Warning: H*lm*t content

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

  1. aeek

    aeek New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2004
    Messages:
    757
    Likes Received:
    0
    so, in summer, I SHOULD protect my bare hands with my helmetted head?
     


  2. Bleve

    Bleve Guest

    EuanB wrote:
    > Bleve Wrote:
    > >
    > > Sure, I don't believe that helmets (or seatbelts) should be compulsory,
    > > but if you choose not to wear one, you're an idiot.
    > >

    > I disagree. It means they've come to a different conclusion than you
    > have. That doesn't make them an idiot.


    In my *opinion* not wearing a helmet is an idiotic act in most
    modern road riding situations. This thread cites some research
    that is inconclusive. My experience is such that I believe my helmet
    saved me from significant injury.

    > 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.


    I think it's quite easy to mislead with statistics. I'm not
    convinced that helmet compulsion makes a *long-term* change in
    the number of people riding, and I don't think it's possible to
    prove it eiter way. There's too many other variables involved to say
    for sure.

    I'm not even convinced that less people are riding these days,
    even with all the other factors for why they may choose to drive, that
    I've already outlined. I'd be suprised if there's any good quality
    research (read - not done by a crusader) that shows either way.

    So, it's opinions all the way. You know mine, I know yours :) 'nuff
    said.
     
  3. Bleve

    Bleve Guest

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

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


    heh, there's a paper with an axe to grind :)

    Interestingly, it cites stats that somewhere around 30-45%
    of teenagers and adults stopped riding in the two years
    after helmets were made compulsory - but also states that there
    was a 35-70% reduction in head injurys reported.

    Now, I didn't do super well at Uni when doing maths (I got to
    do a few subjects rather more than once :) ), but I'd find it
    difficult to draw any conclusions from that (and the author admits,
    not very good quality research) that didn't suggest that there
    was a significant improvement.

    I'm intrigued as to the use of pedestrians as a control
    group, and the reduction of head injuries there that
    seem to match. There's no attempt to suggest why peds
    were showing up less at hospitals with serious head injuries. Did
    something change in the water in 1985? :)

    Now, Euan, read the second last paragraph. I'll save you
    the effort of finding it : "helmets undoutably prevent wounds to the
    head".
    My take on that paper is that it's desperatly looking for
    ways to show that helmets don't work, and even then,
    it has to admit it in the end, where no-one will look, after
    muddying up a lot of already very muddy statistics, and somehow
    claiming that white, educated people have less prangs, not that
    they're more likely to wear a lid. I didn't see anything in the paper
    that matched if people presenting with HI's were actually
    *wearing* their lids, but I may have missed that bit, if it's in
    there somewhere?

    It also harps on about decining numbers of riders as a safety concern.
    I
    say that in the long term numbers of people riding bikes has probably
    not
    changed significantly because of helmet law, but *may* have changed
    becase now
    joe average can afford two cars. Or maybe not. But you don't know
    either way.

    At the end of the day, that paper is all guesswork. There's way too
    many variables to come up with any real evidence over the long term
    either way, but
    one thing's for sure, helmets do reduce impact forces on heads, and
    light bicycle helmets add bugger-all weight (mine's 200-odd grams and
    isn't
    sticking out like a pendulum, my hair, when wet and long, probably
    weighed more ...) compared to motorbike helmets which are very
    heavy and may well increase the injury rate for rotational force
    crashes. I reckon the tradeoff is so minor that the inconvenience
    of a helmet (worrying about helmet-head? That wind will blow your
    hair all over the shop anyway .... you'll still have to brush it
    if it's an issue) is far outweighed by the (even if it's very slim)
    reduction in the severity of some classes of head injury.
     
  4. Bleve

    Bleve Guest

    Euan wrote:
    > >>>>> "Theo" == Theo Bekkers <[email protected]> writes:

    >
    > Theo> 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.

    >
    > Theo> Err, if you fall off your bike you will hit the ground at
    > Theo> approx 20km/h regardless of the speed at which you are
    > Theo> travelling. This is the design spec of bike helmets. Should
    > Theo> you have a horizontal velocity of 40 km/h you will still hit
    > Theo> the ground at 20km/h.
    >
    > I don't think that's correct.


    It is, and you even say why below :)

    > When there are two or more velocities what we have a vectors. We have
    > the horizontal component (40km/h) and the vertical component. The
    > vector simplistically is the root of the sum of the horizontal squared
    > and the vertical squared.
    >
    > For the cited figures that gives a velocity of 44km/h on point of
    > impact.
    >
    > A combination of kinetic absorption and friction dissipates the
    > velocity.


