Helmets - mean time betweef failures

[Theo Bekkers]

Rayc wrote:
> Theo Bekkers wrote:

>> Your tone conveys to me that I must be mad or stupid.
>>
> No, I said that, you as an adult can choose to do what you want.

OK, maybe I inferred more than you implied.

> If you do not have faith in the helmet manufacturers, or the AS
> standard and are of the belief that cycling is completely safe, then
> what do you have to lose by getting rid of your old bell helmet and
> getting one that is a third or less in weight and tenfold in terms of
> ventilation? you stll comply with the laws and as a bonus there's
> less weight on your head and its cooler ( in temp) anyways!

What, spend money on what I believe to be an inferior product? A non
hard-shell helmet is, to me, an oxymoron. If you think cycling is unsafe,
why do you do it. Don't you think it's irresponsible with regards to your
family, society, and your insurance company to partake in dangerous
pastimes?

> So you do agree that there is a fixed lengtth to the working life of a
> helmet?

No. There is definitely a life but I don't think anyone can tell you what it
is. The life is certainly far shorter for a styrofoam and hairnet helmet.

> Name a few safety equipment things that work as well as they did,
> twenty years on?
> Let alone a twenty year old safety item that works as well or better
> than a current version?

Hard shell bicycle helmets.

> Seatbelts in cars are supposed to be replaced after a good crash,

I'm not a great believer in secondary safety, particularly when it takes
precedence over primary safety. Which do you think is more important in a
car, seatbelts and airbags, or a braking system, chassis design, and driver
training that enables you to avaiod that brick wall? For a cyclist, a road
awareness training session will be much more value in preventing accidents,
than a helmet will be of value in an accident that would be less likely to
happen after the training?

> You as an adult can also chosse not to do these things, its YOUR
> choice to accept or ignore these acceptable rules. It is your
> head/body - how you protect them is your decision.

Am I wrong again in inferring that you consider my choices to be silly
choices? I apologise not to be using your rulebook.

Theo

 

[Tamyka Bell]

TimC wrote:
>
> On 2006-01-06, Tamyka Bell (aka Bruce)
> was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> > Theo Bekkers wrote:
> >> Seatbelts protect your head from going through the windscreen, not the side
> >> pillars. Few crashes are head-on and side pillars cause a lot of head
> >> injuries. Very few cars have side airbags. Mine doesn't, does yours, how
> >> many people you know have side airbags? My son's Merc is the only car of the
> >> people I know personally that does but it cost $105K.
> >
> > Nah, my car is a 15-y.o. pos which is one of the reasons I ride my bike.
>
> Tam, don't ever get a new car!
>
>

No worries. I was thinking about selling this one, buying a bike
trailer, and using the leftover money as a "car hire" fund for when I
REALLY need a car. Of course my rego would go into this fund every year,
and it would be a high interest account

Tam

 

[Theo Bekkers]

Tamyka Bell wrote:

> Of course my rego would go into this fund every
> year, and it would be a high interest account

Banks have a large range of high interest accounts, they're called Loans.

Theo

 

[Rayc]

Theo Bekkers wrote:

> > If you do not have faith in the helmet manufacturers, or the AS
> > standard and are of the belief that cycling is completely safe,

> What, spend money on what I believe to be an inferior product? A non
> hard-shell helmet is, to me, an oxymoron. If you think cycling is unsafe,
> why do you do it. Don't you think it's irresponsible with regards to your
> family, society, and your insurance company to partake in dangerous
> pastimes?
>

in the same vein, isnt it irresponsible on your behalf to not protect
yourself against harm, for your family, society and your insurance
company. Knives aren't dangerous in themselves, but would you give them
to toddlers to play with?

> > Name a few safety equipment things that work as well as they did,
> > twenty years on?

