Re: I crash into religion



Tony Raven wrote:
> Chris Malcolm wrote:
>>
>> The human body is designed to withstand much heavier falls than that
>> without breaking bones. If these injuries happened to your friend in
>> a 3mph fall while wearing full body armour then he must suffer badly
>> from osteoporosis, or was he perhaps run over by car?
>>

>
> Or as in American football, the injury was caused by the protective
> equipment.


The game would be over in three minutes without the gear those guys wear.

Bill "bias revealed?" S.
 
[email protected] wrote:
> On Sat, 13 May 2006 00:48:56 +0100, Richard
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>>> Imagine you are on vacation in a nice place with your bike. And
>>> there are no bike shops around or other cyclists to borrow a helmet
>>> from. And you discover you didn't have a helmet with you (lost it,
>>> forgot it, whatever). Would you ride?

>>
>> Or even better - you're on a jolly jaunt, helmeted. You take a
>> gentle spill on some loose gravel 30 miles into the ride and bump
>> the side of your helmet. Now, helmets that have taken a bang
>> shouldn't, according to the manufacturers, be used again. How do
>> you get home? :)
>>
>> R.

>
> Dear Richard,
>
> !!!
>
> Admiringly,
>
> Carl Fogel


Ohfergawdsake. You ride home. Once there, you look at the helmet. No
cracks? Nothing loose or coming apart? Keep it in service.

!!! yourself.

PS: You misspelled Snarkily (easy for me to say)...
 
[email protected] wrote:
> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>
>> <snipped>
>>
>>>
>>> So for people who are interested in the issue, and uninterested in
>>> actually thinking and learning about the issue, there is value in
>>> these threads
>>>

>>
>> The "Krygowski Method", revealed!

>
> Sorry about the typo. It came from an extensive revision before
> posting. Let me try again:
>
> So for people who are interested in the issue, and interested in
> actually thinking and learning about the issue, there is value in
> these threads.
>
> For many, these threads have been quite educational.
>
> For people who are not interested in thinking and learning about the
> issue, I suppose the threads have no value.
>
> If that's you, don't read them.


IOW, if we bully and belittle people who are pro-helmet long enough, only us
AHZs will be left posting to the threads.

Self-satisfied much?
 
Sorni wrote:
>
>
> IOW, if we bully and belittle people who are pro-helmet long enough, only us
> AHZs will be left posting to the threads.


:) What can you say about someone who thinks studying is the same as
being bullied?

Sorni, you glorify ignorance more than anyone I've ever met.

- Frank Krygowski
 
Sorni wrote:
> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> > On Fri, 12 May 2006 23:02:48 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> two cowardly

> > too cowardly.
> >
> > Must work on vision and typing...

>
> If I were you I'd start with manners and disposition.


Uh, no, you wouldn't.

Unless you mean, to make them worse.
"
 
[email protected] wrote:
> Sorni wrote:
>> Peter Clinch wrote:
>>> p.k. wrote:

>>
>>>> So perlease don't give me
>>>> any "I'm a scientist, I know best" ******** [I'm not sure if that
>>>> was you or others]

>>
>>> And nobody's said that either.

>>
>> Frank just did, to Sandy.
>>
>>> I have said "I have a science
>>> background and access to the material so I have a fair chance in
>>> assessing it" but nothing stronger than that, and others have chimed
>>> in that they are in a similar position. In suggesting that anyone's
>>> saying the above you are exaggerating the case apropos of unfounded
>>> supposition and undermining the authority of your own posts. Which
>>> is ironic...

>>
>> See what Frank wrote to Sandy. (BTW, I'm not saying it's rude or
>> abusive in the least, but he does assert his "superiority" because
>> he's a scientist -- pretty much meeting what p.k. described to a
>> 't'.)