    Indeed it does. Friction (and tumbling losses) absorbs (read - grinds
    ....) the horizontal component, and the padding/shell
    fracture/compaction absorbs the vertical.

    Get a pumpkin, put it on the end of a 2m pole. Tip it onto the ground*
    from ~2m, and then push it along the ground, and see what happens to
    it.
    Then, put a helmet on another pumpkin and try the same experiment.
    Compare the two pumpkins. Imagine the surface of the pumpkin is
    your skin and the contents, your brain.

    Motorbike helmets are designed to deal with two issues -
    immediate concussion, for which they will protect a skull
    from damage at impacts of anything up to 20km/h or so (any more
    than that, and you're rooted, helmet or not), and grinding, which is
    why
    they have a hard, slippery shell, so they'll slide more than grind, if
    possible. My bike helmet also has a low-friction shell around
    it, I presume for the same reason. My motorcycle pants are
    lined with kevlar for abrasion resistance (check this stuff out :
    http://www.dragginjeans.com.au/productTesting/index.htm ) to
    deal with the horizontal component of a meeting with the ground.
    I tested them once, 60km/h. Minor bruise (vertical component was maybe
    1.5m or less falling onto fat & muscle padded bone), the kevlar
    did its job of taking care of the sliding. Do the vector sums
    your way, and I should have smashed my hip.

    One day you want to have a look at my old motorbike helmet, the one I
    crashed in.
    It's nicely ground away along the side. No helmet, and I reckon I'd be
    having some pretty decent scarring! Does a
    bicycle helmet do the same? Not as well, but it does provide some
    seperation from the ground if done up properly, which I think would
    help a bit.

    Now, what were you saying again? Helmets don't work, that's it, I
    remember now :) Judo training would help eh? I did jujitsu for
    more than your cited month, and the pushbike crash I had was not in the
    least
    affected by it. There was absolutly *no* time to fall correctly. I was
    clipped in to my bike and flung backwards by the impact with the other
    rider I ran into, and landed on the back of my head.

    The helmet worked. It broke, my head didn't. I didn't even bleed my own
    blood.
    Get it?

    * - dry concrete or bitumen, the local park with long, wet grass is
    cheating :)
     
  5. Bleve

    Bleve Guest

    dave wrote:
    > 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.


    Except in extreme cases (degloving etc) hand injuries in
    bike accidents are minor scrapes or abrasions (painful, but not
    long-term
    incapacitating), and occasional broken bones.
    Broken fingers heal reasonably well (my hands still work, I've
    busted a few!). That said, I very rarely ride without gloves on on
    bitumen or concrete.

    As always, where you draw the line is arbitary :)
     
  6. Bob wrote:
    > "Euan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    > > ... 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 | ~ (*)/ (*)

    >
    > That article is a load of shit.


    Which article are you refering to? The article in he Health Promotion
    Journal of Australia is well reserched. It draws on traffic research
    going back to the first formulation of Smeed's law, published in 1949
    and replicates a recent study by Jacobsen (1) in 2003.

    It is not publically available on the web but you can find most of
    points that Dr. Robinson makes in that paper at
    http://agbu.une.edu.au/~drobinso/SNrv.pdf.

    (1)Jacobsen, P. L. (2003). Safety in numbers: more walkers and
    bicyclists, safer walking and bicycling . Injury Prevention, 9,
    205-209.
     
  7. Peter Keller wrote:
    > On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 20:26:55 +1000, Claes wrote:


    Much clipped
    >
    > 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


    Peter, would you have a reference to that French research? It sounds
    interesting.

    John Kane
    Kingston ON Canada
     
  8. alex wrote:
    > 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 :)


    Actually a good point. But that does not subtract from the fact that
    she's been publishing in internationally recognized journals on this
    topic for years.

    John Kane
    Kingston ON Canada
     
  9. Euan

    Euan Guest

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

    Bleve> Euan wrote:
    >> >>>>> "Resound" == Resound <[email protected]>

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

    >> KE >> is:
    >> >>
    >> >> KE = 1/2 * M * V^2
    >> >>

    >>

    Resound> That does make a bit of difference, dunnit? I do wonder how
    Resound> constant the energy dispersion of a helmet relative to
    Resound> speed is though. Probably not a squared function though.
    >> No idea, I'm not an engineer. I've just got basic physics under
    >> my belt and I can remember some equations and Google what I can't
    >> :)


    Bleve> You also forget that forces work in directions. 35km/h
    Bleve> horizontally is mostly irrelevant* when you fall down from 2m
    Bleve> under the influence of gravity. A bike helmet won't do squat
    Bleve> at 35km/h to dead stop, but that's not the point.

