Helmets stop people cycling

[Joey7415963]

No it doesn't

Yes is does

 

[mcshroom]

Yes is does

How does it exactly?

 

[Joey7415963]

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

Might be the case in cities but I'm guessing it had a geographical element to it.

Speaking of guessing, what makes you so sure (reference).

 

[Joey7415963]

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

Yes I can, in my limited time cycling, I have had 3 near misses from drivers rushing to get in front or just passing by too close.

I've never had a near miss as a pedestrian

 

[Joey7415963]

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...

My starting post was based on the logical derivation that if crumple zones, air bags, bubble wrap all work (based on the same principle) why shouldn't helmets?

So far all my arguments have been referenced.

You have done nothing but post one link (which was the first one that turns up in Google) and bang on about how you work in the NHS.

You have not given one single piece of evidence to your argument.

It appears as though you are the one not using logic.

 

[mcshroom]

Might be the case in cities but I'm guessing it had a geographical element to it.

Speaking of guessing, what makes you so sure (reference).

Why should pedestrians only get head injuries in cities? Do we country folk never land on our heads or something?

 

[Joey7415963]

I wonder if he lives in Cheltenham?

Nope

 

[ufkacbln]

How does it exactly?

You won't get anywhere, If they can't see that an assumption that an intervention could apply to another group falls miles short of a policy statement supporting the intervention then you are not going to be able to point out the reality.

 

[Joey7415963]

FTFY...

Still waiting for that evidence

 

[Joey7415963]

How does it exactly?

How doesn't it

 

[ufkacbln]

Why should pedestrians only get head injuries in cities? Do we country folk never land on our heads or something?

You have all that soft manure to land in!

 

[Joey7415963]

Why should pedestrians only get head injuries in cities? Do we country folk never land on our heads or something?

Greater volume of traffic

 

[Joey7415963]

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.

Good point, would you say that the increase in mass and acceleration due to rotation gives rise to a larger force than could be conserved through the increase in time? I'm not sure I would. Would have to chuck some numbers in to find out though.

Also the same (Rotational force) could be said about air bags.

 

[mcshroom]

Greater volume of traffic

So pedestrians would get fewer head injuries in the country because there are fewer cars, but cyclists would not have exactly the same reduction in head injuries because of this lower traffic volume?

 

[Joey7415963]

Anyhow, with the exception of a couple of posters who a) have given evidence to back up their claims and b) who are grown up enough not to bully or single out someone with an opposing view, but instead take part in a normal, mature debate, I have never been more appalled with the behaviour of a forum!

That particularly goes for User who has been unwilling to provide any evidence to support any claim he has made, has constantly barked at me to provide evidence (which I have) and uses pathetic insults to try and weight his unfounded arguments.

I don't believe that my first post was out of order, I stated what I believed the reason behind wearing helmets was and was perplexed as to why you wouldn't. It showed opinion but not an I'm right you're wrong attitude. It was the barrage of aggressive posts received after that which made me retaliate. Still I went to efforts to rectify this and see things from the other side. I cannot say that the responding posters did the same.

I'm deleting this forum from my list and will warn others of its unwelcoming attitude towards newcomers.

In conclusion, wearing a helmet won't stop people from riding bikes, narrow minded, insulting, bullying and rude forum members will.