Several cyclists injured in another black ice incident



S

Simon Brooke

Guest
in message <[email protected]>, davek
('[email protected]') wrote:

> Ian Smith wrote:
>> And don't even think of getting into a shower bare-headed.

>
> Personally, I daren't risk even getting out of bed until I have my full
> body armour on.


The problem with crashing your bike, though (at least the way /I/ do it),
is that for a month and a half you're not even allowed to take your body
armour off when you're in bed, and let me tell you it's bloody
uncomfortable to sleep in (I am fortunately now allowed to sleep without
it).

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

;; It appears that /dev/null is a conforming XSL processor.
 
S

Simon Brooke

Guest
in message <[email protected]>,
MartinM ('[email protected]') wrote:

>
> Mark Thompson wrote:
>> > and you know this for a fact? The anti-helmet "facts" espoused by
>> > some on this NG are often as incredulous as the pro ones espoused by
>> > the manufacturers

>>
>> Yes. Are you implying that my statement was false, anti-helmet
>> 'propaganda'? No, of course not. The statement was true and neither
>> 'pro' not 'anti' helmet.

>
> no I was questioning whether a polystyrene cycle helmet (covered in
> what ever meringue etc they cover them in) absorbs no energy unless it
> compresses.


That's pretty easy to prove, too. Take a cycle helmet (ideally one you
don't plan to use again) put your two hands about where your ears would
be and squeeze it between them until it breaks. That's how much energy
it absorbs in 'non crush' mode, and it isn't very much. Obviously, of
course, a helmet which breaks in the course of duty may have partially
crushed before it split.

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

((DoctorWho)ChristopherEccleston).act();
uk.co.bbc.TypecastException: actor does not want to be typecast.
[adapted from autofile on /., 31/03/05]
 
M

MartinM

Guest
Richard wrote:


> > no, just that it is written IMO from an anti-compulsion stance so does
> > tend to favour the arguments which show the effectiveness of helmets in
> > a less than positive light.

>
> So, again, how do they "favour" these arguments? Concrete examples,
> please.


well if I had time I would go through every stat quoted in it and
probably be able to show that a lot of the samples were too small to be
robust on either camp; but suffice to say that cyclehelmets.org. is IMO
set up to counter the argument for compulsion, which it does very well.
But it shouldn't be taken as proof that helmets are useless either,
that's all I'm saying.
 
D

davek

Guest
Simon Brooke wrote:
> for a month and a half you're not even allowed to take your body
> armour off when you're in bed, and let me tell you it's bloody
> uncomfortable to sleep in


I had a broken arm once. Having my arm in plaster for six weeks was
hell. I can't begin to imagine how thoroughly unpleasant it must be to
have your /whole body/ encased and unmovable....

> (I am fortunately now allowed to sleep without
> it).


Ah, well, good to hear you are making progress. Are you still in much pain?

d.
 
T

Tim Woodall

Guest
On 31 Jan 2006 07:40:13 -0800,
MartinM <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Helmets do a variety of things depending on the accident; from scraping
> along the ground to shattering to compressing a bit to causing
> increased rotation (and that doesn't include any external effect they
> may have on other road users or even their wearers). The figures for
> the effectiveness or disadvantage of each situation are not
> sufficiently large IMO to make many claims either way. Compare this to
> seatbelts where presumably they had a large amount of data before and
> after they were fitted and also a fairly standard scenario in which
> they were effective (I assume).
>

Actually no. There was a lot of evidence that a compulsory (front)
seatbelt law would result in increased deaths and injuries. In order to
make sure the government muddied the water as much as possible they made
sure to bring in evidential breathtesting laws at the same time.

It's hard to isolate the two effects now but my best guess is that at
best the seatbelt law did nothing at all and at worst caused about 300
extra deaths per year. YMMV

Tim.

--
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = - @B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t,"
and there was light.

http://tjw.hn.org/ http://www.locofungus.btinternet.co.uk/
 
M

Matt B

Guest
John B wrote:
>
> Matt B wrote:
>
>>There are certain similarities with that dreadful recent incident in Wales.

>
> No similarity at all.


Weekend. Unanticipated ice. Lost control of vehicle. Third party
cyclist casualties. Gritting questions asked.

> He didn't wipe out any motorists.


Who didn't? Or, to put it another way; who did?

> Next.


Next what?

--
Matt B
 
M

Matt B

Guest
R. Murphy wrote:
> Wasn't the Welsh tragedy due to a car skidding into a group of cyclists? -


Yes, as opposed to a cyclist skidding into a group of cyclists.