> Hard shell bicycle helmets.
so you believe,

> I'm not a great believer in secondary safety, particularly when it takes
> precedence over primary safety. Which do you think is more important in a
> car, seatbelts and airbags, or a braking system, chassis design, and driver
> training that enables you to avaiod that brick wall? For a cyclist, a road
> awareness training session will be much more value in preventing accidents,
> than a helmet will be of value in an accident that would be less likely to
> happen after the training?
>
I thinks its acceptable to say that no helmet will protect you against
a vehicle running over you or drivers who are out to run you over.
However you are irresponsible to assume that these accidents could be
avoided by "a road awareness training session"
thats not what wearing a helmet is about, it about giving you a chance
to survive your head bouncing on the ground or against an object.

Whether you do this by making a misjudement or circumstance beyond your
control, wouldn't you want the best chance to survive this mishap? or
are you that irresponsible that you assume that nothng will ever happen
to you, or because "you know better" you'll never have an accident?


> Am I wrong again in inferring that you consider my choices to be silly
> choices?
No but you might be considered to be irresponsible tho, esp to your
family, society, and your insurance company

>I apologise not to be using your rulebook.
Not my rulebook! but as I said - YOUR CHOICE!

 

[L'acrobat]

"EuanB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Rayc Wrote:
>>
>> Bell ran an ad a couple of years ago in the US, something like $100
>> feet - $5 head
>> Crazy to think that we are quite happy to spend $1000+ for a bike,
>> $200+ on shoes, tyres all the time, constant servicing and on it goes
>> but not on a helmet! - madness.
>>
> That all depends on whether you believe helmets do the job they claim.
>
> Consider: the chances of having an accident on a bicycle are about the
> same as those of having an accident as a pedestrian. Out of all those
> accidents approximately one percent involve a head injury. That's a
> pretty low risk and for many people hardly worth taking measures
> against.

Except when you do the basic risk management practice and also look at both
the potential consequences of such an injury and the cost to protect against
it.

Possible death or permanent disability v a $30.00 helmet.

As someone who has come off a bike totalled a $30.00 helmet in the process
and gotten away with a concussion and a missing 6 hours from my life, I'd
say the money was well spent.

BTW, I'd like to see a cite that suggests you are as likely to have an
accident as a cyclist as you are as a pedestrian - I suspect that you have
either guessed, misinterpreted or misread the statistics.

 

[Rayc]

Bravo!,

I cant believe that people would rather save $100 or less a year on the
off chance that they wont have an acident. Usually they're not
something that you have control over.
I too have totaled a helmet or two in my time, ( due to my own bad
line choices)

but each time am so glad I had a newish ( less than two year old)
helmet on.

 

[Bleve]

Dee Dub wrote:
> Rayc Wrote:
> >
> >
> > It's not that I think we should all wear our helmets and need to swap
> > them over regardless every two years.
> > ... the lifetime of a helmet is *quite defined * and lessened by
> > exposure to UV, and body oils and hair products.
> >
> > ...but a five year old helmet *most likely
> > will not provide the full impact absorbtion of a new helmet*, that's
> > my
> > point
>
> I can understand these things may be possible, but where's the evidence
> of this? When I ring to try to get my helmet repaired, I get the
> "replace every 3 years" line. This sounds like the bike shop trying to
> sell more helmets to me.

The mark up on a helmet is suprisingly low, *especially* on the
high-end helmets.

 

[L'acrobat]

"Rayc" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Bravo!,
>
> I cant believe that people would rather save $100 or less a year on the
> off chance that they wont have an acident. Usually they're not
> something that you have control over.
> I too have totaled a helmet or two in my time, ( due to my own bad
> line choices)
>
> but each time am so glad I had a newish ( less than two year old)
> helmet on.
>


I'm not sure why I crashed (I suspect I made some bad choices), as I lost 30
mins before and about 6 hours after the accident - but I'm bloody glad I had
a new helmet on when I crashed, I might have lost a great deal more had the
helmet not done its job.

 

[Terry Collins]

Rayc wrote:
> Bravo!,
>
> I cant believe that people would rather save $100 or less a year on the
> off chance that they wont have an acident.

lol, obviously your life experiences are very, very, very limited. As
you grow older you may unfortunately come to understand very, very, clearly.