    See post on vectors. The horizontal component can be far from irrelevant
    --
    Cheers | ~~ [email protected]
    Euan | ~~ _-\<,
    Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*)
     
  10. Euan

    Euan Guest

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

    Claes> Euan Wrote:
    >> >>>>> "Theo" == Theo Bekkers <[email protected]> writes:

    >>

    Theo> 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.
    >>

    Theo> Err, if you fall off your bike you will hit the ground at
    Theo> approx 20km/h regardless of the speed at which you are
    Theo> travelling. This is the design spec of bike helmets. Should
    Theo> you have a horizontal velocity of 40 km/h you will still hit
    Theo> the ground at 20km/h.
    >> I don't think that's correct.
    >>
    >> When there are two or more velocities what we have a vectors. We
    >> have the horizontal component (40km/h) and the vertical
    >> component. The vector simplistically is the root of the sum of
    >> the horizontal squared and the vertical squared.
    >>
    >> For the cited figures that gives a velocity of 44km/h on point of
    >> impact.
    >>
    >> A combination of kinetic absorption and friction dissipates the
    >> velocity.


    Claes> Why do you get in to vectors when you do not know what they
    Claes> mean? The vertical component of it, is what give you impact
    Claes> against the ground, that is what the helmet should
    Claes> absorb. The horizontal component gives rotation, you could
    Claes> argue that the helmet makes that worse, since the radius of
    Claes> the helmet is bigger than the head. You could also argue that
    Claes> the friction of the helmet against the road is lower, and
    Claes> that helps to minimise the rotation. It also gives road rash,
    Claes> where the helmet does help. Again, if your horizontal
    Claes> component is 50 km/h and you hit a boulder straight on, well,
    Claes> helmet or not, you die.

    I do know what vectors mean. I've demonstrated that perfectly well.
    If I've erred with vectors you've not demonstrated where I've erred.

    You're under the mistaken impression that only the vertical contributes
    to the impact speed. You are wrong.
    --
    Cheers | ~~ [email protected]
    Euan | ~~ _-\<,
    Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*)
     
  11. Euan

    Euan Guest

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

    ritcho> For example, a 20kg plate can be supported by balancing it
    ritcho> on your head, but put a nail in the centre of the plate and
    ritcho> you'll pierce a nice hole in your head if you try to balance
    ritcho> it in the same way. This example says nothing about
    ritcho> velocity, but something about the distribution of force...
    >> That's correct, force. That's different from kinetic energy and
    >> depending what you're trying to calculate there are many
    >> different equations.


    Bleve> One of the advantages of a helmet (or any device designed to
    Bleve> lessen point impacts) is that pressure (which does a lot of
    Bleve> damage, eg nails cv dinner plates) is reduced. That square
    Bleve> law you're thinking about wrt KE, well, pressure =
    Bleve> force/area, and area is a square function also. The rest is
    Bleve> left as an exercise to the reader.

    Agreed, however if a device has only X amount of kinetic absorption the
    rest has to go somewhere.
    --
    Cheers | ~~ [email protected]
    Euan | ~~ _-\<,
    Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*)
     
  12. flyingdutch

    flyingdutch New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2004
    Messages:
    5,700
    Likes Received:
    0
    Study, papers, data, research, blah, blah, blah...

    Ask/study all the people who have been in serious accidents (up to a point. some are just so horrific nothing woulda saved em :( ) and they will ALL tell you their helmet saved em from serious head injuries.

    This fanciful stuff about helmets decreasing rider numbers is tripe. cycling numbers were dropping at the same rate before the helmet intro. Just another convenient tweak of facts to suit an agenda.

    One thing not mentioned so far...
    When your head strikes a surface it tends to 'stop' causing neck/etc injuries.
    Helmet standards were reviewed in he 90's to ensure they were not that exposed styrafoam stuff or covered in cloth-stuff and given 'slippery' outer shells so if you hit the deck your head keeps movig along with the rest of you

    BOTTOM LINE

    If you wear a helmet, WHATEVER!

    If you dont.... WHATEVER!!!

    It amazes me the fervour with which people can lather themselves into to argue against helmet use, and yet ANYONE who has been in a serious spill doesnt. Could it be they are speaking from such a strange position as 'experience' ?
     
