Helmets stop people cycling

[ufkacbln]

The formula has no conditions, it is a universal formula, meaning if an object has a mass, and a velocity the force will be determined by the impact time.

It's a formula that's been around for years with plenty of proof to its application.

I'm sorry you're so worried about this.

Not worried about the formula at all..... just worried about why you have avoided the simple question as to whether it would apply equally to pedestrians.

Your avoidance and waffling about cars is a pathetic red herring.

Now we all know that you will not answer the question, and we all know why

 

[ufkacbln]

"As mentioned in the Introduction, this manual is focused on how to increase helmet use among motorcycle users. The increasing use of motorized two-wheelers, and the high speed at which motorcycles can travel compared to bicycles, means that the primary audience of this manual will be those seeking to increase motorcycle helmet use. Nonetheless, it is assumed that much of the technical guidance that is provided in the text will be equally relevant, and can be applied easily, to those seeking to introduce a helmet programme for bicycle users."

Did you read that bit?

Where's your evidence?

Yes we did, and we also understand that it does not do what you are claiming

I have highlighted the appropriate phrase. In a scientific paper an assumption is a worthless statement that suggests something may be possible

For instance one can assume that a cancer treatment works because a similar drug worked in mice...... but you will not be allowed to manufacture it or use it in humans

 

[Joey7415963]

Yes we did, and we also understand that it does not do what you are claiming

I have highlighted the appropriate phrase. In a scientific paper an assumption is a worthless statement that suggests something may be possible

For instance one can assume that a cancer treatment works because a similar drug worked in mice...... but you will not be allowed to manufacture it or use it in humans

Read the post in context, it was to demonstrate that the WHO would support using helmets (maybe not the best bit it still goes someway in demonstrating that for them it is something that they can support).

I was not using it as proof that helmets work.

Finally, perhaps you need to familiarise yourself with scientific literature this is not a scientific paper.

 

[Joey7415963]

Not worried about the formula at all..... just worried about why you have avoided the simple question as to whether it would apply equally to pedestrians.

Your avoidance and waffling about cars is a pathetic red herring.

Now we all know that you will not answer the question, and we all know why

Wow you have some issues don't you, perhaps you should consider your own waffling and try to comprehend what has been written, I said the formula was universal, can be used in any circumstance so Yeh it could be used for pedestrians, my response (as previously stated if you bothered to read the posts fully) is that I would assume (yes no statistics to back this one up) that cyclists are more likely to have a collision / accident that would warrant them to wear a helmet.

The reason why I'm avoiding this is because I'm aware that for a lot of people this is a difficult subject (wasn't aware that it was I thought it was a no brainer).

In conclusion I'm going to still wear a helmet at worst it might damage my hair style, at best out might save my life (I hope that's not too evangelistic for you).

 

[mcshroom]

I also have to point out that though you are increasing the time portion of that formula (assuming the shell deforms instead of cracking), you are also increasing the mass that is being accellerated and due to the fact that it is larger than your head and placed on top of it, you are also increasing the initial rotational velocity of the head. Both these factors combine to increase the amount of energy that needs to be dissipated.

Even the formula is unfortunately more complicated than it initially looks.

 

[ufkacbln]

Read the post in context, it was to demonstrate that the WHO would support using helmets (maybe not the best bit it still goes someway in demonstrating that for them it is something that they can support).

I was not using it as proof that helmets work.

Finally, perhaps you need to familiarise yourself with scientific literature this is not a scientific paper.

No it doesn't

 

[Peter Armstrong]

Bloody hell, I dont know whats easier to discuss, EDL or Helmets

 

[ufkacbln]

Wow you have some issues don't you, perhaps you should consider your own waffling and try to comprehend what has been written, I said the formula was universal, can be used in any circumstance so Yeh it could be used for pedestrians, my response (as previously stated if you bothered to read the posts fully) is that I would assume (yes no statistics to back this one up) that cyclists are more likely to have a collision / accident that would warrant them to wear a helmet.

The reason why I'm avoiding this is because I'm aware that for a lot of people this is a difficult subject (wasn't aware that it was I thought it was a no brainer).

