Warning: H*lm*t content

Discussion in 'Australia and New Zealand' started by Euan, Aug 21, 2005.

  1. Resound

    Resound Guest

    >> This is the thing about helmets, you have an accident and see the damage
    >> done to the helmet. ``Oh thank goodness I was wearing a helmet, that
    >> impact would have left me with brain damage.'' That's a very unlikely
    >> scenario. People have been falling on their bonce since the beginning
    >> of time and it is the minority of those cases which result in brain
    >> injury.

    >
    > It's not actually, it's only recently that humans have been
    > traveling at an elevated height along concrete surfaces. A fall onto
    > a natural surface (grass, dirt etc) is usually fine. A fall onto
    > an unyielding surface is not to kind to our relatively fragile
    > heads.
    >

    And, importantly, it's only recently that we've been moving at greater than
    running speed. Hit the ground at 20kph and you're okelydokely. Hit the
    ground at 40kph and you're much more likely to break something important.
    Not always of course, but doubling impact speed is always going to skew your
    results more than a touch.
     


  2. Theo Bekkers

    Theo Bekkers Guest

    David Trudgett wrote:

    > If a person adheres to a religion[*]
    > [*] And yes, +everyone+ adheres to a religion, even "atheists".


    Of course they do. Not believing in God is a religion, just as not believing
    in the Tooth Fairy is a religion.

    Theo
    Avowed Atoothfairianist.
     
  3. Theo Bekkers

    Theo Bekkers Guest

    Resound wrote:

    > And, importantly, it's only recently that we've been moving at
    > greater than running speed. Hit the ground at 20kph and you're
    > okelydokely. Hit the ground at 40kph and you're much more likely to
    > break something important. Not always of course, but doubling impact
    > speed is always going to skew your results more than a touch.


    Err, if you fall off your bike you will hit the ground at approx 20km/h
    regardless of the speed at which you are travelling. This is the design spec
    of bike helmets. Should you have a horizontal velocity of 40 km/h you will
    still hit the ground at 20km/h. However, should you hit a kerb or a post or
    another vehicle, don't expect your helmet to be of much benefit.

    Theo
     
  4. Resound

    Resound Guest

    "Theo Bekkers" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > Resound wrote:
    >
    >> And, importantly, it's only recently that we've been moving at
    >> greater than running speed. Hit the ground at 20kph and you're
    >> okelydokely. Hit the ground at 40kph and you're much more likely to
    >> break something important. Not always of course, but doubling impact
    >> speed is always going to skew your results more than a touch.

    >
    > Err, if you fall off your bike you will hit the ground at approx 20km/h
    > regardless of the speed at which you are travelling. This is the design
    > spec of bike helmets. Should you have a horizontal velocity of 40 km/h you
    > will still hit the ground at 20km/h. However, should you hit a kerb or a
    > post or another vehicle, don't expect your helmet to be of much benefit.
    >
    > Theo
    >


    So completely irrespective of the speed at which you are travelling, you'll
    hit the ground at the same speed? Why do motorcyclists wear leathers then?
     
  5. Graeme Dods

    Graeme Dods Guest

    On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 13:52:37 +1000, David Trudgett wrote:

    > Religion *is* life, you know.


    Really, how come I've managed to survive this long without it then?
     
  6. Graeme Dods

    Graeme Dods Guest

    On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 11:31:28 +0800, Theo Bekkers wrote:

    > As a kid, I did most of my falling off bicycles on brick or cobblrstone
    > surfaces, and, like Euan, I'm not a vegatable either.


    Didn't do much for your spelling though :)

    Graeme (a few helmetless knocks to my head too many)
     
  7. Theo Bekkers

    Theo Bekkers Guest

    Graeme Dods wrote:
    > On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 11:31:28 +0800, Theo Bekkers wrote:
    >
    >> As a kid, I did most of my falling off bicycles on brick or
    >> cobblrstone surfaces, and, like Euan, I'm not a vegatable either.

    >
    > Didn't do much for your spelling though :)
    >
    > Graeme (a few helmetless knocks to my head too many)


    Hehe, I think my e key is too close to my r key. Didn't do too well with
    'vegatables' though. Spent the whole weekend running fencing wire. Seriously
    upsets your typing capabilities.