  13. Euan

    Euan Guest

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

    Bleve> heh, there's a paper with an axe to grind :)

    Just about every paper published has an axe to grind. A paper doesn't
    get written unless someone's trying to prove something.

    Bleve> Interestingly, it cites stats that somewhere around 30-45% of
    Bleve> teenagers and adults stopped riding in the two years after
    Bleve> helmets were made compulsory - but also states that there was
    Bleve> a 35-70% reduction in head injurys reported.

    Bleve> Now, I didn't do super well at Uni when doing maths (I got to
    Bleve> do a few subjects rather more than once :) ), but I'd find it
    Bleve> difficult to draw any conclusions from that (and the author
    Bleve> admits, not very good quality research) that didn't suggest
    Bleve> that there was a significant improvement.

    Bleve> I'm intrigued as to the use of pedestrians as a control
    Bleve> group, and the reduction of head injuries there that seem to
    Bleve> match. There's no attempt to suggest why peds were showing
    Bleve> up less at hospitals with serious head injuries. Did
    Bleve> something change in the water in 1985? :)

    Indeed, so if pedestrians head injury rate is going down in sympathy
    with that of cyclists, how does that prove that helmets have been
    effective in reducing the incidence of head injury?

    Bleve> Now, Euan, read the second last paragraph. I'll save you the
    Bleve> effort of finding it : "helmets undoutably prevent wounds to
    Bleve> the head". My take on that paper is that it's desperatly
    Bleve> looking for ways to show that helmets don't work, and even
    Bleve> then, it has to admit it in the end, where no-one will look,
    Bleve> after muddying up a lot of already very muddy statistics, and
    Bleve> somehow claiming that white, educated people have less
    Bleve> prangs, not that they're more likely to wear a lid. I didn't
    Bleve> see anything in the paper that matched if people presenting
    Bleve> with HI's were actually *wearing* their lids, but I may have
    Bleve> missed that bit, if it's in there somewhere?

    Fair point, however it would be a long bow to suppose that all the
    admissions were not wearing helmets when compliance with the law has
    gone up to 85%. It's also possible that that data isn't available.
    It's only recently in the UK that those statistics have started to be
    collected, can't speak for here.

    I'm not disputing that helmets offer some protection in some cases. I'm
    stating two things:

    1) Helmets effectiveness is vastly over-rated by the majority of
    practicing cyclists.

    2) Compulsion reduced the number cycling and may still be a barrier to
    cycling.

    So let's stop batting the ``helmet saved my life'' stories. I've
    proved that I believe I've had significant head accidents and walked
    away relatively scot free, you've proved that you believe wearing a
    helmet saved you from significant head trauma, so let's move on and
    debate 1) and 2).

    Bleve> It also harps on about decining numbers of riders as a safety
    Bleve> concern. I say that in the long term numbers of people
    Bleve> riding bikes has probably not changed significantly because
    Bleve> of helmet law, but *may* have changed becase now joe average
    Bleve> can afford two cars. Or maybe not. But you don't know either
    Bleve> way.

    It's one of these things that's hard to pin down. I know my
    mother-in-law won't consider cycling because a helmet will muss up here
    hair. I'd have thought the wind would have done that quite adequately
    but there you go.

    It's one of those imponderables that we'll never know. I suspect if
    compulsion were lifted we'd see more people cycling. You believe
    otherwise.

    Bleve> At the end of the day, that paper is all guesswork.

    Which bits are guesswork? The time-series data regarding head injury
    pre and post compulsion compared with that of random breath testing
    being introduced seems quite significant to me.

    Bleve> add bugger-all weight (mine's 200-odd grams and isn't
    Bleve> sticking out like a pendulum, my hair, when wet and long,
    Bleve> probably weighed more ...) compared to motorbike helmets
    Bleve> which are very heavy and may well increase the injury rate
    Bleve> for rotational force crashes. I reckon the tradeoff is so
    Bleve> minor that the inconvenience of a helmet (worrying about
    Bleve> helmet-head? That wind will blow your hair all over the shop
    Bleve> anyway ....

    Hmm, guess who's replying to the post as he's reading it ;-) See
    earlier.

    Bleve> you'll still have to brush it if it's an issue) is far
    Bleve> outweighed by the (even if it's very slim) reduction in the
    Bleve> severity of some classes of head injury.