 

[dave]

L'acrobat wrote:
> "Rayc" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>Bravo!,
>>
>>I cant believe that people would rather save $100 or less a year on the
>>off chance that they wont have an acident. Usually they're not
>>something that you have control over.
>>I too have totaled a helmet or two in my time, ( due to my own bad
>>line choices)
>>
>>but each time am so glad I had a newish ( less than two year old)
>>helmet on.
>>
>
>
>
> I'm not sure why I crashed (I suspect I made some bad choices), as I lost 30
> mins before and about 6 hours after the accident - but I'm bloody glad I had
> a new helmet on when I crashed, I might have lost a great deal more had the
> helmet not done its job.
>
>
Well it seems likely it saved you a cut or two. If you believe it saved
more than that, it is entirely your business. If you care to prove it
(annecdotal evidence does not meet my criteria of proof) then feel free
to do so.

Otherwise your opinion is noted

Dave

 

[Rayc]

well, in my case, I feel it to be important that I at least give my
self the best chance of coming out of a blow to the head accident ok.
After all I have a loving partner, and family, and resposiblitlies to
them. Not to mention that I have financial responsibilities to my
partner in the form of a mortage.
Thats a resposible attitude no?

Why wouldnt I want to protect myself? and as for the price of $100
dollars - thats not much at all

 

[L'acrobat]

"dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Well it seems likely it saved you a cut or two. If you believe it saved
> more than that, it is entirely your business. If you care to prove it
> (annecdotal evidence does not meet my criteria of proof) then feel free to
> do so.
>
> Otherwise your opinion is noted

The doctor (a friend) who I consulted as soon as I realised where I was and
what had happened, was of the opinion (from the pattern of injuries) that
without a helmet, I'd have landed on my temple and probably would have died.

Of course whilst your medical opinion is noted, I'll go with that of a
Doctor.

 

[Terry Collins]

Rayc wrote:

> Why wouldnt I want to protect myself?
Not relevant

> and as for the price of $100
> dollars - thats not much at all

Isn't it?
but you conveinently ignored a certain parameter you specified!

 

[Rayc]

Terry Collins wrote

the usually load of scummy **** because it is easier to **** on other
people than present their own 2c.

>lol, obviously your life experiences are very, very, very limited. As
>you grow older you may unfortunately come to understand very, very, clearly.
.....
so you know me and my life? just Like I know you

>>Why wouldnt I want to protect myself?

>Not relevant
why not, isnt my life just as valuable as yours? Thats just the same
attitude as when bike riders claim all car drivers have road rage and
that it has nothing to do with bike riders!

>> and as for the price of $100
> >dollars - thats not much at all

>Isn't it?
>but you conveinently ignored a certain parameter you specified!

Did I? where?
Is it not a responsible action to try and protect yourself from harm?
and as for $100 being expensive, it may be $100 dollars I have to spend
now, but at least I am hoping to continue to able to the financial
responsibilties I have and not to be a burden on partners, familty and
the state!


Its not just about the nows but also the future, prehaps your happy to
become a burden on your family and society for the rest of your life
just because you refused to protect your self

 

[ProfTournesol]

flyingdutch wrote:

> wwooopppp wwooopppp wwooopppp wwooopppp wwooopppp
>
> HELMET DEBATE!!!!!!!
>
> run fer your livesssssssssssss

First one for the year. Had to happen.

Theo

somebody please end it by talking about the nazis.
see http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/legends/godwin/

 

[Random Data]

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 01:30:32 -0800, Rayc wrote:

> why not, isnt my life just as valuable as yours?

Yes, but I'm fairly sure the point Terry is trying to push is that helmets
haven't been proven effective [1] [2]. I take the attitude that they're
probably not going to hurt me, probably will at least reduce the damage,
and they're not too uncomfortable on my head or wallet. I'll ride to the
station without one though.

[1] There are a buttload of studies that show conclusive evidence that
they are. There is about the same number, using the same data, that show
they aren't.
[2] And of course, there is fairly good evidence that helmet *legislation*
has caused more harm than it's saved through reduced cycling activity.

--
Dave Hughes | [email protected]
Brooker's Law: "The wackier the project, the easier it is to fund."

