Warning: H*lm*t content

[David Trudgett]

"Theo Bekkers" <[email protected]> writes:

> 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.

<big-grin/> I just don't have enough faith to be an atheist, you know!

Hey, with a name like 'Theo'... mmmm...


Cheers,

David


--

David Trudgett
http://www.zeta.org.au/~wpower/

A person cannot support the policies of the Bush administration
unless said person is lacking in either intelligence or decency -- or,
in the case of Bush himself, both. "I just didn't know" simply doesn't
cut it when your proclaimed ignorance is based on lies that are an
insult to the intelligence of a child.

-- David McGowan, April 2003.
http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr34.html

 

[Peter Keller]

On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 21:39:09 +1000, 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

I or you can't prove or disprove anything from this anecdote. Is very
tempting to ascribe your survival or mitigated damage to a pece of
polystyrofoam, and it is usually impossible to rerun the incident with the
other condition, just to see how effective the helmet really would
have been --
However --
There are far more "My helmet saved my life"
stories going round than ever there were deaths and injuries before
helmets became common. And this despite the reduction in bicyclist
numbers!

Peter

--
If you are careful enough in life, nothing bad -- or
good -- will ever happen to you.

 

[dave]

Peter Keller wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 21:39:09 +1000, 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
>
>
> I or you can't prove or disprove anything from this anecdote. Is very
> tempting to ascribe your survival or mitigated damage to a pece of
> polystyrofoam, and it is usually impossible to rerun the incident with the
> other condition, just to see how effective the helmet really would
> have been --
> However --
> There are far more "My helmet saved my life"
> stories going round than ever there were deaths and injuries before
> helmets became common. And this despite the reduction in bicyclist
> numbers!
>
> Peter
>

Exactly what I was telling her. Although she only claims it saved her a
headache. 3 months of karate or a month of judo is far more likely
to actually make a difference. People however want to feel safe.. and I
guess stuff like this must help.

Not to disparage the Kathy. Who is rather special and rather bright..
and doubtless will eventlually arrive at a reasoned conclusion which may
or may not agree with ours

 

[Euan]

>>>>> "flyingdutch" == flyingdutch <[email protected]> writes:

flyingdutch> EuanB Wrote:
>> I disagree. It means they've come to a different conclusion than
>> you have. That doesn't make them an idiot.
>>
>> Who are you to say otherwise? Show me the data that head
>> injuries have decreased per kilometer cycled as a result of
>> compulsion and you may have a point. Current data points to the
>> opposite trend.
>>

flyingdutch> if you think more people wearing helmets hasnt decrease
flyingdutch> head-injuries arriving in emergency departments acroos
flyingdutch> the country i think you have lost me (and applying
flyingdutch> 'convenient ignorance' )

Then please read http://www.cyclehelmets.org/papers/c2022.pdf

flyingdutch> replace 'helmet' with 'safety belt'. what's the
flyingdutch> difference?

One doesn't have a demonstrable impact on head injury rate, the other
does. In other words one works and is worthwhile and the other doesn't
and is actually detrimental (reduced number cycling means increased risk
per cyclist).

flyingdutch> just buy that Surly and ride

Working on it. Leaning towards the Rohloff 500/14 just because it is a
thing of beauty
--
Cheers | ~~ __@
Euan | ~~ _-\<,
Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*)

 

[Claes]

On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 21:39:09 +1000, 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

I or you can't prove or disprove anything from this anecdote. Is very
tempting to ascribe your survival or mitigated damage to a pece of
polystyrofoam, and it is usually impossible to rerun the incident with the
other condition, just to see how effective the helmet really would
have been --
However --
There are far more "My helmet saved my life"
stories going round than ever there were deaths and injuries before
helmets became common. And this despite the reduction in bicyclist
numbers!

Peter

--
If you are careful enough in life, nothing bad -- or
good -- will ever happen to you.

Could it be so that people really beleive that the helmet saved their life? I mean, if you become a veggie, may people would say life has ended, although life has not ended, if you see what I mean.