    It's not the injury reduction I'm arguing, it's the reduction in the
    number of cyclists. I believe helmet compulsion is a barrier and I've
    yet to be convinced otherwise.
    --
    Cheers | ~~ [email protected]
    Euan | ~~ _-\<,
    Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*)
     
  14. Euan

    Euan Guest

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

    Bleve> Euan wrote:
    >> >>>>> "Theo" == Theo Bekkers <[email protected]> writes:

    >>

    Theo> 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.
    >>

    Theo> Err, if you fall off your bike you will hit the ground at
    Theo> approx 20km/h regardless of the speed at which you are
    Theo> travelling. This is the design spec of bike helmets. Should
    Theo> you have a horizontal velocity of 40 km/h you will still hit
    Theo> the ground at 20km/h.
    >> I don't think that's correct.


    Bleve> It is, and you even say why below :)

    >> When there are two or more velocities what we have a vectors. We
    >> have the horizontal component (40km/h) and the vertical
    >> component. The vector simplistically is the root of the sum of
    >> the horizontal squared and the vertical squared.
    >>
    >> For the cited figures that gives a velocity of 44km/h on point of
    >> impact.
    >>
    >> A combination of kinetic absorption and friction dissipates the
    >> velocity.


    Bleve> Indeed it does. Friction (and tumbling losses) absorbs (read
    Bleve> - grinds ...) the horizontal component, and the padding/shell
    Bleve> fracture/compaction absorbs the vertical.

    Bleve> Get a pumpkin, put it on the end of a 2m pole. Tip it onto
    Bleve> the ground* from ~2m, and then push it along the ground, and
    Bleve> see what happens to it. Then, put a helmet on another
    Bleve> pumpkin and try the same experiment. Compare the two
    Bleve> pumpkins. Imagine the surface of the pumpkin is your skin
    Bleve> and the contents, your brain.

    It is exceedingly simplistic to suggest that the horizontal component is
    dissipated through friction alone. The impact speed is still what the
    vectors say it is and a significant proportion of that is absorbed on
    impact.

    Bleve> Now, what were you saying again? Helmets don't work, that's
    Bleve> it, I remember now

    I haven't said they don't work, just that they don't work nearly as well
    as a lot of people think.

    Bleve> Judo training would help eh?

    I've not mentioned judo, that was someone else and I don't agree with
    it. I've heard that wearing glasses helps as one's more inclined to
    instinctively protect the head. Can't say I've found that to be the case
    ;-)

    Bleve> The helmet worked. It broke, my head didn't. I didn't even
    Bleve> bleed my own blood. Get it?

    I get that you think the helmet saved you from significant injury, you
    may be correct. We'll never know.
    --
    Cheers | ~~ [email protected]
    Euan | ~~ _-\<,
    Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*)
     
  15. Euan

    Euan Guest

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

    Bleve> Except in extreme cases (degloving etc) hand injuries in bike
    Bleve> accidents are minor scrapes or abrasions (painful, but not
    Bleve> long-term incapacitating), and occasional broken bones.
    Bleve> Broken fingers heal reasonably well (my hands still work,
    Bleve> I've busted a few!). That said, I very rarely ride without
    Bleve> gloves on on bitumen or concrete.

    I thought the main purpose of gloves was shock absorption while riding?
    That's why I wear mine, I notice if I don't have them on.
    --
    Cheers | ~~ [email protected]
    Euan | ~~ _-\<,
    Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*)
     
  16. dave

    dave Guest

    Bleve wrote:
    > dave wrote:
    >
    >>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.

    >
    >
    > Except in extreme cases (degloving etc) hand injuries in
    > bike accidents are minor scrapes or abrasions (painful, but not
    > long-term
    > incapacitating), and occasional broken bones.
    > Broken fingers heal reasonably well (my hands still work, I've
    > busted a few!). That said, I very rarely ride without gloves on on
    > bitumen or concrete.
    >
    > As always, where you draw the line is arbitary :)
    >


    Yeah of course. But lots of nerves in hands.. always painful and really
    easily avoided. And of course I am not in favour of any such legislation.
     
