Paper Helmets

[ufkacbln]

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 ?




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 ?

Read, and digest.... when I have the answers you are avoiding I can answer the questions together.

Care to answer so I can proceed?

 

[ufkacbln]

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 ?

.. or have a sex change and become a girl?
Being a female cyclist reduces your chance of a head injury as well!

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 ?

I agree absolutely - it is a worthwhile reduction that could reduce head injuries for cyclists, pedestrians car drivers, and car passengers

Now all you need to do is explain why you feel that this reduction is only worthwhile in some groups?

 

[Linford]

@McWobble has his fingers in his ears

So much for looking at this issue with an open mind.....

 

[ufkacbln]

@McWobble has his fingers in his ears

So much for looking at this issue with an open mind.....

Much easier to simply avoid things totally........ and go off on a tangent

 

[Linford]

.. or have a sex change and become a girl?
Being a female cyclist reduces your chance of a head injury as well!





I agree absolutely - it is a worthwhile reduction that could reduce head injuries for cyclists, pedestrians car drivers, and car passengers

Now all you need to do is explain why you feel that this reduction is only worthwhile in some groups?

Does it need spelling out ?

Pedestrians whilst walking on the pavement at 4mph will not be subjected to high G's as their potential for momentum is low due to their slow speed and smaller mass .

Cyclists cycling on the road at cycling speeds (say 20mph) are subject to much higher forces due to the combined mass of the bike and the higher speed which they are ridden.

Cars have a much higher potential for momentum due to their greater mass, and higher speed. Car designers found that this was bad in the event of a sudden stop, and so over time have developed seat belt restraints, crumple zones and air bags which combined allow the velocity change during deceleration to be done over a greater distance.

 

[ufkacbln]

Does it need spelling out ?

Apparently it does from the content of your previous posts and lack of understanding that you have displayed.

I note you are still avoiding a whole range of questions. For instance why you think ventilation decreasing helmet efficiency is a "red herring"

But we all know that you won't answer, so lets look at the latest claims?

Pedestrians whilst walking on the pavement at 4mph will not be subjected to high G's as their potential for momentum is low due to their slow speed and smaller mass .

Is that another way of avoiding the question... if a pedestrian falls and bangs their head on the pavement - would a helmet absorb some of the energy and decrease the severity of the injury?

Cyclists cycling on the road at cycling speeds (say 20mph) are subject to much higher forces due to the combined mass of the bike and the higher speed which they are ridden.

....Which asks the question, should they be travelling that fast as they will be outside the performance envelope of the helmet. Surely it is sheer stupidity to subject oneself to increased risk?

Cars have a much higher potential for momentum due to their greater mass, and higher speed. Car designers found that this was bad in the event of a sudden stop, and so over time have developed seat belt restraints, crumple zones and air bags which combined allow the velocity change during deceleration to be done over a greater distance.

... and the reason why the helmets worn by drivers should be of a higher standard - Snell has standards for these as well

 

[Linford]

Apparently it does from the content of your post!


1) Is that another way of avoiding the question... if a pedestrian falls and bangs their head on the pavement - would a helmet absorb some of the energy and decrease the severity of the injury?



2) ....Which asks the question, should they be travelling that fast as they will be outside the performance envelope of the helmet. Surely it is sheer stupidity to subject oneself to increased risk?


... and the reason why the helmets worn by drivers should be of a higher standard - Snell has standards for these as well

1) How much energy (or G-force) do you think might be experienced by the cyclist and pedestrian if both are without any protective headgear and bang their heads on the road at 4mph, and 20mph ?

2) Are you suggesting that cyclists should not cycle at a speed above walking pace to reduce the risk of impact ?

 

[ufkacbln]

Lets answer this very simply for you

A Policeman on the beat will wear a stab vest, an armed response Police Officer will wear a bulletproof vest

One will prevent bullets, but is vulnerable to knives, the other is vulnerable to bullets but not knives.

So both wear protective vests, but use the one designed for that task

1) How much energy (or G-force) do you think might be experienced by the cyclist and pedestrian if both are without any protective headgear and bang their heads on the road at 4mph, and 20mph ?

See above, a suitable helmet would surely be of benefit in both cases - as you clearly stated previously...

With or without a lid, the potential is always there for an accident irrespective of the mode used.

2) Are you suggesting that cyclists should not cycle at a speed above walking pace to reduce the risk of impact ?

If you increase the speed you should increase the protection surely?
Cycle helmets are not designed to absorb impact at these speeds.

 

[Linford]

See above, a suitable helmet would surely be of benefit in both cases - as you clearly stated previously...

Cycle helmets are not designed to absorb impact at these speeds.

Do you have any reliable sources to substantiate these claims ?

 

[ufkacbln]

Do you have any reliable sources to substantiate these claims ?

When you answer the previous questions.......

 

[MontyVeda]

[QUOTE 2873448, member: 45"]I can see that but the danger, hinted at on this thread in parts, is that people go into autopilot and miss out huge chunks of the debate. Or they lock on to one aspect, like "aha, but walking is comparable"- and cover their ears to any other line.[/quote]
i completely agree... my post wasn't entirely serous, but i suspect you sussed that. My line on helmets is, general cycling, no, active cycling such as racing or DH MTB, yes. I guess it's the difference between walking in the lake district and climbing in the lake district... I'd don a helmet for one but not the other. My personal risk assessments may well be pseudo science, but one has to draw the line somewhere with respect to additional safety measures over plain and simple caution in a wide range of activities. Walking to work, cycling to work and driving to work are in my mind comparable activities... If that makes any sense?

 

[ufkacbln]

What is really ironic about this is that the question LInford is asking is almost the same one he was asked two weeks ago on anoter threas and has avoided answering ever since.

Linford has stated that there are times he does not wear a helmet whilst riding a motorcycle, he was then asked to clarify the procss by which he decided whether or not to wear a helmet.

The chosen tactic to avoid the answer was to state that he wears a Thudguard when not wearing a helmet on his motorcycle and threw an almighty tantrum when this was taken as a joke and asked the same question as to how he decided whether to wear a Thudguard or helmet.

The question has still been avoided and not answered, like so mny points that he finds difficult on this thread



But that is really the standard we all expect from Linford.

 

[Linford]

What is really ironic about this is that the question LInford is asking is almost the same one he was asked two weeks ago on anoter threas and has avoided answering ever since.

Linford has stated that there are times he does not wear a helmet whilst riding a motorcycle, he was then asked to clarify the procss by which he decided whether or not to wear a helmet.

The chosen tactic to avoid the answer was to state that he wears a Thudguard when not wearing a helmet on his motorcycle and threw an almighty tantrum when this was taken as a joke and asked the same question as to how he decided whether to wear a Thudguard or helmet.

The question has still been avoided and not answered, like so mny points that he finds difficult on this thread



But that is really the standard we all expect from Linford.

I've already stated that anything up to walking pace, and I consider the risk to be no greater...anything more than that, and the risk goes up as the momentum rises Momentum = Mass x Speed

If I were to move my motorbike at anything more than walking pace, I would consider it entirely sensible to wear the lid. I am not the one arguing against the value of head protection for speeds above walking pace.

 

[Linford]

No it isn't, they are not tested for any traveling speed.

So what do you think they are tested for ?

 

[Nigel-YZ1]