true.

I wasn't trying to simulate what happens in an impact, just
trying to show that there's a good case to be made for hair
being slippier than a helmet.

A
 
Vincent Wilcox <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> Is it just me or is this thread sliding dangerously close
> to the surreal.

Is it the helmets or the bare heads that are causing it to
slide that way?

--
Dave...
 
On 2004-03-10, Martin Bulmer <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Now my kids have left home, I have just about persuaded my
> wife that helmet-wearing should now be optional for me, as
> I no longer have to set an example, and the kids don't
> ride anyway. So, as a baldy, I've been thinking about what
> type of all-weather protection I need. Something
> insulating, yet ventilated, something that doesn't soak up
> the rain, but helps to keep it off. Something with a peak,
> to keep the sun out of my eyes, and with a high sun
> protection factor for my bald pate. Something with a
> strap, so it doesn't blow off, and something that doesn't
> look too out of place on a bike. I've been racking my
> brains, but I reckon 8 years of helmet wearing must have
> affected my brain, as I just can't envisage the ideal
> chapeau.

My helmet wouldn't do. Its full of holes. You'd (or I for
that matter) get funny shaped sunburn bits, perhaps quite
trendy really! Also the damp will get in.

- Richard

--
_/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/ Richard dot Corfield at ntlworld dot
com _/ _/ _/ _/ _/_/ _/ _/ Time is a one way street, _/
_/ _/_/ _/_/_/ Except in the Twilight Zone.
 
"Ambrose Nankivell" <[email protected]> wrote in
message news:[email protected]...
> In news:[email protected], W K
> <[email protected]> typed:
>
> I wasn't the first one to make a claim. The experiment was
> more of a
thought
> experiment to argue that hair can be at least as slippy as
> helmet shells, because everyone seems to think that it's
> obvious that helmet shells are slippy and hair isn't, even
> though that's not true.

All this reminds me about the advice given to an American
professor to use plastic chopping boards in the kitchen,
rather than wooden ones, because it was "obvious" that the
plastic was hygenic and the wood was full of germs. He did
experiments and found that it was impossible to sterilise
the plastic, which consequently remained full of germs, and
the wood contained some form of natural antibiotic, which
killed them all. I use wooden chopping boards, and I don't
wear a helmet when cycling.
>
> I wasn't trying to simulate what happens in an impact,
> just trying to show that there's a good case to be made
> for hair being slippier than a helmet.
>
> A
 
In news:[email protected],
Just zis Guy, you know? <[email protected]> typed:
> On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 08:17:58 -0000, "burt"
> <[email protected]> wrote in message <UyU4c.1629$V11.643@news-
> binary.blueyonder.co.uk>:
>
>> I use wooden chopping boards, and I don't wear a helmet
>> when cycling.
>
> Not even a wooden one?

Now there's a thought. Maybe a wooden one would distribute
the impact across a wider range of the skull, thus making it
safer. Would certainly stop some fractured skulls, anyway.
 
"burt" <[email protected]> writes:

>"Ambrose Nankivell"
><[email protected]> wrote in
>message news:[email protected]...
>> In news:[email protected], W K
>> <[email protected]> typed:

>> I wasn't the first one to make a claim. The experiment
>> was more of a
>thought
>> experiment to argue that hair can be at least as slippy
>> as helmet shells, because everyone seems to think that
>> it's obvious that helmet shells are slippy and hair
>> isn't, even though that's not true.

>All this reminds me about the advice given to an American
>professor to use plastic chopping boards in the kitchen,
>rather than wooden ones, because it was "obvious" that the
>plastic was hygenic and the wood was full of germs. He did
>experiments and found that it was impossible to sterilise
>the plastic, which consequently remained full of germs, and
>the wood contained some form of natural antibiotic, which
>killed them all. I use wooden chopping boards, and I don't
>wear a helmet when cycling.

It's even more embarrassing than that. It was so "obvious"
to some hygiene-mided bureaucrats that plastic boards were
more hygienic than wooden ones, that they made it a
requirement in places preparing food for the prublic, such
as sandwich shops and restaurants. Someone pointed out that
they really ought to back up this edict with some kind of
research. So they commissioned the research. The research
showed that wooden boards were better because of the natural
antibiotics in wood. Oops! But they had to save face, so
couldn't admit they'd been wrong. Instead they then
commissioned someone to make some plastic boards with enough
built-in lethal antibiotics to outperform wooden boards, and
tested those. Great! They came out better than wood! So they
amended the legislation requiring plastic boards to
requiring plastic antibiotic-impregnated boards. Phew! Face
saved! And some nice profits to pass around in the
manufacturing of the new boards...

Now, how could we manage to do the same kind of thing with
bicycle helmets? The legislation doesn't seem to be too much
of a problem, "you know it makes sense", it's the lack of
supportive research that is getting embarrassing...
--
Chris Malcolm [email protected] +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]
 
Chris Malcolm wrote:
> "burt" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> All this reminds me about the advice given to an American
>> professor to use plastic chopping boards in the kitchen,
>> rather than wooden ones, because it was "obvious" that
>> the plastic was hygenic and the wood was full of germs.
>> He did experiments and found that it was impossible to
>> sterilise the plastic, which consequently remained full
>> of germs, and the wood contained some form of natural
>> antibiotic, which killed them all. I use wooden chopping
>> boards, and I don't wear a helmet when cycling.
>
> It's even more embarrassing than that. It was so "obvious"
> to some hygiene-mided bureaucrats that plastic boards were
> more hygienic than wooden ones, that they made it a
> requirement in places preparing food for the prublic, such
> as sandwich shops and restaurants. Someone pointed out
> that they really ought to back up this edict with some
> kind of research. So they commissioned the research. The
> research showed that wooden boards were better because of
> the natural antibiotics in wood. Oops! But they had to
> save face, so couldn't admit they'd been wrong. Instead
> they then commissioned someone to make some plastic boards
> with enough built-in lethal antibiotics to outperform
> wooden boards, and tested those. Great! They came out
> better than wood! So they amended the legislation
> requiring plastic boards to requiring plastic antibiotic-
> impregnated boards. Phew! Face saved! And some nice
> profits to pass around in the manufacturing of the new
> boards...
>

And of course we get antibiotic resistant bacteria and kids
with more allergies.