    My other excuse is my new wireless keyboard. It leaves out or doubles up on
    letters as is sees fit.

    Theo :).
     
  8. Theo Bekkers

    Theo Bekkers Guest

    Resound wrote:
    > "Theo Bekkers" <[email protected]> wrote


    >> Err, if you fall off your bike you will hit the ground at approx
    >> 20km/h regardless of the speed at which you are travelling.


    > So completely irrespective of the speed at which you are travelling,
    > you'll hit the ground at the same speed? Why do motorcyclists wear
    > leathers then?


    Umm, yes, the velocity at which you hit the ground is dependent on the
    height from which you fell. Your horizontal velocity will determine how far
    you slide and how much skin you lose from abrasion. Hence the leathers.

    Theo
     
  9. alex

    alex Guest

    Euan wrote:
    > ... Dr Dorothy Robinson's concern, instead, is bicycle safety. She has
    > just published a study in the Health Promotion Journal of Australia that
    > is likely to send shock waves through Australian cycling communities
    > with its claim that mandatory bicycle helmet laws increase rather than
    > decrease the likelihood of injuries to cyclists.
    >
    > http://melbourne.citysearch.com.au/profile?id=53571
    >
    > Personally I'd still use a helmet in winter 'cause it's a handy place to
    > put lights :) Summer I'd leave the lid behind and wear a sun hat.
    > --
    > Cheers | ~~ [email protected]
    > Euan | ~~ _-\<,
    > Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*)


    Maybe the annual research report was due and someone was low on
    publications :)
     
  10. Resound

    Resound Guest

    "Theo Bekkers" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > Resound wrote:
    >> "Theo Bekkers" <[email protected]> wrote

    >
    >>> Err, if you fall off your bike you will hit the ground at approx
    >>> 20km/h regardless of the speed at which you are travelling.

    >
    >> So completely irrespective of the speed at which you are travelling,
    >> you'll hit the ground at the same speed? Why do motorcyclists wear
    >> leathers then?

    >
    > Umm, yes, the velocity at which you hit the ground is dependent on the
    > height from which you fell. Your horizontal velocity will determine how
    > far you slide and how much skin you lose from abrasion. Hence the
    > leathers.
    >
    > Theo
    >

    Ok, that's valid, assuming a dead flat surface wherever you ride a
    bike...you know, no gutters, rocks, logs, parked cars etc.
     
  11. flaco

    flaco Guest

    "But let us, who are of the day, be sober, putting on the breastplate
    of faith and love; and for an helmet, the hope of salvation."
    1 Thessalonians 5

    So, don't drink and don't wear a helmet and you'll have to hope for
    salvation. I assume you have been wearing a helmet? Religions is always
    riddles to me.

    I am not sure who Faith is though.
     
  12. Theo Bekkers

    Theo Bekkers Guest

    Resound wrote:
    > "Theo Bekkers" <[email protected]> wrote


    >> Umm, yes, the velocity at which you hit the ground is dependent on
    >> the height from which you fell. Your horizontal velocity will
    >> determine how far you slide and how much skin you lose from
    >> abrasion. Hence the leathers.


    > Ok, that's valid, assuming a dead flat surface wherever you ride a
    > bike...you know, no gutters, rocks, logs, parked cars etc.


    I think I said that. A bicycle helmet is only useful for an impact with the
    ground. Light poles are a serious health hazard.

    Theo
     
  13. Theo Bekkers

    Theo Bekkers Guest

    flaco wrote:

    > I am not sure who Faith is though.


    It's my wife middle name. :)

    Theo
     
  14. dave

    dave Guest

    Kathy wrote:
    >
    >
    > Bleve wrote:
    > I prefer not to entrust my safety to what is
    >
    >>> essentially a piece of polystyrene designed to absorb the kinetic energy
    >>> of a fall from head height. That's all it does.