>
> Yes, I freely admit, I did that. Although I'm not strictly speaking a
> scientist. I'm a registered professional engineer.
>
> IOW, because I'm trained and certified in the practical application of
> science, I think I'm superior in evaluating scientific claims than is
> a person trained to argue legal points.
>
> It's not an absolute guarantee, granted. But in discussion after
> discussion, Sandy's rudely mocked engineers and scientists who have
> disagreed with him on technical points. His arguments (regarding
> vibrations in bike frames, fatigue of brake bolts, etc.) have failed
> to impress _any_ engineers, AFAIK. They've never been proven correct
> by actual data, AFAIK. (And that last sentence was probably
> redundant, given the one immediately preceding it.)
>
> Despite Sorni's doubts, I think that lawyers tend to be better at law;
> that bike mechanics tend to be better at repairing bikes; and that
> scientists and engineers tend to be better at science and engineering.


What doubts? I was merely refuting what {whoever the hell it was} said
about no one saying exactly what you say. Often.

BTW, Frank, is Dr. Ruth Westheimer better at sex than...say, Elizabeth
Hurley? She sure knows a helluva lot more about it!

And do couples need to refer to "The Manual" in order to have a good time in
the sack?

Do nerds and geeks enjoy their bike rides more than waffle waitresses
because they understand the physics involved?

Does Billy Bike Rider have to consult studies and statistics before deciding
what kit to buy?

I originally "joined" this NG years ago when I bought my first road bike in
decades. Not sure why I never thought of it while only a mtb-er. I wanted
to learn more about components, repairs, etc. Do freaking helmet flame
fests even BELONG in tech? WHy doesn't Jobst speak up like he does about
/ride reports/ in misc?

Damn, I could have been playing backgammon all this time...
 
[email protected] wrote:
> Sorni wrote:
>>
>>
>> IOW, if we bully and belittle people who are pro-helmet long enough,
>> only us AHZs will be left posting to the threads.

>
> :) What can you say about someone who thinks studying is the same as
> being bullied?
>
> Sorni, you glorify ignorance more than anyone I've ever met.


Apparently reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, brainiac.
 
Sorni wrote:
> Tony Raven wrote:
>> Or as in American football, the injury was caused by the protective
>> equipment.

>
> The game would be over in three minutes without the gear those guys wear.
>
> Bill "bias revealed?" S.
>


You've never seen Rugby or Australian Rules Football then?


--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham
 
Tony Raven wrote:
> Sorni wrote:
>> Tony Raven wrote:


>>> Or as in American football, the injury was caused by the protective
>>> equipment.


>> The game would be over in three minutes without the gear those guys
>> wear. Bill "bias revealed?" S.



> You've never seen Rugby or Australian Rules Football then?


Yes, I have. What does that have to do with your statement that protective
gear causes injur(ies) in American football? (The two games are very
different in many ways, not the least of which are the size and speed of the
participants.)

Caveat: the thread has collapsed, so if in fact you were talking about a
specific case where specific equipment caused a specific player to get hurt,
then never mind.
 
Jay Beattie wrote:
>
> Absolutely right, except for what I have told by other s, vis., that
> dropping populations resulted in higher injury rates in Australia and
> New Zeland.


Three things happened at a near-simultaneous moment in time: helmet use
more than doubled (because of a draconian law), cycling use decreased
29-42% (because of the same draconian law), and head injury rates
stayed about the same or increased. What was the cause of what?
According to the "growth rule" as described in the link in FK's post,
that cycling gets safer with numbers, that is supposed to be in 1:1
proportion. So, even with that special rule, the drop in cycling cannot
explain the trend, which is that helmets provided no benefit or made
things worse.


> They also do protect against skull fracture. If had landed square on
> the top right side of my head without my helmet, I probably would have
> fractured my skull. I believe that because I separated my shoulder,
> and it hit second.


It's hard to see how that would have happened without your brain being
scrambled first. At the 300g deceleration against a flat surace, you
are not supposed to be at the limit of skull fracture, but you are
supposed to be at the limit of brain scrambling. In other words, by the
time a bicycle helmet (as opposed to a hard hat) is protecting you
against skull fracture, you are already dead, i.e., even without any
helmet, you will sustain a mortal injury to your brain before your
skull fractures. That is not the case if it is you who is at rest and
the object that is flying against you, because in that case, your
deceleration is 0g no matter what, comfortably below the 300g limit.
But that is not what bicycle helmets are designed for.

Are you sure your helmet is slipperier than your head? Do you shave
your head? Even so, I wouldn't be too sure. Check it out, rubbing both
against the brick wall of your house, or your driveway.
 