It seems that statistics can not solve this one. How about a simple test. You wear nothing on your head, I smack a baseball bat on your head, just hard enough to crack you scull, then we do a test with your head again, healed up and all, and smack at the same force, you think you head would not crack this time?

 

[flaco]

David Trudgett wrote:
> "Theo Bekkers" <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > 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.
>
> <big-grin/> I just don't have enough faith to be an atheist, you know!
>
> Hey, with a name like 'Theo'... mmmm...
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> David
>
>



Theo, did you manage to name yourself. Where can I come to learn from
you, hear about the evil tooth fairy believers subverting our young,
follow you (no overlapping wheels, I promise)?

>From now on I am a Theoist.

 

[Kathy]

dave wrote:
> Peter Keller wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 21:39:09 +1000, Kathy wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Bleve wrote:
Helmets work.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I second that - I had no bruise or scrape or
>>> anything - not even a headache
>>
>>
>>
>> I or you can't prove or disprove anything from this anecdote. Is very
>> tempting to ascribe your survival or mitigated damage to a pece of
>> polystyrofoam, and it is usually impossible to rerun the incident with
>> the
>> other condition, just to see how effective the helmet really would
>> have been --
>> However -- There are far more "My helmet saved my life"
>> stories going round than ever there were deaths and injuries before
>> helmets became common. And this despite the reduction in bicyclist
>> numbers!
>>
>> Peter
>>
>
> Exactly what I was telling her. Although she only claims it saved her a
> headache. ... will eventually arrive at a reasoned conclusion which may
> or may not agree with ours

I reached a reasoned (and experienced) conclusion - which verified what
I had expected - the helmet stopped me giving myself a headache to go
with the sprained right thumb and torn/sprained left shoulder - which
would have REALLY made the ride back home unachievable - rather than
just unbearable...

 

[Shane Stanley]

In article <[email protected]>,
dave <[email protected]> wrote:

> With pushy helmets there is soo little realistic evidence that they do
> more than save you from scratches...

With pushy helmets there's certainly not a lot of real research. Lot's
of people have raked over a relatively small number of figures, and come
to all sorts of conclusions. But the amount of actual _research_ done
seems fairly small, if the arguments of the pro and con cases are any
guide.

--
Shane Stanley

 

[Peter Keller]

On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 20:26:55 +1000, Claes wrote:

>
> Peter Keller Wrote:
>> On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 21:39:09 +1000, 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
>>
>> I or you can't prove or disprove anything from this anecdote. Is very
>> tempting to ascribe your survival or mitigated damage to a pece of
>> polystyrofoam, and it is usually impossible to rerun the incident with
>> the
>> other condition, just to see how effective the helmet really would
>> have been --
>> However --
>> There are far more "My helmet saved my life"
>> stories going round than ever there were deaths and injuries before
>> helmets became common. And this despite the reduction in bicyclist
>> numbers!
>>
>> Peter
>>
>> --
>> If you are careful enough in life, nothing bad -- or
>> good -- will ever happen to you.
> Could it be so that people really beleive that the helmet saved their
> life? I mean, if you become a veggie, may people would say life has
> ended, although life has not ended, if you see what I mean.
>
> It seems that statistics can not solve this one. How about a simple
> test. You wear nothing on your head, I smack a baseball bat on your
> head, just hard enough to crack you scull, then we do a test with your
> head again, healed up and all, and smack at the same force, you think
> you head would not crack this time?

I think my head probably would crack. However i am not volunteering for
the experiment!
Helmets are certified up to a direct blow of 20kph (very simply put) Such
a blow will not reliably crack my skull. French research seems to show
that at direct blows of more than 23kph, the polystyrofoam shatters rather
than squashes, thereby offering no energy absorption whatsoever! No, to
keep myself as safe as possible in traffic, I am not going to rely on a
h*lm*t, even if the stupid law forces me to wear one.

peter

--
If you are careful enough in life, nothing bad -- or
good -- will ever happen to you.

