Paper Helmets

[ufkacbln]

How many hours per year are expended in the pursuit of cycling, how many hours per year are expended by pedestrians in the uk ?

According to the BMJ and other authorities the risks of head injury are about equal, but the real question is how does this prevent a head injury?

The next question for you to avoid answering is...... would a helmet prevent a head injury in a pedestrian fall?

Whilst here, why did you quote the snell b95 tests as being sufficient and then backtrack ?

Read the posts.... it is simply a case (onc again) of trying to get a straight answer from you

It really is ironic that you are chasing an answer given th fact that I am still awaiting a straight answer on one thread despite your being asked multiple times, and after some three weeks.

As above - when you reply and explain why you are claiming that the Snell test and modern technology are incompatible, then I can asnwer both points at the same time:

You could also answer why you think that increased ventilation does not affect the efficiency of a helmet, but again I doubtthat you will.


Until you actually come up with a straight answer there is no point really in my commenting furthe

The open lattice has no snag points. The inner shell has an eps shell for fit and comfort, and the outer shell is smooth as shown in this thread up page ^

You have stated you accept that a lid tested to snell b95 is adequate but this testing standard is 19 years old now. Technology moved on and this is the result

...and just how has a helmet impacting a solid object changed in 19 years?

Has gravity increased?

Or are you suggesting that helmets are no longer designed to withstand an impact?

If a helmet is able to withstand the Snell impact tests then it is able to with stand the Snell impact tests. If not then it offers less protection than one that does-simples

Now lets see which tangent you take to avoid answering that basic fact?

Or can we take this reply of yours as an admission that you were unable to answer as it would have shown just how poor your knowledge is in this field

 

[ufkacbln]

....

Which is another point that you or another anti-helmet person has made.

Nope - not anti-helmet just anti-hypocrite

I am however going to stop replying, simply because we are going around in circles because you cannot provide any new points other than "pedestrians should wear one" whilst not actually being able to provide any meaningful data.

Furthermore, this thread was simply about the new helmet design which is three times more effective, it is those who disagree with helmets that started it into a nine page long debate.

No - it was people who hypocritically want to make cyclists wear helmets, yet can't come up with any rason to explain their irrrational stance the pedestrian head injuries don't need preventing.

 

[Linford]

According to the BMJ and other authorities the risks of head injury are about equal, but the real question is how does this prevent a head injury?

The next question for you to avoid answering is...... would a helmet prevent a head injury in a pedestrian fall?



Read the posts.... it is simply a case (onc again) of trying to get a straight answer from you

It really is ironic that you are chasing an answer given th fact that I am still awaiting a straight answer on one thread despite your being asked multiple times, and after some three weeks.

As above - when you reply and explain why you are claiming that the Snell test and modern technology are incompatible, then I can asnwer both points at the same time:



Or can we take this reply of yours as an admission that you were unable to answer as it would have shown just how poor your knowledge is in this field

All I see is flannel....now can you restate for the record if you acknowledge the standard which you stated as an acceptable one to reduce head injuries ?

Providing it can be proved that the open lattice does not act as a "snag point"

Providing it passes Snell B95

Providing it can be shown that the structure lasts over exposure to the elements and normal wear and tear

Providing the proven issue with ventilation decreasing the efficiency of helmets does not happen in this case

These are your words, not mine....Now are you back tracking on what you said, or do you believe that well designed cycle helmets save lives ?

 

[MontyVeda]

[QUOTE 2871960, member: 45"]Why are people having the same discussion they had last week, and the week before, and the week before that, and the we..........[/quote]
initially, I think it's an exercise in gaining experience, then it's practice practice practice until one day... we'll all be able to offer a presentable and infallible argument in a real world scenario... maybe with Auntie Ethel, or the bloke next door, should they ever have the gall the suggest we wear a helmet

 

[Linford]

initially, I think it's an exercise in gaining experience, then it's practice practice practice until one day... we'll all be able to offer a presentable and infallible argument in a real world scenario... maybe with Auntie Ethel, or the bloke next door, should they ever have the gall the suggest we wear a helmet

Perhaps they feel that mitigation has some real value.

 

[Wobblers]

Statistics would suggest yes.

http://www.helmets.org/stats.htm - Just one source, there are plenty of others.

