Rusty Nails
We remember
- Location
- Living in the slow lane
Or on a bar stool which is probably more likely - !
Only dozy bar stewards fall off bar stools.
Be prepared for an accident
- Thread starter rydabent
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Only dozy bar stewards fall off bar stools.
mjr
Comfy armchair to one person & a plank to the next
- Location
- mostly Norfolk, sometimes Somerset
Still after being "knocked off", when forces and kinetic energy involved will far exceed helmet standards requirements.But as I observed on my post, my cranial collision was with the road not a car.
mjr
Comfy armchair to one person & a plank to the next
- Location
- mostly Norfolk, sometimes Somerset
Sorry, it seems I was probably thinking of the wrong helmet-pusher. It was Dorsch who refused to fully support her 1987 team's 90% claim in parliamentary committee, calling it "hypothetical".
Thompson et al merely revised their prediction downwards to 69% in 1996's "Effectiveness of bicycle safety helmets in preventing head injuries: a case-control study" (JAMA 1996 Dec 25;276(24):1968-73), but even that's another never-repeated result with an unrepresentative control group. Then you notice the claims that "There was no effect modification by age or motor vehicle involvement" and " No significant differences were found for the protective effect of hard-shell, thin-shell, or no-shell helmets". Surely that shouldn't be? No effects of helmet strength, rider age or amount of kinetic energy in the initial impact? I suggest that's not just surprising but completely absurd. If you accept the physics of how helmets protect, then you can't say the helmet design and the impact energy are irrelevant. Doing so seems like basically appealing that those hats are magic.
Both papers are mentioned on https://www.cyclehelmets.org/1027.html which is where I realised I might have confused Dorsch and Thompson.
Much later, the US government has said the 85% figure isn't reliable and should not be used: https://ggwash.org/view/31377/feds-will-stop-hyping-effectiveness-of-bike-helmets
MontyVeda
a short-tempered ill-controlled small-minded troll
- Location
- Lancaster... the little city.
'knocked off' suggests you were hit by something... as opposed to 'fell off', which suggests you weren't.But as I observed on my post, my cranial collision was with the road not a car.
Yup, some twat in a car who rear ended me because he 'didn't see me'.
Nae possible chance of taking avoiding action.
Vantage
Carbon fibre... LMAO!!!
- Location
- Behind everyone else, Bolton
Another point I wonder about. How exactly does the wearing of a helmet stop a person driving a car carelessly/dangerously?
Is said helmet going to zap them with a laser if he/she falls below driving safely standards? Is it going to fine them and issue points on their licence? Is said helmet going to provide a witness statement to the prosecution?
Is the helmet going to magically expand and surround it's wearer in a styrofoam ball of protecting fluffiness in the event of a collision?
Is said helmet going to zap them with a laser if he/she falls below driving safely standards? Is it going to fine them and issue points on their licence? Is said helmet going to provide a witness statement to the prosecution?
Is the helmet going to magically expand and surround it's wearer in a styrofoam ball of protecting fluffiness in the event of a collision?