 

[Euan]

>>>>> "Claes" == Claes <[email protected]> writes:

Claes> I for one, can not understand how someone can say that
Claes> helmets do no good. Must be me that is thick. Put a soft
Claes> veggie in a helmet, drop it on the ground so the helmet hits
Claes> the ground first, veggie will prolly survive from head
Claes> height. Drop veggie from same height, veggie will go
Claes> "splat". To me that shows it could help in accident, and I
Claes> really can not see how it could make an injury worse.

The human brain is not a vegetable. It's a highly sophisticated organ
which is highly protected by a thick skull and in-built shock
absorption. Comparing the two is like comparing apples and oranges.

Please read http://www.cyclehelmets.org/papers/c2022.pdf

Then come back to me and explain to me the case for helmet compulsion
when it's proved beyond all doubt that helmet compulsion discourages
cycling and therefore increases the risk per kilometer cycled because
there are less cyclists on the road.

Claes> Also, seat belts, that is just a piece of synthetic fibers
Claes> bunched together, I will not entrust my safety to that. Well
Claes> you do not, you entrust it to the person that drives the car,
Claes> and other people driving on the same roads as you. The belt
Claes> only protects when that trust fails, IE you have an accident.

The difference is that seat belts actually work. The same can not be
said for helmets.

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

Probably because you're not employing critical thinking.
--
Cheers | ~~ __@
Euan | ~~ _-\<,
Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*)

 

[ritcho]

[snip]

Helmets are certified up to a direct blow of 20kph (very simply put) Such
a blow will not reliably crack my skull. French research seems to show
that at direct blows of more than 23kph, the polystyrofoam shatters rather
than squashes, thereby offering no energy absorption whatsoever! No, to
keep myself as safe as possible in traffic, I am not going to rely on a
h*lm*t, even if the stupid law forces me to wear one.

peter

--
If you are careful enough in life, nothing bad -- or
good -- will ever happen to you.

It's not about relying on a piece of foam to protect you - it doesn't make you more or less safe in traffic. It is supposed to reduce the incidence and severity of head injury in the event of an accident. Most of the literature that I've seen on the subject suggests that helmets do exactly that.

The public policy decision of mandatory helmet law goes beyond the scope of helmets' marginal reduction in the severity of head injury conditional on an accident. This is because public policy must also take the effects of helmet laws on cycling participation, public health, safety, as well as knock-on effects on driver and rider behaviour.

Separating these issues from whether helmets 'do anything' is crucial to _not_ sounding like a crackpot.

Ritch

 

[dave]

Kathy wrote:
>
>
> dave wrote:
>
>> Peter Keller wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 21:39:09 +1000, Kathy wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bleve wrote:
>
> Helmets work.
>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I second that - I had no bruise or scrape or anything - not even a
>>>> headache
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I or you can't prove or disprove anything from this anecdote. Is very
>>> tempting to ascribe your survival or mitigated damage to a pece of
>>> polystyrofoam, and it is usually impossible to rerun the incident
>>> with the
>>> other condition, just to see how effective the helmet really would
>>> have been --
>>> However -- There are far more "My helmet saved my life"
>>> stories going round than ever there were deaths and injuries before
>>> helmets became common. And this despite the reduction in bicyclist
>>> numbers!
>>>
>>> Peter
>>>
>>
>> Exactly what I was telling her. Although she only claims it saved her
>> a headache. ... will eventually arrive at a reasoned conclusion
>> which may or may not agree with ours
>
>
> I reached a reasoned (and experienced)

Experienced?
Ive crashed pushbikes in enough ways to get respect from Hippy
Ive come off motorcycles on the high side of 200 kph.. And come off the
high side of motorcyles ( and the low side) I,ve put a rally car down a
mineshaft and destroyed a fair amount of silvertops fleet (enough to be
offered a job by taxi staffing in richmond.. who at one point averaged 2
crashes a day)

Youve fallen of 3 times that I know off and crashed I (ONE) car and that
a crummy little BMW

WHere do you get off being experienced about crashes. )



conclusion - which verified what
> I had expected - the helmet stopped me giving myself a headache to go
> with the sprained right thumb and torn/sprained left shoulder - which
> would have REALLY made the ride back home unachievable - rather than
> just unbearable...
>