You're not a statistician, are you?

That particular webpage you referenced does not compare KSI rates for helmeted and non-helmeted cyclists anywhere. It, in fact, does not reference any peer reviewed sources whatsoever. It thus cannot be considered to be reliable.

Further, looking closely at the figures (why are the standard deviation figures omitted?) reveals something very different. it notes that a report in the UC Berkley "Wellness Letters" cites a figure of 96% of cyclist deaths were not wearing helmets in 1996. An examination of the number of cyclists wearing helmets in 1996 (the very first graph) shows 96% were not. If your claim was right, that second percentage would be lower. The fact that it is not categorically disproves your claim.

 

[Wobblers]

LMFTFY

Regardless of the video, your head is a vulnerable and irreplaceable part of your body and as such should be protected. Yes it is a strong structure, however I believe you are overestimating it.
Even if it doesn't fracture the skull, the damage sustained to the brain can easily be fatal, or equally in some cases the force required to fracture the skull can be minimal. The helmet is obviously not a miracle device that will protect you from everything and anything, but it certainly helps.

To provide three times more protection is a significant increase, it isn't so much about "cosmetic" protection but what is happening on the inside of your head. Any sort of sharp, or vigorous movements of the brain can do damage and so to create a more effective crumple zone will help slow and reduce this effect as well as dissipating the energy in a much more controlled way is beneficial.

Let me fix this for you....

Yes, it is quite possible to incur severe brain injuries without skull fractures. Probably the most common way for this to happen is through excessive rotational forces. Helmets do not protect against rotational forces.

 

[Wobblers]

In a car, this "dissipation technology" has been designed to withstand considerably greater impacts, 60 or 70 MPH + and encompass the entire body. A helmet is not going to withstand a 70 MPH + impact (again, as stated in one of my other posts) so it is therefore irrelevant to use one in a car.

Head injuries to car occupants occur as a result of collisions between their heads and the interior of the vehicle. I wouldn't normally point out something so blazingly obvious, but I feel I need to make an exception here. These collisions occur at relative velocities (between car and occupant) which are far lower than the original speed of the vehicle. And most accidents happen at relatively low speed - 30 mph or less. So, yes, a helmet would be of benefit. It is entirely relevant.

 

[Fab Foodie]

Has anyone mentioned that cycling's not dangerous?

 

[Wobblers]

I tend not to walk 30 mph. Every time I have fallen whilst walking I have always had the time to put my hands out first to break my fall. Doing that at 30mph with a bike between my legs is not comparable to walking. Just my opinion and just one of many reasons why I wear a helmet.

Have you worked out the kinetic energy of your head at 30 mph? And then compared it to the 50 J impact protection a CE rated helmet gives - or the 75 J a Snell rated helmet offers?

As an exercise, why not do that now - you may wish to comment about the figure calculated.

 

[Linford]

Let me fix this for you....

Yes, it is quite possible to incur severe brain injuries without skull fractures. Probably the most common way for this to happen is through excessive rotational forces. Helmets do not protect against rotational forces.

So what you are saying is that if a cycling helmet doesn't act like a magic shield and protect against every conceivable head injury it has no valuable attributes which could help to reduce certain types of skull or brain injuries ?

If 300g is the point where a brain injury can happen, then isn't it a sensible thing to try and lower the transmission of force to the brain to avoid pasing this threshold...these lids are bringing a 220g impact on the shell down to 70g against the skull in the tests...that is clearly a worthwhile reduction...would you not agree ?

 

[Wobblers]

I don't know where you are getting this idea that cycling is "so dangerous", however to answer your question I would say that the line is simply the speeds of collision.

As demonstrated by my STATISTICS, pedestrians are far less likely to receive brain injuries than a cyclist.

So you've said. Please back your claims with links to your sources. Kindly prove your assertion (I would suggest the use of a t-test) showing your working. And what is the standard deviation?

 

[Fab Foodie]

Claud alluded to it.

Possibly a bit too subtle ......

 

[Wobblers]

I think you might be wasting your time here. Octet mounted a dignified withdrawal yesterday evening.

Where's the fun in that?

 

[Wobblers]

I suppose you imagine that people will accept the truth of this coming from you and the fact that I have said that ^ is of no consequence.

Well, it's corroboration, innit?