    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> "all" it does? "I refuse to breath because all it does is oxygenate my
    >>
    >> blood". Mine without doubt saved me from significant head injury. I'm
    >> mighty glad that polystyrene saved my bonce from a fall from
    >> head-height. I landed head-first (back of head). Helmets work.
    >>

    > I second that - although Dave swears that my head only hit the concrete
    > path AFTER I'd stopped falling, I KNOW that I hit my head - and I for
    > one am VERY happy with the fact that the helmet absorbed the impact, not
    > my head - and so I had no bruise or scrape or anything - not even a
    > headache :)
    >



    You landed on your shoulder. Your shoulder hurts.
    Your hands hot the road as you rolled.. your gloves worked.

    Helemts are useful against magpies and thats pretty much it. Mind you
    thats enough.
     
  15. dave

    dave Guest

    Gemma_k wrote:
    > "Bleve" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    >
    >>Euan wrote:
    >>
    >>>>>>>>"Bob" == Bob <[email protected]> writes:
    >>>
    >>> Bob> The only link is that mandatory wearing of helmets, at one
    >>> Bob> point in time, discouraged cyclists, reducing cyclist
    >>> Bob> numbers. I think everyone is over that by now - does it really
    >>> Bob> discourage anyone anymore?
    >>>
    >>>Absolutely. It's a hot and smelly inconvenience which is off-putting to
    >>>the fashion conscious.

    >>
    >>Stackhats went out in, oh, 1980? Modern helmets are light, well
    >>ventilated and comfortable.
    >>

    >
    > You miss the point. It doesn't matter how good a helmet is to wear, or how
    > safe you feel in one, or how many vents there are or what kind of hairstyle
    > you have. It's all about the choice of whther you WANT to wear a helmet,
    > rather than mandating that you do....
    > Gemma
    >
    >


    Yup

    And if you wanted sensible effective legislation mandating stuff for
    safety (and I dont) Then legislate for gloves, your hands always hit
    the road.
     
  16. dave

    dave Guest

    till! wrote:
    > Gemma_k Wrote:
    >
    >>You miss the point....It's all about the choice of whther you WANT to
    >>wear a helmet,
    >>rather than mandating that you do....

    >
    > Not at all true, I mean there is no mandate that requires you ride a
    > bike.
    >
    >


    Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

    Now thats low. There is no mandate that requires you to breathe either.
     
  17. dave

    dave Guest

    Resound wrote:
    > "Gemma_k" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    >
    >>"Bleve" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >>news:[email protected]
    >>
    >>>Euan wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>>>>>>"Bob" == Bob <[email protected]> writes:
    >>>>
    >>>> Bob> The only link is that mandatory wearing of helmets, at one
    >>>> Bob> point in time, discouraged cyclists, reducing cyclist
    >>>> Bob> numbers. I think everyone is over that by now - does it really
    >>>> Bob> discourage anyone anymore?
    >>>>
    >>>>Absolutely. It's a hot and smelly inconvenience which is off-putting to
    >>>>the fashion conscious.
    >>>
    >>>Stackhats went out in, oh, 1980? Modern helmets are light, well
    >>>ventilated and comfortable.
    >>>

    >>
    >>You miss the point. It doesn't matter how good a helmet is to wear, or
    >>how safe you feel in one, or how many vents there are or what kind of
    >>hairstyle you have. It's all about the choice of whther you WANT to wear
    >>a helmet, rather than mandating that you do....
    >>Gemma
    >>

    >
    >
    > I'm still undecided about whether the law should mandate helmet use for
    > adults. However, children don't have the sort of decision making abilities
    > that adults do, that's why they're considered children. In the same way that
    > it's illegal for children to smoke tobacco, drink alcohol etc it should be
    > illegal for them to partake of risk taking behaviour like riding without a
    > helmet. Once they're an adult they should perhaps be allowed to make up
    > their own minds. Then there's the issue of the public health system
    > subsidising people's voluntary risk taking behaviour. But that's another
    > rant.
    >
    >


    See the problem with that is that it assumes not wearing a helmet is
    rink taking behaviour.

    NOw with motorcycles its fairly well established that 1) helmets by and
    large work but 2) they also lead to a significant increase in rotational
    type brain stem injuries.. the type that leave you hoping one of your
    mates will pull the plug.