--
Matt B
 
J

jtaylor

Guest
"MartinM" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> Richard wrote:
>
>
> > > no, just that it is written IMO from an anti-compulsion stance so does
> > > tend to favour the arguments which show the effectiveness of helmets

in
> > > a less than positive light.

> >
> > So, again, how do they "favour" these arguments? Concrete examples,
> > please.

>
> well if I had time I would go through every stat quoted in it and
> probably be able to show that a lot of the samples were too small to be
> robust on either camp; but suffice to say that cyclehelmets.org. is IMO
> set up to counter the argument for compulsion, which it does very well.
> But it shouldn't be taken as proof that helmets are useless either,
> that's all I'm saying.
>


Not useful = useless.
 
M

M-gineering

Guest
Simon Brooke wrote:
> Many of us
> who have studied the evidence still wear helmets when riding off road.


Much more convenient than having to return to retrieve your woolly hat
now dangling from a branch ;)




--
---
Marten Gerritsen

INFOapestaartjeM-GINEERINGpuntNL
www.m-gineering.nl
 
M

MartinM

Guest
Simon Brooke wrote:
> in message <[email protected]>,
> MartinM ('[email protected]') wrote:
>
> >
> > Mark Thompson wrote:
> >> > and you know this for a fact? The anti-helmet "facts" espoused by
> >> > some on this NG are often as incredulous as the pro ones espoused by
> >> > the manufacturers
> >>
> >> Yes. Are you implying that my statement was false, anti-helmet
> >> 'propaganda'? No, of course not. The statement was true and neither
> >> 'pro' not 'anti' helmet.

> >
> > no I was questioning whether a polystyrene cycle helmet (covered in
> > what ever meringue etc they cover them in) absorbs no energy unless it
> > compresses.

>
> That's pretty easy to prove, too. Take a cycle helmet (ideally one you
> don't plan to use again) put your two hands about where your ears would
> be and squeeze it between them until it breaks. That's how much energy
> it absorbs in 'non crush' mode, and it isn't very much.


you are not wrong there; just tried squeezing it gently, although TBF
it would not normally be subject to this type of force without a bonce
inside it ( and if it was compressed sideways thus to the point of
breaking it would be no use anyway).
 
S

Simon Brooke

Guest
in message <[email protected]>, davek
('[email protected]') wrote:

> Simon Brooke wrote:
>> for a month and a half you're not even allowed to take your body
>> armour off when you're in bed, and let me tell you it's bloody
>> uncomfortable to sleep in

>
> I had a broken arm once. Having my arm in plaster for six weeks was
> hell. I can't begin to imagine how thoroughly unpleasant it must be to
> have your /whole body/ encased and unmovable....


It's not that bad. The brace is from the pelvis up to the middle of rib
cage, and is very tight and very rigid. It means you can't expand your
chest to breathe, which makes any exertion unpleasant, and it presses
very hard on your stomach and bladder, which is also unpleasant. And
obviously it gets itchy. And up until Christmas, when I was really
allowed to have any effective sort of wash, it was quite unpleasant - I
don't like being aware of my own smell!

I'm now allowed to take it off when standing upright for up to half an
hour at a time, which means I can shower; and I'm allowed to take it off
in bed.

But compared to people like Russ, for example, I'm incredibly lucky and
have nothing to complain about. I was in the bike shop this afternoon;
the Dolan is now almost fully built up with its new handlebars, its new
front fork and its new front wheel, and is just awaiting a new hollowpin
chain. It's looking absolutely gorgeous, and sometime in the next two or
three months I'll be riding it again. And I hope and expect to be able
to do audaxes and time trials this year. So, you know, it could have
been a heck of a lot worse.

>> (I am fortunately now allowed to sleep without
>> it).

>
> Ah, well, good to hear you are making progress. Are you still in much
> pain?


No. I wouldn't say I'm in /any/ pain, actually; I haven't taken a pain
killer for about a month. But it's extremely uncomfortable, and I still
get very tired.

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

Just zis Guy, you know?

Guest
I'm amazed that anyone replied to TrollB at all, unless he's
nym-shifted again.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken
 
D

davek

Guest
Guy wrote:
> I'm amazed that anyone replied to TrollB at all, unless he's
> nym-shifted again.


Yup, seems so. I did wonder why his drivel was suddenly appearing in my
inbox again. I shall have to retrain the spamhounds.

d.
 

Similar threads