Paper Helmets

[Octet]

Now, care to address the question, why cyclists and not pedestrians or car occupants?

If you care to read my existing posts, car occupants are protected using the same principals as a helmet through the use of crumple zones and airbags (with the only separate addition of a seat belt).
Pedestrians are, although vulnerable, less likely to sustain a serious injury compared to a cyclist who is in a more dangerous environment.

Check Mate I think ....

There is only so much time I can spend replying, I do have other things to do.... just because I haven't been able to type a reply in the five minutes since it has been posted....

 

[Fab Foodie]

If you care to read my existing posts, car occupants are protected using the same principals as a helmet through the use of crumple zones and airbags (with the only separate addition of a seat belt).
Pedestrians are, although vulnerable, less likely to sustain a serious injury compared to a cyclist who is in a more dangerous environment.



There is only so much time I can spend replying, I do have other things to do.... just because I haven't been able to type a reply in the five minutes since it has been posted....

Errr, so despite all those safety features, and if you're still more likely to die of a head-injury in a car than on a bicycle you don't choose to wear a helmet when driving?
Bizarre.

 

[Octet]

Errr, so despite all those safety features, and if you're still more likely to die of a head-injury in a car than on a bicycle you don't choose to wear a helmet when driving?
Bizarre.

What are you talking about?
My claim is not that the injuries sustained during driving are less serious than cycling, and more point regarding the safety features is that they are there to protect you and therefore render the helmet irrelevant. The safety features in a car use the same PRINCIPLE as those used in a helmet.

Anyway, here are some statistics for you in regards to your pedestrian helmet question. In Northern Ireland there are 1.6 per 100,000 pedestrian deaths (N. Ireland having the highest in the UK in 2003).

Cyclist deaths according to the FARS Database, 240 per 100,000.

 

[theclaud]

What are you talking about?
My claim is not that the injuries sustained during driving are less serious than cycling, and more point regarding the safety features is that they are there to protect you and therefore render the helmet irrelevant. The safety features in a car use the same PRINCIPLE as those used in a helmet.

I don't do this often, but...

 

[Octet]

I don't do this often, but...

The safety features that are incorporated into a car use the same physics (dissipation of energy etc.) such as in an airbag and a crumple zone. These features are also used in helmets by reducing the energy taken in by the head. In this new paper helmet (what this entire thread was actually supposed to be about) the dissipation has been improved by three times.

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.

Now, care to address the question, why cyclists and not pedestrians or car occupants?

Now, have you reviewed those independent statistics you wanted, despite them actually being posted before hand?

 

[theclaud]

The safety features that are incorporated into a car use the same physics (dissipation of energy etc.) such as in an airbag and a crumple zone. These features are also used in helmets by reducing the energy taken in by the head. In this new paper helmet (what this entire thread was actually supposed to be about) the dissipation has been improved by three times.

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.

(In for a penny...)

 

[Octet]

(In for a penny...)

?

 

[Lpoolck]

It is, as you have stated, a joke. In no way has it been written with malicious intent, because if I thought it had been then believe me I would have reported it.
You have to make jokes about things in life, and in this case it was simply an expression of Lpoolck's opinion.

Thank you. Indeed it was a joke. Obviously those who took offence have had one to many bumps to the head and could not tell this. Maybe they should wear a helmet

 

[Lpoolck]

Against what happening?

Tripping over while walking?

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.

 

[Octet]

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.

A valid point, the way you fall is very different.

 

[Octet]

Are you suggesting that pedestrians don't hit their heads?

No.... I am simply stating that the way you fall is different. IF YOU READ MY OTHER POSTS, I have already addressed this, yes a pedestrian still has the possibility to hit their head and sustain brain damage however if you look at the statistics, whilst cycling this threat is considerably heightened.

Why don't you provide us with some statistics to suggest otherwise, that cyclists who don't wear helmets are just as likely to be injured in the same way as those who do, and that walking is a (as you seem to put it) dangerous activity.

 

[Lpoolck]

Unfortunately, your cycle helmet is not designed to work at 30mph making your argument totally irrelevant.

Who said my head would be hitting the ground at 30mph? Definitely not me. My head won't hit the ground at 30mph if travelling at 30mph on my bike making your post completely irrelevant.

 

[Octet]

Except, as I have already pointed out to you, people in cars hit their heads against the inside of the car. The external speed is not relevant.

External speed is ALWAYS relevant, there are three collisions in a car crash.

The car itself, let's say it is travelling at 35 MPH. When the car hits a wall, the car receives the impact force of 35 MPH, a lot of this force is dissipated through the use of crumple zones.

Impact two takes place when you hit the inside of the car (as you have pointed out) however in this instance the impact force is considerably less. Furthermore, a second dissipation of energy takes place in the form of an airbag.

Impact three are your internal organs hitting the body, in the case of the head it is the brain hitting the skull. In this impact, the force has again been considerably reduced thanks to both a seat belt and the other methods of dissipation prior to this impact.


Yes a helmet might help, however the airbag in the case of a car would provide the same protection as you are travelling forwards. If you removed the airbag then yes, it probably would be an idea to wear a helmet. If your seat is positioned correctly, and you are sitting correctly then you are likely to travel forwards (assuming it is a head on collision).

 

[Octet]

So what the relative risks of the activities and where is the line drawn that makes cycling so dangerous that a person ought to wear a helmet and walking so safe that the idea can be dismissed out of hand?

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.

 

[ufkacbln]

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.

This is what amuses me most

You will NOT wear a helmet when it is most likely to prevent a head injury, but will wear it when it is less likely to prevent a head injury!

Then we have the argument that during a fall you will always be able to prevent a head injury, but not be able to on a bike!

Hardly a rational position