    As i said this is fairly well established stuff with lots of statistics
    supporting the above_ The pro and anti people are still fighting (of
    course) I must say with motorcyles I am in the pro catagory, feeling
    that overall you are better of but there is one hell of a down side.

    With pushy helmets there is soo little realistic evidence that they do
    more than save you from scratches.... It may be that they do. But the
    evidence shoud be pretty convincing by now.. and everything published
    seems as dodgy as a queensland election

    Legislation.. even if you have to have it.. should be on unequivical
    grounds.. its usually on emotional grounds and often flat wrong.
     
  18. Resound

    Resound Guest

    "Theo Bekkers" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > Resound wrote:
    >> "Theo Bekkers" <[email protected]> wrote

    >
    >>> Umm, yes, the velocity at which you hit the ground is dependent on
    >>> the height from which you fell. Your horizontal velocity will
    >>> determine how far you slide and how much skin you lose from
    >>> abrasion. Hence the leathers.

    >
    >> Ok, that's valid, assuming a dead flat surface wherever you ride a
    >> bike...you know, no gutters, rocks, logs, parked cars etc.

    >
    > I think I said that. A bicycle helmet is only useful for an impact with
    > the ground. Light poles are a serious health hazard.
    >
    > Theo
    >

    So anything that could mitigate the consequences of colliding with one by
    absorbing kinetic energy would be a good thing, I'm thinking. Yes, I said
    "mitigate" not "negate".
     
  19. Claes

    Claes New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2004
    Messages:
    532
    Likes Received:
    0
    I for one, can not understand how someone can say that helmets do no good. Must be me that is thick. Put a soft veggie in a helmet, drop it on the ground so the helmet hits the ground first, veggie will prolly survive from head height. Drop veggie from same height, veggie will go "splat". To me that shows it could help in accident, and I really can not see how it could make an injury worse. Sure, if you hit you chin on the ground, the helmet did not help, but that is not a fault of the helmet, it is desgined to do a certain thing and will not protect you elbow or other parts of your body.

    That type of argumentation was also used for Air bags. Lots of people got injured by them, since they did not use a seat belt, hence, air bags are dangerous. Hmm. Does not work for me.

    Also, seat belts, that is just a piece of synthetic fibers bunched together, I will not entrust my safety to that. Well you do not, you entrust it to the person that drives the car, and other people driving on the same roads as you. The belt only protects when that trust fails, IE you have an accident.
    Sure, in some cases, the belt itself can cause you injury, but you can not really show what the belt protetected you from, same goes with helmets. We do not really know, in a particular instance, what the helmet protected us from.

    Why do people want to believe that helmets do NOT work? I do not get it.
     
  20. dave

    dave Guest

    Resound wrote:
    > "Theo Bekkers" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    >
    >>Resound wrote:
    >>
    >>>"Theo Bekkers" <[email protected]> wrote

    >>
    >>>>Err, if you fall off your bike you will hit the ground at approx
    >>>>20km/h regardless of the speed at which you are travelling.

    >>
    >>>So completely irrespective of the speed at which you are travelling,
    >>>you'll hit the ground at the same speed? Why do motorcyclists wear
    >>>leathers then?

    >>
    >>Umm, yes, the velocity at which you hit the ground is dependent on the
    >>height from which you fell. Your horizontal velocity will determine how
    >>far you slide and how much skin you lose from abrasion. Hence the
    >>leathers.
    >>
    >>Theo
    >>

    >
    > Ok, that's valid, assuming a dead flat surface wherever you ride a
    > bike...you know, no gutters, rocks, logs, parked cars etc.
    >
    >


    No its a case of you do what you can.. YOu know if you come off you will
    lose skin.. That bit you can sort. Modern leathers are also armoured
    in cunning ways

    When Bazza Sheens crashed at Siverstone and broke his legs in upwards of
    6 places the surgeons said that amputation was never a real risk becouse
    his leathers were so good he had lost almost no skin and so their was no
    great fear of infection

    Seems like a good reason to me.
     
Loading...
Loading...