Skiing vs cycling

[Linford]

[QUOTE 2855592, member: 45"]Nowhere have I suggested that. What I said is that an operator is never in full control of their machine and that there is always a variable level of risk to the operator from circumstances out of control (including the reliability of the vehicle). You argued this, then admitted it but claimed that the risk is small, and are now trying to dismiss the facts with silly exaggeration.

I accept the level of risk, minimise it where possible and continue in my behaviour on the road. Denying any risk is dangerous and it's impossible to carry out a proper risk assessment without consideration of all risks.[/quote]

And we go back to risk versus control...until the point of failure, risk remains just that (an unknown quantity in individual instances, which may or may not lead to an unknown result)....if your vehicle is well built, well maintained, and you operate it within its design parameters, you cannot equate risk of component failure to loss of control, only 'actual' component failure.

All (significant) risk is worth mitigating against (hence me being a proponent of all the safety gear) but human error is the greatest proportion as a causation factor, and that can be caused by the operator, or other road users.

This argument in this whole thread is resting on the/your premise that even when people fall and injure themselves, that they may not acquire a significant head injury whilst not wearing a lid....or are you going to disagree with this now ?

 

[Linford]

It is up to you to establish the accuracy of figures you bring to the forum, you yourself complained about bias, yet don't seem to feel the need to look for bias in your own evidence.

The Headway and RoSPA sites you favour quoting are simply biased and inaccurate..... you need to read the original reference to establish the accuracy.......... and then in your case avoid discussing the very points that you have raised when they are shown to be in error.

Oh and by the way:

Are there times when you on a motorcycle or cycle and feel that you do not need to wear a helmet.?

Simple answer
* Yes
* No
* I am going to avoid answering this question


Any chance of a straight answer?

I can't open your link so it isn't going to be questioned either way. You need to quote the valid bit.

My answer was here

http://www.cyclechat.net/threads/skiing-vs-cycling.146520/post-2852712

Now given we both know that thudguards are not made for adults, you can take it as read that I wasn't actually wearing one.
I feel that when moving at walking pace by either cycle or motorcycle (4mph), I don't see that the risk is any greater than if actually walking (provided that the person sat on the bike is sober, and already competent at the controls)

 

[ufkacbln]

I can't open your link so it isn't going to be questioned either way. You need to quote the valid bit.

I DID!

My answer was here

http://www.cyclechat.net/threads/skiing-vs-cycling.146520/post-2852712

No it wasn't an answer that was (as claimed by you) tongue in cheek avoidance of an answer

Now given we both know that thudguards are not made for adults, you can take it as read that I wasn't actually wearing one.
I feel that when moving at walking pace by either cycle or motorcycle (4mph), I don't see that the risk is any greater than if actually walking (provided that the person sat on the bike is sober, and already competent at the controls)

I have highlighted the relevant part of your answer...

So you are saying that it is OK to ride without a helmet because you don't see the risk as being great enough to justify it?



The link is valid, and works, so you should be able to open it.

 

[Linford]

[QUOTE 2855695, member: 45"]Fair enough. Now, how effective do you think a bicycle helmet would be if you fell off on a 40mph descent, considering its design and design perameters?[/quote]

Not as good as a decent motorcycle crash helmet, but ceertainly better than wearing nothing at all....if we can mitigate the severity, then that could be the difference between a survivable and non survivable injury.

 

[ufkacbln]

Not as good as a decent motorcycle crash helmet, but ceertainly better than wearing nothing at all....if we can mitigate the severity, then that could be the difference between a survivable and non survivable injury.

Again your post illustrates the need for the Thudguard in preventing head injuries TO TODDLERS as after all, it is certainly better than wearing nothing at all....and if we can mitigate the severity, then that could be the difference between a survivable and non survivable injury

The argument for the Thudguard is exactly the same as the one you are using for helmets, you cannot argue for one without also arguing for the other.

.. or is it not worth mitigating head injuries in toddlers?

 

[Linford]

I DID!



No it wasn't an answer that was (as claimed by you) tongue in cheek avoidance of an answer




I have highlighted the relevant part of your answer...

So you are saying that it is OK to ride without a helmet because you don't see the risk as being great enough to justify it?



The link is valid, and works, so you should be able to open it.

I managed to open it of a fashion in another browser. It says this at the bottom of your table

1 Includes only vehicles in road accidents where a police officer attended the scene and in which a contributory factor was reported.
Columns may not add up to 100 per cent as accidents can have more than one contributory factor.
2 Due to recording errors some vehicle specific factors may have been allocated to the wrong vehicle in some accidents.
3 Includes other vehicles types and cases where the vehicle type was not reported.

It also says that only 50% of the vehicles in the cyclists column have attributable causes...that is like 50% of the numbers missing to draw any meaningful lessons from...so in my view that means that your reference of these stats is pretty meaningless when trying to argue your point.

 

[Linford]

[QUOTE 2855802, member: 45"]I asked how effective it would be.[/quote]

That is a million dollar question...if it can turn a 15G impact into an 8G impact, then if at 15G the brain is injured, then using one would help to keep it from getting damaged.

Whilst probably futile offering a link explaining this, I live in hope you may learn something http://www.braininjury.com/injured.shtml

 

[Linford]

Again your post illustrates the need for the Thudguard in preventing head injuries TO TODDLERS as after all, it is certainly better than wearing nothing at all....and if we can mitigate the severity, then that could be the difference between a survivable and non survivable injury

The argument for the Thudguard is exactly the same as the one you are using for helmets, you cannot argue for one without also arguing for the other.

.. or is it not worth mitigating head injuries in toddlers?

What sort of loads are toddlers heads being subjected to when they fall over ?

