Cooler Helmet?

[Michael Press]

In article
<[email protected]>,
"Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email protected]> wrote:
> In any event, I'm against mandatory helmet laws, even for kids, but at the
> same time require that people on my own rides wear them. They can choose not
> to ride with me, and I won't get on their case about it (at least not more
> than once; I'm naturally curious so I'll often ask why they choose not to
> wear one, but I'm not going to argue with them about it).

[...]

By demanding that someone wear a helmet you do `get on
their case about it.' Do not pretend otherwise.

I am not going to be your friend; that is because you wear
a bicycle helmet.

--
Michael Press

 

[peter]

Jay Beattie wrote:

> Where are the kids who are not riding because they have to wear a
> helmet?

Proably either walking to school or being driven there. I've certainly
seen a decrease in the number of bikes locked up in the schoolyards in
our area since the mandatory helmet laws were passed.

> My front room is frequently awash in grade school kids, almost
> all of whom wear football helmets, ski helmets, lacrosse helmets,
> bicycle helmets, etc. I have never, ever heard one of them say "I'm
> not going to ride my bike because I have to wear a helmet."

My daughter and her friends did say just that when they reached an age
where having 'helmet hair' became a significant issue. But I also base
my conclusions on the kids I see who still do ride their bikes to
school. My bike commute went by a grade school, middle school, and
high school. Every kid I see riding to school does have a bike helmet.
But, except in the immediate vicinity of the schoolyard, less than one
in ten of the helmets is being worn. The rest are dangling from
handlebars or tied to the bike in some other way. So even the kids who
still ride really dislike having to wear a helmet and only wear it at
the ends of their trip where the rule is enforced, i.e. by parents and
school officials. Rather than just wear the helmet they prefer to stop
somewhere after leaving home, take it off, attach it to the bike, and
then reverse the process when they get within sight of the school.
Sure makes the bike ride to school less convenient than it would be
without the helmet requirement and makes the alternative of walking (or
persuading mom to drive) look that much more attractive than riding.

> The reason
> these kids do not ride is because their high-strung mothers shuttle
> them everywhere in the Canyonero.

And you don't think that at least some of those mothers are so
'high-strung' about the dangers of bicycle riding because of all the
messages from the schools, doctors, and various 'public service'
announcements that keep saying that you *must* wear a helmet *whenever*
you ride a bike? Many people quite reasonably associate helmet wearing
with particularly risky activities. So unless they're familiar with
the accident statistics showing cycling to be reasonably safe in
comparison with other common activities, they may well conclude that
letting little Suzy cycle to school is just too dangerous with or
without a helmet and that they'd better drive her there instead.

 

[Jay Beattie]

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:

<snip>

> On the second point, yes, helmets might "dangerize" cycling to some extent,
> but as I pointed out in a another post, we have, in fact, implemented a vast
> array of different mechanisms to make auto travel less dangerous, and very
> few would currently argue that seat belts and air bags don't, in fact, save
> lives and reduce serious injury. And the logic goes, if we can make cars
> safer, why not bikes? There are parallels... before seat belts & air bags,
> cars were most definitely more dangerous than they are today, but not so
> dangerous that people wouldn't use them. Accepting a certain amount of
> danger in cycling is little different, with or without helmets.

Sort of OT, but I worked ambulance in the Santa Clara Valley starting
in about 1973 when there were a lot of cars from the early 60s and even
late 50s on the road. Man, no safety glass, metal dash, no collapsing
steering columns, not head rests, no seat belts, etc. Combine that with
no center wall on HWY 17, and it was a blood fest. Still, a lot of
people thought seatbelts were a pain in the ass and refused to wear
them. The first death I ever saw, as a kid in the 60s, was a girl
thrown from a dune buggy with no belt. I see wearing a helmet as no
more invasive than wearing a seatbelt. Others feel differently. -- Jay
Beattie.

 

[Sorni]

[email protected] wrote:
> Sorni wrote:
>> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> It;s sort of complicated when people starting talking about
>>> accidents riding a mountain bike in rocky terrain and relating that
>>> to chances of accidents on a normal road ride.
>>
>> The impact of a head on a rock and a curb are comparable if not
>> identical.