Scientific method there.. You must be a programmer

 

[Claes]

On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 20:26:55 +1000, Claes wrote:

>
> Peter Keller Wrote:
>> On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 21:39:09 +1000, 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
>>
>> I or you can't prove or disprove anything from this anecdote. Is very
>> tempting to ascribe your survival or mitigated damage to a pece of
>> polystyrofoam, and it is usually impossible to rerun the incident with
>> the
>> other condition, just to see how effective the helmet really would
>> have been --
>> However --
>> There are far more "My helmet saved my life"
>> stories going round than ever there were deaths and injuries before
>> helmets became common. And this despite the reduction in bicyclist
>> numbers!
>>
>> Peter
>>
>> --
>> If you are careful enough in life, nothing bad -- or
>> good -- will ever happen to you.
> Could it be so that people really beleive that the helmet saved their
> life? I mean, if you become a veggie, may people would say life has
> ended, although life has not ended, if you see what I mean.
>
> It seems that statistics can not solve this one. How about a simple
> test. You wear nothing on your head, I smack a baseball bat on your
> head, just hard enough to crack you scull, then we do a test with your
> head again, healed up and all, and smack at the same force, you think
> you head would not crack this time?

I think my head probably would crack. However i am not volunteering for
the experiment!
Helmets are certified up to a direct blow of 20kph (very simply put) Such
a blow will not reliably crack my skull. French research seems to show
that at direct blows of more than 23kph, the polystyrofoam shatters rather
than squashes, thereby offering no energy absorption whatsoever! No, to
keep myself as safe as possible in traffic, I am not going to rely on a
h*lm*t, even if the stupid law forces me to wear one.

peter

--
If you are careful enough in life, nothing bad -- or
good -- will ever happen to you.

Hmm, I fekked up me previous post, I meant to try again, this time with a helmet on. I do think it would help.

What do mean with "rely on helmet even if the stupid law forces me to wear one"? You seem to imply that when you wear a helmet you will have to trust it? You only trust it if you have an accident and it seems likely that you would have as many/as few accidents with or without a helmet on. Right? So how are you relying on it? I makes no difference in that case, but it might save your head from some damage if you DO have an accident, which is NOT related to you wearing a helmet or not. Right?

 

[dave]

Claes wrote:
> Peter Keller Wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 21:39:09 +1000, 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
>>
>>I or you can't prove or disprove anything from this anecdote. Is very
>>tempting to ascribe your survival or mitigated damage to a pece of
>>polystyrofoam, and it is usually impossible to rerun the incident with
>>the
>>other condition, just to see how effective the helmet really would
>>have been --
>>However --
>>There are far more "My helmet saved my life"
>>stories going round than ever there were deaths and injuries before
>>helmets became common. And this despite the reduction in bicyclist
>>numbers!
>>
>>Peter
>>
>>--
>>If you are careful enough in life, nothing bad -- or
>>good -- will ever happen to you.
>
> Could it be so that people really beleive that the helmet saved their
> life? I mean, if you become a veggie, may people would say life has
> ended, although life has not ended, if you see what I mean.
>
> It seems that statistics can not solve this one. How about a simple
> test. You wear nothing on your head, I smack a baseball bat on your
> head, just hard enough to crack you scull, then we do a test with your
> head again, healed up and all, and smack at the same force, you think
> you head would not crack this time?
>
>
Or better. You wear the helmet. I hit you with baseball bat. If you
live.. I will buy you a new bike. With a motorcyle helmet I would do
it. What do you say; got that much faith in the things?

Not that I would really hit you with a baseball bat just to make this
point. But seriously there would be a fair chance of surviving without
wearing a helmet. I bet you wouldnt really want to put your faith in a
pushy helmet at this test. Not that thats really the point. It may
save you some abrasions. But anything more is pure optomism.