 

[ufkacbln]

What sort of loads are toddlers heads being subjected to when they fall over ?

Nice avoidance (again), but I am still happy to give an answer.

Due to the softer nature of a child's skull, they are more susceptible to brain injury, so even though the impact from a fall, especially if they strike furniture or a hard floor surface. Head injuries are completely different from those in adults.

Then we can look at the epidemiology. Typically :

Interestingly most motor vehicle incidents are as passengers which raises the question as to whether the Thudguard should be worn in cars as well.

Anyway, back to the question that you are avoiding.


Your point was that we should can mitigate the severity, and make the difference between a survivable and non survivable injury

I pointed out that argument for the Thudguard is exactly the same as the one you are using for helmets, and that you cannot argue for one without also arguing for the other.

.. or is it not worth mitigating head injuries in toddlers?

 

[Wobblers]

Hint - Without the spaces filled with 'Air', you wouldn't have a crumple zone, you would have a solid lump of metal. What happens to the energy in the crumple zone when it is deforming ?

So it's the air that's doing it??? Air that has this magical mystical property of negating impacts??? Please, please tell me you didn't actually engage your brain when you were writing - because the alternative is just too hideous to contemplate.

Well, since it is the air, then since cyclists cycle with their head a whole metre above the road, they don't need a helmet - all that air will protect them! Cars don't need bumpers - the air between them and whatever object they may hit will prevent damage! Bikers don't need helmets - air will do the job Just Nicely!

Just. Stop. It. Seriously. Just stop. This isn't trolling, this is a study of wretchedness. Go away now while you can still pretend to have some shard of dignity left and we promise we won't snigger too loudly at you as The "Engineer" Who Claimed Air Stops Impacts. You're just turning yourself into an object of ridicule. Really, do yourself a favour and turn off the computer and do something else.

 

[Wobblers]

The heat created through the resistance of the oil through the piston hole(s) as the damper runs through its stroke (viscous drag) gets dissipated in both the damper units mass and the oil inside it through the process of conduction.

The heat created by deformation of the crumple zone mostly gets absorbed into the components which make it (yet again by conduction). Once the crumple zone has fully crushed, the remaining kinetic energy caries through the rest of the structure of the vehicle deforming that as it goes(and creating more heat...through conduction). Perhaps either @McWobble or @mcshroom can correct this post if wrong ?

My pleasure.

Your "real world experience of practical problems" doesn't seem to have encountered the fact that it takes effort to bend metal. You know, energy. That's where the energy goes - in plastic deformation of the metal in a crumple zone.

 

[Linford]

So it's the air that's doing it??? Air that has this magical mystical property of negating impacts??? Please, please tell me you didn't actually engage your brain when you were writing - because the alternative is just too hideous to contemplate.

Well, since it is the air, then since cyclists cycle with my head a whole metre above the road, they don't need a helmet - all that air will protect them! Cars don't need bumpers - the air between them and whatever object they may hit will prevent damage! Bikers don't need helmets - air will do the job Just Nicely!

Just. Stop. It. Seriously. Just stop. This isn't trolling, this is a study of wretchedness. Go away now while you can still pretend to have some shard of dignity left and we promise we won't snigger too loudly at you as The "Engineer" Who Claimed Air Stops Impacts. You're just turning yourself into an object of ridicule. Really, do yourself a favour and turn off the computer and do something else.

You yet again are just cherry picking. If there was just a solid block of metal where a crumple zone is, how much plastic deformation would you expect to see ?
Is it possible to construct a crumple zone without voids in the structure as you appear to be eluding too ...please share this wisdom ?

 

[Linford]

My pleasure.

Your "real world experience of practical problems" doesn't seem to have encountered the fact that it takes effort to bend metal. You know, energy. That's where the energy goes - in plastic deformation of the metal in a crumple zone.

As well as 'heat' or are you now going to deny this ?

 

[Linford]

Nice avoidance (again), but I am still happy to give an answer.

Due to the softer nature of a child's skull, they are more susceptible to brain injury, so even though the impact from a fall, especially if they strike furniture or a hard floor surface. Head injuries are completely different from those in adults.

Then we can look at the epidemiology. Typically :

Interestingly most motor vehicle incidents are as passengers which raises the question as to whether the Thudguard should be worn in cars as well.

Anyway, back to the question that you are avoiding.


Your point was that we should can mitigate the severity, and make the difference between a survivable and non survivable injury

I pointed out that argument for the Thudguard is exactly the same as the one you are using for helmets, and that you cannot argue for one without also arguing for the other.

.. or is it not worth mitigating head injuries in toddlers?

Do you believe that a thudguard is effective in its use ?

 

[Linford]

[QUOTE 2855856, member: 45"]Linf, I worked in a neurosciences unit of a regional hospital for four years. I've worked with Headway and BIRT, and supported many people with an acquired brain injury. I once removed a baby from his family as he'd been brain injured through shaking. I know that if you don't bang your head as hard it doesn't hurt as much.

I'm asking you how effective you think a cycle helmet might be if you came off your bike at 40mph.

I suspect you don't know, as you seem to be suggesting that it might take 7G out of an impact.[/quote]

I'm not suggesting 7G, what I'm suggesting is that a lid will absorb some of the energy of an impact...you accept this to be the case. Will a cycle lid protect against a 40mph fall...I've no idea, but I do know that a quality motorcycle lid can protect to a significantly higher speed in a head first fall as I've seen it with my own eyes.
I am confident that a cycle lid will help to absorb a degree of energy because that is what they are designed to do.

If the standards fall short and you are demanding higher standards of cycle lids, then you are also in a roundabout way demanding compulsion.

Do you wear a lid BTW ?