Paper Helmets

[ufkacbln]

I speculate that if you're impacting a flat horizontal surface, the vertical component of travelling speed prior to impact is usually zero or thereabouts: you might sand all the hair and skin off your skull as you slow down, but a 300G impact doesn't seem all that likely. OTOH if you slide into a kerb at high speed, brain damage is probably back on the menu. If you roll instead of sliding the situation changes again. If your head snags on something - perhaps you have very sticky hair, for example - different again..

(Edited)


Snag points on modern helmets caused by ventilation and aerodynamics are known for these snag points and the issues they cause (despite LInford's clainm that this is a red herring)

There is aslo evidence that helmets can be ejected from the head during a crash, thus failing the wearer at a critical time

Interestingly the answer to this issue is to gaffer tape the helmet in place during testing so that it does not interfere with the results!


So next time you wear your ventilated, and aerodynamic helmet, don't forget to gaffer tape it in place and do NOT swear when you lose yor eyebrows takingthe helmet off

 

[Linford]

Brilliant,

NOw all you need to do is clarify... greater than what

No greater than racing ferrets?
No greater thhan dangling your toes in an pirahna infested swimming pool?

No greater than walking by any mode when moving at walking pace....Can you not be quite so ridiculous with your answer. You don't cover yourself in glory when trying to be so pedantic....you knew exactly what I meant !

 

[User482]

Well fair enough but, seeing as that is something that can be viewed as an extreme sport rather than every day transport, it is hardly relevant.

The relevance is that we should decide for ourselves when and where we use safety equipment.

I must confess that I've not filed off the safety tabs on my dropouts...

 

[User482]

Of course we should but our decisions seldom have one simple, clean, consequence.

I guess I'll take the risk that my failure to file off dropout safety tabs is promoting their compulsion...

 

[User482]

I would be willing to bet that 95% of our MPs know what a cycle helmet is and that most of them would agree that we should wear them, without having thought about the issue at all.
You could probably narrow that proportion to 1 or 2 percent would even know what lawyers lips are.

I agree - I was just being facetious.

FWIW, I thought about it, read the research, and decided to carry on wearing a helmet. I don't think I should abandon my considered position on the unlikely off-chance that it might influence a law maker.

 

[User482]

It is not easy to break the habit. Giving up smoking is easier.

I don't believe wearing a helmet is bad for my health and I don't wish to stop wearing it.

 

[Linford]

(Edited)


Snag points on modern helmets caused by ventilation and aerodynamics are known for these snag points and the issues they cause (despite LInford's clainm that this is a red herring)

There is aslo evidence that helmets can be ejected from the head during a crash, thus failing the wearer at a critical time

Interestingly the answer to this issue is to gaffer tape the helmet in place during testing so that it does not interfere with the results!


So next time you wear your ventilated, and aerodynamic helmet, don't forget to gaffer tape it in place and do NOT swear when you lose yor eyebrows takingthe helmet off

When wearing a motorcycle crash helmet...correct fitment is everything. That is why motorcycle helmets have different sized shells and different sized liners.

I would suggest that if cycling helmet tech got the development which motorcycle lids get, the issues you have raised would become non issues....the resistance your arguments to aviod adoption is counter productive, and to the detrement of the cycling community.

 

[Wobblers]

[QUOTE 2875505, member: 45"]Not in detail, no. My point is that the force of impact of your head, if there is an impact, has no fixed relation to the speed one was cycling at the beginning of any incident. And so the tests done do not relate to this speed.[/quote]

Not so. There are a number of things that happen. The forces some unfortunate's head experiences in a crash is a vector sum of numerous components: accelerations in the vertical, horizontal planes along with various rotational modes. It is quite possible, indeed usual, for energy in one mode (say horizontal motion) to be conducted into another (say rotation). The probability of this happening increases with initial velocity. Furthermore, impact forces increase with the square of initial velocity, to a reasonable first approximation. Hence a crash at 20 mph will be 4 times worse than one at 10 mph (on average, yes, every crash is different, the dynamics will also be different, but this rule of thumb still stands). Thus there very much is a relation between forces experienced an initial velocity: this is why there is that trend where crashes (for all vehicles, not just cyclists) become worse as the speed increases.

 

[snorri]

the resistance your arguments to aviod adoption is counter productive, and to the detrement of the cycling community.

In what respect?