  17. dave

    dave Guest

    flyingdutch wrote:
    > Study, papers, data, research, blah, blah, blah...
    >
    > Ask/study all the people who have been in serious accidents (up to a
    > point. some are just so horrific nothing woulda saved em :( ) and they
    > will ALL tell you their helmet saved em from serious head injuries.
    >
    > This fanciful stuff about helmets decreasing rider numbers is tripe.
    > cycling numbers were dropping at the same rate before the helmet intro.
    > Just another convenient tweak of facts to suit an agenda.
    >
    > One thing not mentioned so far...
    > When your head strikes a surface it tends to 'stop' causing neck/etc
    > injuries.
    > Helmet standards were reviewed in he 90's to ensure they were not that
    > exposed styrafoam stuff or covered in cloth-stuff and given 'slippery'
    > outer shells so if you hit the deck your head keeps movig along with
    > the rest of you


    Absolutely
    And before that helmets undoubtably killed a few pople.
    >
    > BOTTOM LINE
    >
    > If you wear a helmet, WHATEVER!
    >
    > If you dont.... WHATEVER!!!
    >
    > It amazes me the fervour with which people can lather themselves into
    > to argue against helmet use, and yet ANYONE who has been in a serious
    > spill doesnt. Could it be they are speaking from such a strange
    > position as 'experience' ?
    >
    >


    Ummm I have been n lots of spills. One of the things is that most of
    the people who say the helmet saved their life are unconving to say the
    least. It may have saved their ear.. That I would believe.

    And I am mildly pro helmet very anti legislation.
     
  18. Bleve

    Bleve Guest

    Euan wrote:

    > I thought the main purpose of gloves was shock absorption while riding?
    > That's why I wear mine, I notice if I don't have them on.


    Nah, it's to give you funky tanlines :)
     
  19. Bleve

    Bleve Guest

    Euan wrote:
    > >>>>> "Bleve" == Bleve <[email protected]> writes:

    >
    > ritcho> For example, a 20kg plate can be supported by balancing it
    > ritcho> on your head, but put a nail in the centre of the plate and
    > ritcho> you'll pierce a nice hole in your head if you try to balance
    > ritcho> it in the same way. This example says nothing about
    > ritcho> velocity, but something about the distribution of force...
    > >> That's correct, force. That's different from kinetic energy and
    > >> depending what you're trying to calculate there are many
    > >> different equations.

    >
    > Bleve> One of the advantages of a helmet (or any device designed to
    > Bleve> lessen point impacts) is that pressure (which does a lot of
    > Bleve> damage, eg nails cv dinner plates) is reduced. That square
    > Bleve> law you're thinking about wrt KE, well, pressure =
    > Bleve> force/area, and area is a square function also. The rest is
    > Bleve> left as an exercise to the reader.
    >
    > Agreed, however if a device has only X amount of kinetic absorption the
    > rest has to go somewhere.


    Of course. That's a given. There's a tradeoff between helmet safety
    and
    weight, size and effectiveness. Tempered also by the body's ability or
    otherwise to survive greater forces even if one part is well protected.

    Helmet's aren't perfect, and I don't think anyone is saying they are.
     
  20. "Bleve" <[email protected]> writes:

    > David Trudgett wrote:
    >
    >> Option 1: Compulsory xyz
    >> Option 2: Refuse healthcare
    >>
    >> Unfortunately, both your options are unChristian.

    >
    > I am not a christian.


    You must have missed my replies to two others on this general subject;
    in particular, this one:

    http://groups.google.com.au/group/a...65ad1/147b457d6f66d396&hl=en#147b457d6f66d396

    If violence against others is OK in your religion because the ends
    justify the means, or if in your religion it is OK to withhold medical
    care from those who need it, whether or not through their own
    stupidity, then feel free to ignore my comments.

    On the other hand, if this is not the case, then you have no grounds
    for complaint.


    >
    > This is aus.bicyles, religious argument really doesn't
    > belong, eh?
    >


    I've already replied to that, too:

    "I don't think it appropriate to exclude religion from
    life. Religion *is* life, you know."


    If religion is something you do on Sunday mornings, then it is not a
    religion, it's a hobby.

    If a Christian goes to church on Sunday and professes to oppose all
    evil and violence, but then goes to work on Monday and condemns a man
    to death or imprisonment, then that Christian is a hypocrite. Christ had
    a lot to say about such people; and so did Leo Tolstoy, by the by (see
    sig).

    On the other hand, if your religious beliefs include a belief in the
    goodness of violence (which includes denying medical care to those who
    need it), then just come right out and say it.


    David


    --

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

    Only let men cease to be hypocrites, and they would at once see that
    this cruel social organization, which holds them in bondage, and is
    represented to them as something stable, necessary, and ordained of
    God, is already tottering and is only propped up by the falsehood of
    hypocrisy, with which we, and others like us, support it.

    -- Leo Tolstoy, "The Kingdom of God is Within You"
     
Loading...
Loading...