Soap and hot water get rid of 99.85% of all bacteria, or
something like that.

--
Andy Morris

AndyAtJinkasDotFreeserve.Co.UK

Love this:
Put an end to Outlook Express's messy quotes
http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/
 
In article <[email protected]>, Chris Malcolm wrote:
>
>It's even more embarrassing than that. It was so "obvious"
>to some hygiene-mided bureaucrats that plastic boards were
>more hygienic than wooden ones, that they made it a
>requirement in places preparing food for the prublic, such
>as sandwich shops and restaurants. Someone pointed out that
>they really ought to back up this edict with some kind of
>research. So they commissioned the research. The research
>showed that wooden boards were better because of the
>natural antibiotics in wood. Oops! But they had to save
>face, so couldn't admit they'd been wrong. Instead they
>then commissioned someone to make some plastic boards with
>enough built-in lethal antibiotics to outperform wooden
>boards, and tested those. Great! They came out better than
>wood! So they amended the legislation requiring plastic
>boards to requiring plastic antibiotic-impregnated boards.
>Phew! Face saved! And some nice profits to pass around in
>the manufacturing of the new boards...
>
>Now, how could we manage to do the same kind of thing with
>bicycle helmets? The legislation doesn't seem to be too
>much of a problem, "you know it makes sense", it's the lack
>of supportive research that is getting embarrassing...

So we'll end up with mandatory expensive helmets that do
actually save lives, once some proper research has been
done? Could be worse. I'm not sure what the cycle helmet
equivalent of antibiotic resistent bacteria is though.
 
"Alan Braggins" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> So we'll end up with mandatory expensive helmets that do
> actually save lives, once some proper research has been
> done? Could be worse.

Not many poeple gave up eating due to the bacteria-on-
chopping -boards scare, though.

> I'm not sure what the cycle helmet equivalent of
> antibiotic resistent bacteria is though.

14-year-old cyclists?

Guy
 
Alan Braggins wrote:

>So we'll end up with mandatory expensive helmets that do
actually save lives, once some proper research has been
done?



. . . it is impossible to build a helmet that will offer significant impact protection.
-- Dr. George Shively, The Snell Memorial Foundation
http://www.ucolick.org/~de/AltTrans/helmbite.html

Alan - are you suggesting that the research done in the last fifty odd years was improper? In what way pray tell?

Roger
 
On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 16:05:08 GMT, Simon Brooke <[email protected]>
wrote (more or less):
>if the polystyrene hats give confidence which allows people
>who would not otherwise ride to ride, then this is arguably
>a good thing.

Of course, if many others are led to believe that a
mandatory safety helmet means that cycling is intrinsically
unsafe, (i.e that the risk they are persuaded to perceive is
much larger than the actual risk involved), and so avoid
cycling, that's a bad thing

--
Cheers, Euan Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122 Smalltalk
links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk)
http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk
 
On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 16:53:52 GMT, Trevor Barton <[email protected]>
wrote (more or less):

>On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 16:05:08 GMT, Simon Brooke wrote:
>> The first one is, do cycle helmets offer sufficient extra
>> protection to offset the increased risks (larger size ->
>> greater angular acceleration, more likely to hit things)
>> they cause, or not?
...

>I keep seeing this large size/greater angular acceleration
>thing and I can't help commenting on it, because it seems
>to me to be a red herring, and if it's not a red herring
>it's unclear at best.
>
>If the helmet is bigger, for the same lateral velocity of
>impact, the angular acceleration will probably be lower for
>a helmeted head all else being equal. That's because the
>helmet has a larger radius, and therfore for the same
>linear velocity at the edge needs a smaller angular
>velocity, therefore the shock loading on the brain is
>likely to be lower. That assumes the same coefficient of
>friction between a head and the road as between a helmet
>and the road.
>
>On the other hand, the helmet is larger, and you therefore
>need less torque to angularly accelerate (?) the head if
>the mass and rotational inertia is the same. However, the
>mass isn't the same, although the mass of the helmet is
>light and most of the mass is concentrated in the centre so
>the rotational inertia is probably pretty similar.

It' sthat there's a greater moment arm, and so collisions
which would not otherwise have cause the head to be rotated
about the axis of the neck will cause such motion.

--
Cheers, Euan Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122 Smalltalk
links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk)
http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

G
Re: The semantics of 'safety' (was Re: Biros out, chaps)
Replies
0
Views
358
UK and Europe
Gawnsoft
G
G
Re: The semantics of 'safety' (was Re: Biros out, chaps)
Replies
0
Views
314
UK and Europe
Gawnsoft
G
MarylandGator
Pardon me, chaps, but might I inquisite someone for some aide?
Replies
2
Views
612
Cycling Equipment
Peter@vecchios
Peter@vecchios
M
Hey Chaps, I'm back
Replies
20
Views
578
UK and Europe
Jon Senior
J
Top Bottom Back