 

[dave]

Shane Stanley wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> dave <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>With pushy helmets there is soo little realistic evidence that they do
>>more than save you from scratches...
>
>
> With pushy helmets there's certainly not a lot of real research. Lot's
> of people have raked over a relatively small number of figures, and come
> to all sorts of conclusions. But the amount of actual _research_ done
> seems fairly small, if the arguments of the pro and con cases are any
> guide.
>

Thats what I was saying. You look at anyones research and it mainly
looks pretty dodgy science. But if they made a huge difference overall
it should show up in a hurry.. And it doesnt. So maybe they make a small
positve differennce. Or they dont. Or something else is going on and
hiding a large positive difference. Or they maybe even make a negative
difference.. really hard to see that but if risk compensation is a big
factor maybe.

I,m probably not in favour of legislation even where it really makes a
difference.. Cull the stupid out I say. But where the difference
isnt absolutely clear.. the people in favour of it are the people who
want to ban mountain climbing and bushwalking. And they are people I am
not in favour off

 

[flyingdutch]

Then please read http://www.cyclehelmets.org/papers/c2022.pdf

Pardon my sceptisism, but what a load of HAIRY BOLLOX!!!

Just how you can base a 'paper' on a 'statistic' which can claim to accurately measure 'People who did NOT present with head injuries' is absolutely farcical!!!!!!!!!!!
Im surprised they didnt include 'People who were NOT abducted by Aliens due to helmet use' or 'People who rotated more in their sleep, according to them...'
'Oh my God!!! The same person also didnt turn up to casualty with bowel cancer. Quid Pro Quo wearing a helmet CURES Bowel cancer!!!!!!!!"
gimme a break. geeessshhhhh

flyingdutch> replace 'helmet' with 'safety belt'. what's the
flyingdutch> difference?

One doesn't have a demonstrable impact on head injury rate, the other
does. In other words one works and is worthwhile and the other doesn't
and is actually detrimental (reduced number cycling means increased risk
per cyclist).

the first sentence is the ol' 'convenient ignorance' kickin in again
Howabout we run a 'study' at Goat this Friday?
I'll thwack you over the head with a chair whilst/whilst-not wearing a helmet and we shall deduct which one injures you most

"(reduced number cycling means increased risk per cyclist)"

There are lies, lies and ... statistics. You look at em long enough and you can justify anything. I was going and riding to school during the period when kids HAD to wear helmets and it didnt reduce any numbers at my school. By FAR THE BIGGEST input to stopping kids riding to school was the increase in congestion and fear-of-danger-to-little-johnny. nothing to do with helmets. probably more to do with TV....

 

[Euan]

>>>>> "Claes" == Claes <[email protected]> writes:


Claes> It seems that statistics can not solve this one. How about a
Claes> simple test. You wear nothing on your head, I smack a
Claes> baseball bat on your head, just hard enough to crack you
Claes> scull, then we do a test with your head again, healed up and
Claes> all, and smack at the same force, you think you head would
Claes> not crack this time?

You would have to have a very fine gradient in the velocity of the
baseball bat.

Bicycle helmets absorb kinetic energy (KE). The formula for KE is:

KE = 1/2 * M * V^2

It's tempting to think that a bicycle helmet that's rated for a 19 km/h
impact will take 19km/h off of any impact speed and make a difference.
This isn't the case.

Let's say the mass is 10kg and the velocity is 19km/h. The kinetic
energy is 1805.

Now let's take an impact at 40km/h. The kinetic energy is 8,000.

So we take away the 1805 from the 8,000 which leaves 6,195.

Re-arranging the equation a bit we can find out how much speed the
helmet's taken off the impact. The effective speed of the impact is
35.2km/h.

The higher the impact speed, the more ineffective the helmet is and it's
an exponential curve. At 60km/h the effective speed of impact is
56.9km/h. At 80km/h the effective speed of impact is 77.7km/h

I ride consistently at speeds over 35km/h. A collision at that speed
whilst wearing a helmet would make the collision speed 29.39km/h. I
don't think that's going to make a huge difference to the extent of a
head injury incurred, but that's a personal judgement.