In conclusion I'm going to still wear a helmet at worst it might damage my hair style, at best out might save my life (I hope that's not too evangelistic for you).

You couldn't be more wrong

Your assumption is the wrong way round pedestrians suffer more injuries where a helmet could be of use than cyclists

All you are doing is proving that pedestrians should be wearing helmets

 

[ufkacbln]

I don't see why you wouldn't, it's simple physics!

Force = change in momentum / time

Increasing time of impact (cushioning the blow), reduces the force.

For the sake of £6 Aldi helmet that's passed all the same British standards I don't see why you would take the risk.

I said the formula was universal, can be used in any circumstance so Yeh it could be used for pedestrians

Brilliant, so we now have a universal formula and you cannot understand why pedestrians would take the risk of not wearing one?

 

[green1]

I see the fatal flaw in your approach Cunobelin. You are assuming that Joey has the capacity for logical thought. The evidence would indicate otherwise...

I wonder if he lives in Cheltenham?

 

[Licramite]

I always thought rain, freezing conditions and high or gale force winds (or as we call it - summer) stopped more people cycling - you don't see many about in those conditions.


oh no I just spotted the old turkey - "well pedesrians don't wear them" - I did wonder how long it would take for that boring old one came out.

I think the cars stops most most people cycling. - ban cars and you would see a lot more bikes on the road.

 

[bianchi1]

Cherry-picking random paragraphs to support your point of view isn't particularly helpful to the wider debate.

A slightly more robust and complete review of the Elvik (note the spelling) paper, undertaken by respected academics and experts, can be found here.

I have a point of view, but I don't choose to state it as it pointless!

Incidentally Elvik was shown to have made errors in his research, corrections are here:

http://ac.els-cdn.com/S000145751200...t=1369947241_c5175e7633c54764ff679e17db6af242

Same conclusions though so that's fine (he is using questionable methods according to some) which are:

If you wear a helmet head and face injuries are reduced
Neck injuries are not
Taken as a whole, injuries are not reduced

These are the facts, no cherry picking....do with them what you will.

 

[ufkacbln]

I always thought rain, freezing conditions and high or gale force winds (or as we call it - summer) stopped more people cycling - you don't see many about in those conditions.


oh no I just spotted the old turkey - "well pedesrians don't wear them" - I did wonder how long it would take for that boring old one came out.

I think the cars stops most most people cycling. - ban cars and you would see a lot more bikes on the road.

You are mistaken........ this is not about "pedestrians don't wear them" at all.

It is about the "evidence" or rather what is being passed as evidence.

I don't see why you wouldn't, it's simple physics!

Force = change in momentum / time

Increasing time of impact (cushioning the blow), reduces the force.

For the sake of £6 Aldi helmet that's passed all the same British standards I don't see why you would take the risk.

This also applies to my hamster, my dog and any itinerant brown bears that happen to be passing.

Why should a brown bear take the risk of a head injury with such unequivocal evidence?

 

[bianchi1]

Cherry-picking random paragraphs to support your point of view isn't particularly helpful to the wider debate.

A slightly more robust and complete review of the Elvik (note the spelling) paper, undertaken by respected academics and experts, can be found here.

Just thought I would ask who the respected academics and experts are who wrote the piece you link to. I can't find them.

And yet again the paper asserts that riders wearing helmets ride less safely despite Elvik finding no such evidence?

D- for effort I'm afraid



(Added to after further reading of lazy essay)

 

[Brandane]

Each to their own and all that, but I won't wear a helmet. In 50 years of cycling I have come off a fair number of times, and have yet to land on my HEAD. Shoulders, elbows, hips, knees, hands; yes. Never my head, and I doubt the ability of some overpriced plastic fashion accessory to offer much protection, as has been discussed on this very thread. Helmet use has been a very clever marketing ploy by the manufacturers, and a lot of cyclists - particularly BRITISH cyclists - have been suckered into buying them.

Obviously the Dutch know how much use helmets are (from a post in a touring section thread):

sounds good i just got back from holland (not cycling ) theres loads of cyclists out there but just be different from the rest and where a helmet please i saw not one person out of about 500 cyclists wearing a helmet
Cheers Ed