 

[ufkacbln]

No greater than walking by any mode when moving at walking pace....Can you not be quite so ridiculous with your answer. You don't cover yourself in glory when trying to be so pedantic....you knew exactly what I meant !

Pedantry is necessary after the tantrum last time I accepted one of your posts at face value!

 

[Linford]

Pedantry is necessary after the tantrum last time I accepted one of your posts at face value!

I credited you with a bit of intelligence and made a tongue in cheek remark, which I felt you would be able to see for what it was.....you being the forum expert and proponent of the merits of the 'Thudguard'.

You set your bar very low in gauging your own intelligence ..How was I to know you would dismally fail to meet your own expectations. You then throw a wobbly because my joke was beyond your comprehension ?

You are a lost soul if you truly believe what you type.

Now about this Snell B95 standard cycling lid which you have stated you are prepared to wear.....

 

[theclaud]

I guess I'll take the risk that my failure to file off dropout safety tabs is promoting their compulsion...

Oh don't be silly, User482!

 

[ufkacbln]

I credited you with a bit of intelligence and made a tongue in cheek remark, which I felt you would be able to see for what it was.....you being the forum expert and proponent of the merits of the 'Thudguard'.

You set your bar very low in gauging your own intelligence ..How was I to know you would dismally fail to meet your own expectations. You then throw a wobbly because my joke was beyond your comprehension ?

You are a lost soul if you truly believe what you type.

Now about this Snell B95 standard cycling lid which you have stated you are prepared to wear.....

I can only really thank you for this post as it illustrates exactly the problem with your posts

Now we know that you expect everyone to see this post as "for what it is", but there is the issue...............Once again it isn't clear what this post actually is.

This represents a real problem......... and a choice as to how we deal with this valuable contribution to the debate.

The item you have posted is in fact a foam helmet cover made by a company called Nogin Sox mounted on a display stand.

Even more ironic is that it clearly states on their website:

....... (not to be used as a protective or safety device)

Yet you have claimed it is a Snell B95 rated helmet!


Here are the choices for you to avoid answering:

1. When you claim this is a Snell B95 rated helmet - do we assume that you are you really unaware that it is in fact a joke cover (that I have posted on a number of occasions previously) and point out that you are once again displaying a worrying ignorance of this when you made your claim

2. When you claim that this is a Snell B95 rated helmet - do we assume that you are aware that it is in fact a joke helmet cover (that I have posted on a number of occasions previously) and question the rational reasons for claiming it is in fact a rated safety helmet

3. Simply accept that this is once again a deviation on your part to avoid answering sensible questions by diverting to some fanciful and bizarre claim with no connection to reality

4. You have again resorted to Google, grabbed the first thing that you found and again failed to actually read the link before you posted and once again got it totally wrong

Which option would you have me take?

 

[ufkacbln]

Worrying? Who's worried?

If Linford is really advising us that this as a protective helmet at all, never mind one that passes the most thorough test standard used in the market today - then yes it is worrying.

 

[Linford]

I can only really thank you for this post as it illustrates exactly the problem with your posts

Now we know that you expect everyone to see this post as "for what it is", but there is the issue...............Once again it isn't clear what this post actually is.

This represents a real problem......... and a choice as to how we deal with this valuable contribution to the debate.

The item you have posted is in fact a foam helmet cover made by a company called Nogin Sox mounted on a display stand.

Even more ironic is that it clearly states on their website:



Yet you have claimed it is a Snell B95 rated helmet!


Here are the choices for you to avoid answering:

1. When you claim this is a Snell B95 rated helmet - do we assume that you are you really unaware that it is in fact a joke cover (that I have posted on a number of occasions previously) and point out that you are once again displaying a worrying ignorance of this when you made your claim

2. When you claim that this is a Snell B95 rated helmet - do we assume that you are aware that it is in fact a joke helmet cover (that I have posted on a number of occasions previously) and question the rational reasons for claiming it is in fact a rated safety helmet

3. Simply accept that this is once again a deviation on your part to avoid answering sensible questions by diverting to some fanciful and bizarre claim with no connection to reality

4. You have again resorted to Google, grabbed the first thing that you found and again failed to actually read the link before you posted and once again got it totally wrong

Which option would you have me take?

Yes I am aware it is a joke helmet...that is why it has been made to look like human brains.

Cunobelin...I honestly think you are losing it. I don't think it healthy that you are behaving this way so I'm not going to encourage you any more..