 

[dave]

L'acrobat wrote:
> "dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>>Well it seems likely it saved you a cut or two. If you believe it saved
>>more than that, it is entirely your business. If you care to prove it
>>(annecdotal evidence does not meet my criteria of proof) then feel free to
>>do so.
>>
>>Otherwise your opinion is noted
>
>
> The doctor (a friend) who I consulted as soon as I realised where I was and
> what had happened, was of the opinion (from the pattern of injuries) that
> without a helmet, I'd have landed on my temple and probably would have died.
>
> Of course whilst your medical opinion is noted, I'll go with that of a
> Doctor.

Good god why? even a neurologist is unlikely to be an expert on inpact
prevention by helmets. Thats an insane attitude. Wery like my going
with the opinion of my mechanic as to the efficiency of seatbelts.

I would go with the opinion of the helmet makers if anyone. And I so
doubt they would say the helmet has saved your life.

Does your doctor ride? Does he own a helmet? Can he descibe its
compositon and crash absorbance mechanism. If so his opinion is worth
exactly what anyone elses of this forums is

Dave
>
>

 

[Terry Collins]

Rayc wrote:
> Terry Collins wrote
>
> the usually load of scummy **** because it is easier to **** on other
> people than present their own 2c.
>
>
>>lol, obviously your life experiences are very, very, very limited. As
>>you grow older you may unfortunately come to understand very, very, clearly.
>
> ....
> so you know me and my life? just Like I know you
>
>
>>>Why wouldnt I want to protect myself?
>
>
>>Not relevant
>
> why not, isnt my life just as valuable as yours?

Not the argument.
We are not even going to argue about wearing helemts


>>Isn't it?
>>but you conveinently ignored a certain parameter you specified!
>
>
> Did I? where?

YOU stated that spending $100 per annum on a bicycle helmet was nblah
blah blah blah.

And what I said was that was a load of ****. There are some people who
can not afford to spend $100 per annum on a bicycle helmet, but you
don't have the understanding of other people and their life experiences
or situaions. End of story.

>
> Its not just about the nows but also the future, prehaps your happy to
> become a burden on your family and society for the rest of your life
> just because you refused to protect your self

Yep, I've been hearing that **** since the fscking quacks starting
demanding that helmets be made compulsory.

You know what would be a better method? Make the pigs do their jobs
properly and fairly instead of allowing them to encourage petrol heads.

And for your information, you might like to look at who gets the hand
outs in this country. Your self righteous **** about being dependant on
others doesn't sound so holy when you find out who really has their hand
in your pocket.
>

 

[dave]

Random Data wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 01:30:32 -0800, Rayc wrote:
>
>
>>why not, isnt my life just as valuable as yours?
>
>
> Yes, but I'm fairly sure the point Terry is trying to push is that helmets
> haven't been proven effective [1] [2]. I take the attitude that they're
> probably not going to hurt me, probably will at least reduce the damage,
> and they're not too uncomfortable on my head or wallet. I'll ride to the
> station without one though.

THat would be my attitude exactly.
>
> [1] There are a buttload of studies that show conclusive evidence that
> they are. There is about the same number, using the same data, that show
> they aren't.
> [2] And of course, there is fairly good evidence that helmet *legislation*
> has caused more harm than it's saved through reduced cycling activity.

Really good evidence for that.

Dave
>

 

[Rayc]

Terry Collins wrote:

nblah
> blah blah blah.
> There are some people who
> can not afford to spend $100 per annum on a bicycle helmet, but you
> don't have the understanding of other people and their life experiences
> or situaions. End of story.
>
at no point did I say people had to spend a minimum of $100,
Did I bag L'acrobat for spend $30, I said I was happy to spend $100
>
> And for your information, you might like to look at who gets the hand
> outs in this country. Your self righteous **** about being dependant on
> others doesn't sound so holy when you find out who really has their hand
> in your pocket.
> >
get off the soapbox and stick to the topic, some thing about "whats a
reasonable time frame for helmet replacement ( dont know if you
actually read any of it)

Gee terry why dont you give us your " the usually load of scummy ****
because it is easier to **** on other people than present their own
2c." and contribute to the discussion instead of jumping in and
slagging someome off.