Sorni wrote:
> > On Sat, 13 May 2006 00:48:56 +0100, Richard
> > <[email protected]> wrote:


Now, helmets that have taken a bang
> >> shouldn't, according to the manufacturers, be used again. How do
> >> you get home? :)


> Ohfergawdsake. You ride home. Once there, you look at the helmet. No
> cracks? Nothing loose or coming apart? Keep it in service.


Uh, did you RTFM? The manufacturers say otherwise, that damage may
occur which is not visible, yet which nevertheless ruins the helmet.
Well, maybe they just want to sell more.
 
in message <[email protected]>, Jay
Beattie ('[email protected]') wrote:

>> Wearing a helmet to protect against minor injuries is fine. I do so
>> myself when I ride in situations where that is the likely mode of
>> injury (ie off road singletrack). On road, where impacts will be
>> harder, I prefer to sacrifice a bit of skin to keep my brain intact.

>
> I just don't see how rotational injury is increased in the OTB scenario
> -- the helmet does not help (probably), but I don't see how it hurts.


The hypothesis is that because the effective diameter of the head is
increased and the coefficient of friction /may/ be increased, the
rotational moment imparted to the brain /may/ be increased. There are,
as far as I know, no studies that comfirm this, but I find it credible.
The /probability/ of rotational moment being imparted to the brain
certainly is increased by helmet wearing, because very often with normal
falling reflexes your head will miss the pavement altogether, but by
less than the thickness of a cycle helmet.

Note that, if you have a good head of hair, the coefficient of friction
of your head on pavement is probably lower if you do not wear a helmet
(although you are likely to get grazing, and it's going to be nasty to
clean up), but that if you have very short hair or none you probably do
lower your coefficient of friction by wearing a helmet. This isn't
proven, either, but again I find it credible.

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

to err is human, to lisp divine
;; attributed to Kim Philby, oddly enough.
 
41 wrote:
> Sorni wrote:
>>> On Sat, 13 May 2006 00:48:56 +0100, Richard
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> Now, helmets that have taken a bang
>>>> shouldn't, according to the manufacturers, be used again. How do
>>>> you get home? :)

>
>> Ohfergawdsake. You ride home. Once there, you look at the helmet.
>> No cracks? Nothing loose or coming apart? Keep it in service.


> Uh, did you RTFM? The manufacturers say otherwise, that damage may
> occur which is not visible, yet which nevertheless ruins the helmet.
> Well, maybe they just want to sell more.


And shampoo bottle directions say to rinse and repeat. Electronic equipment
manuals say to turn off or even unplug the device before attaching cables.
As Frank would say, you're fear-mongering!

Bill "air compressors and blow-up dolls? anyone?" S.
 
Jay Beattie wrote:

[snip stuff irrelevant to my point]

> My Limar is 7/8" on the sides and 1 1/8" on the front. The tail is
> hard to measure, but putting it up against a flat surface and measuring
> to the inside of the padding, it is 3". I don't think you can say this
> becomes a lever, though, because the helmet twists. In fact, here is
> one for the helmets-cause-injury crowd, the last time I suffered a
> side blow to my head (while wearing this current Limar helmet -- I hit
> the side and not the tail), the helmet twisted, and that sizing band on
> the inside cut into my forehead. I was rather disappointed by that.
> No head injury, though -- not that I would have had a head injury. I
> have had this kind of washout without a helmet, and I didn't have a
> head injury then, either. -- Jay Beattie.


If your current helmet has already sustained an impact, you probably
should not be using it any more [1]. My dad, who for a long period of
his life ran a company producing both industrial safety hats and
motorcycle crash helmets [2], used to stress that helmets are designed
to withstand only one major impact. The effects of an impact on the
structure and integrity of a helmet are difficult to predict, but you
may have weaknesses in your lid that are not possible to spot with the
naked eye.

[1] Insert caveats here around any manufacturers claims and severity of
impact.
[2] In a bizarre way, we lived next to (mum would say "in") the factory.
I grew up being exposed to the manufacturing and BSI [3] testing of each
batch.
[3] British Standards Institute

--
Don Whybrow

Sequi Bonum Non Time

Invalid thought detected. Close all mental processes and restart
body.
 