Add in the fact that I weigh considerably more than 10kg and that makes
a helmet almost irrelevant.
--
Cheers | ~~ __@
Euan | ~~ _-\<,
Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*)

 

[Resound]

"Euan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>>>>>> "Claes" == Claes <[email protected]>
>>>>>> writes:
>
>
> Claes> It seems that statistics can not solve this one. How about a
> Claes> simple test. You wear nothing on your head, I smack a
> Claes> baseball bat on your head, just hard enough to crack you
> Claes> scull, then we do a test with your head again, healed up and
> Claes> all, and smack at the same force, you think you head would
> Claes> not crack this time?
>
> You would have to have a very fine gradient in the velocity of the
> baseball bat.
>
> Bicycle helmets absorb kinetic energy (KE). The formula for KE is:
>
> KE = 1/2 * M * V^2
>
> It's tempting to think that a bicycle helmet that's rated for a 19 km/h
> impact will take 19km/h off of any impact speed and make a difference.
> This isn't the case.
>
> Let's say the mass is 10kg and the velocity is 19km/h. The kinetic
> energy is 1805.
>
> Now let's take an impact at 40km/h. The kinetic energy is 8,000.
>
> So we take away the 1805 from the 8,000 which leaves 6,195.
>
> Re-arranging the equation a bit we can find out how much speed the
> helmet's taken off the impact. The effective speed of the impact is
> 35.2km/h.
>
> The higher the impact speed, the more ineffective the helmet is and it's
> an exponential curve. At 60km/h the effective speed of impact is
> 56.9km/h. At 80km/h the effective speed of impact is 77.7km/h
>
> I ride consistently at speeds over 35km/h. A collision at that speed
> whilst wearing a helmet would make the collision speed 29.39km/h. I
> don't think that's going to make a huge difference to the extent of a
> head injury incurred, but that's a personal judgement.
>
> Add in the fact that I weigh considerably more than 10kg and that makes
> a helmet almost irrelevant.
> --
> Cheers | ~~ __@
> Euan | ~~ _-\<,
> Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*)

Ooh. Here's me thinking KE=M*V

That does make a bit of difference, dunnit? I do wonder how constant the
energy dispersion of a helmet relative to speed is though. Probably not a
squared function though.

 

[Euan]

>>>>> "flyingdutch" == flyingdutch <[email protected]> writes:

flyingdutch> Euan Wrote:
>>
>>
>> Then please read http://www.cyclehelmets.org/papers/c2022.pdf
>>

flyingdutch> Pardon my sceptisism, but what a load of HAIRY
flyingdutch> BOLLOX!!!

flyingdutch> Just how you can base a 'paper' on a 'statistic' which
flyingdutch> can claim to accurately measure 'People who did NOT
flyingdutch> present with head injuries' is absolutely
flyingdutch> farcical!!!!!!!!!!!

I can't find the phrase ``people who did not present with head
injuries'' in the document. Could you clarify please?
--
Cheers | ~~ __@
Euan | ~~ _-\<,
Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*)

 

[Claes]

The human brain is not a vegetable. It's a highly sophisticated organ
which is highly protected by a thick skull and in-built shock
absorption. Comparing the two is like comparing apples and oranges.

He he, it was an example, nothing else, read it and apply "critical thinking" to it.

Please read http://www.cyclehelmets.org/papers/c2022.pdf

Then come back to me and explain to me the case for helmet compulsion
when it's proved beyond all doubt that helmet compulsion discourages
cycling and therefore increases the risk per kilometer cycled because
there are less cyclists on the road.

Ehh, what that does that prove? You can not prove what would have happened without the helmets. Too many other variables change, and many are not included. That report is total BS.

I have statistics from a "county" in sweden, where we do NOT have cycle helmet laws. It shows that 40% of cycling related accidents result in head injuries that COULD be less severe with a helmet. Apply your critical thinking again please.

Why would a helmet have no effect? The effect of having a material that compresses, and absorbs some impact energy has been proved with motorcycle helmets, why would it not apply for a bike helmet? Please tell me, I really want to know.