Dans le message de
news:[email protected],
41 <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :

> even without any
> helmet, you will sustain a mortal injury to your brain before your
> skull fractures.


You may want to think about that, again.
--
Sandy
-
"Our knowledge is a little island in a great ocean of non-knowledge."
- Edward O. Wilson
 
On Fri, 12 May 2006 21:11:16 +0100,
Peter Clinch <[email protected]> wrote:
> wheelist wrote:
>
>> I do have a problem with the science however, and some of the
>> proponents of it in this thread: the data comes from reported incidents
>> of accidents on the road. Minor incidents don't get reported, and
>> off-road incidents don't figure either. There may be a different
>> outcome if these results were to be taken into account - who knows?

>
> Quite right.


Although if the incidents were so minor that people didn't even go to seek
medical treatment are they worth worrying about? Yes, you hear stories
of people who break bones or get a concussion not going in to get checked
out but I would have to say that they would be in a very small minority.

--
Andy Leighton => [email protected]
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_
 
Sorni wrote:
[American football]
> The game would be over in three minutes without the gear those guys wear.


When was it devised? Was that padding available then? Was it
available to poor schoolkids playing it back then? Did all the
games last three minutes back then?

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/
 
Dans le message de news:[email protected],
Peter Clinch <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> Sorni wrote:
> [American football]
>> The game would be over in three minutes without the gear those guys
>> wear.

>
> When was it devised?


845AD

> Was that padding available then?


Not with all the newest carbon fibre elements, but good plastics, yes.

> Was it available to poor schoolkids playing it back then?


Poor kids didn't go to school, but of course, under local council subsidies.

> Did all the games last three minutes back then?


Depends on the sand drop rate ; let's say 2-4 minutes, to cover.
--

--
Sandy

The above is guaranteed 100% free of sarcasm,
denigration, snotty remarks, indifference, platitudes, fuming demands that
"you do the math", conceited visions of a better world on wheels according
to [insert NAME here].
 
in message <[email protected]>, Sorni
('[email protected]') wrote:

> Ohfergawdsake. You ride home. Once there, you look at the helmet. No
> cracks? Nothing loose or coming apart? Keep it in service.


Look, it is not a magic talisman. At best, it is a shaped lump of
polystyrene foam. Polystyrene foam does indeed resist crushing
remarkably well, but only once; and internal damage to the structure is
usually not visible to the naked eye.

So /if/ you are wearing a helmet because you hope it may help in an
accident, and you bash it on something, throw it away and get another.
Just because nothing visible is wrong with it does not mean it has any
useful protective capacity left.

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

;; IE 3 is dead, but Netscape 4 still shambles about the earth,
;; wreaking a horrific vengeance upon the living
;; anonymous
 
Simon Brooke wrote:
>
> Note that, if you have a good head of hair, the coefficient of friction
> of your head on pavement is probably lower if you do not wear a helmet
> (although you are likely to get grazing, and it's going to be nasty to
> clean up), but that if you have very short hair or none you probably do
> lower your coefficient of friction by wearing a helmet. This isn't
> proven, either, but again I find it credible.
>


In either case though the skin over you skull is not rigidly attached.
So on contact with a surface it initially slides over the surface of the
skull reducing the peak force on you skull and hence rotational force on
your brain and neck. With a helmet the grab is instant. Some motorbike
helmets are now being made with an outer skin that moves in the same way
as human skin in order to reduce the peak loading.

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham
 

Similar threads

J
Replies
10
Views
448
D
J
Replies
10
Views
471
D
J
Replies
4
Views
402
Cycling Equipment
John Forrest Tomlinson
J
J
Replies
4
Views
427
UK and Europe
John Forrest Tomlinson
J
J
Replies
3
Views
358
S
J
Replies
3
Views
400
S
J
Replies
3
Views
375
O
J
Replies
3
Views
368
UK and Europe
Ozark Bicycle
O
S
Replies
371
Views
7K
Cycling Equipment
Espressopithecus (Java Man)
E
S
Replies
371
Views
6K
UK and Europe
Espressopithecus (Java Man)
E