> But the probabilities are far different. Should that not factor in
> _somehow_?

Of course. I missed JFT's use of the word "chances" above, as it did NOT
accurately portray what I said to Greg (context was removed by JFT, too).

Let's say my chances of crashing while mtb-ing is one in...twenty? fifty?
a hundy?

And let's say my chances of crashing while roadie-ing is one in...a
thousand? ten thousand?

The fact is the potential damage to my head if it whaps a rock or a curb is
substantial, so I choose to wear protection to lessen that damage to a
certain degree. The fact that crashing is a good deal more likely on a
knobby-tired bike (on rough terrain) than on a skinny-tired one over
pavement is irrelevant. Hard is hard.

It's really not that complicated.

>> It's really not that complicated.
>
> "Explanations should be made as simple as possible - but no simpler."
> - Albert Einstein
>
> [Disclaimer: That one is from memory, but I'm sure it's close.]

And that post was probably a record for brevity on your part, Frank. Brava!

B.S.

 

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

> "Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> In any event, I'm against mandatory helmet laws, even for kids, but at
>> the
>> same time require that people on my own rides wear them. They can choose
>> not
>> to ride with me, and I won't get on their case about it (at least not
>> more
>> than once; I'm naturally curious so I'll often ask why they choose not to
>> wear one, but I'm not going to argue with them about it).
>
> [...]
>
> By demanding that someone wear a helmet you do `get on
> their case about it.' Do not pretend otherwise.

Uh, no, it's just a requirement for rides I lead. I have no problem riding
with helmetless cyclists if it's not my own ride.

> I am not going to be your friend; that is because you wear
> a bicycle helmet.

OK. Seems kinda silly to me, but I'll live with it. I know of several
helmetless cyclists that I consider to be friends of mine. Didn't occur to
me that they resented my wearing a helmet so much. This issue is even more
polarizing than I thought!

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com


"Michael Press" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article
> <[email protected]>,
> "Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> In any event, I'm against mandatory helmet laws, even for kids, but at
>> the
>> same time require that people on my own rides wear them. They can choose
>> not
>> to ride with me, and I won't get on their case about it (at least not
>> more
>> than once; I'm naturally curious so I'll often ask why they choose not to
>> wear one, but I'm not going to argue with them about it).
>
> [...]
>
> By demanding that someone wear a helmet you do `get on
> their case about it.' Do not pretend otherwise.
>
> I am not going to be your friend; that is because you wear
> a bicycle helmet.
>
> --
> Michael Press

 

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

> I do know a guy who has said nobody can ride with him without a helmet.
> Despite being an otherwise nice guy, he's also lectured me publicly
> and rather impolitely about my riding without one (although my riding
> experience far exceeds his). Even though I like him pretty well I
> simply refuse to ride with him.
>
> - Frank Krygowski

I don't think anyone enjoys being lectured to publicly, and I can't think of
too many examples where doing so is in the best interest of the person being
lectured. More likely it's thought to improve the stature of the person
doing the lecturing, which is probably very misguided. It could be an
attempt to make an example of someone, but that's not a great idea on issues
that are fought more on emotional than factual grounds. Not that helmets
would fit that category! :>)

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com


<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>>
>> In any event, I'm against mandatory helmet laws, even for kids, but at
>> the
>> same time require that people on my own rides wear them. They can choose
>> not
>> to ride with me, and I won't get on their case about it (at least not
>> more
>> than once; I'm naturally curious so I'll often ask why they choose not to
>> wear one, but I'm not going to argue with them about it).
>
> That's interesting.
>
> FWIW, there was a time I strongly believed in helmets. That was back
> before I got curious enough to start reading all the research papers
> and looking at actual data.
>
> Anyway, back in those days, the first night ride I led for my club, I
> said "helmets mandatory," thinking "well, it's a more risky ride." And
> one of the club's best riders showed up without one. He normally rode
> without one, and said he would have brought one because I asked, but he
> just forgot.
>
> I was faced with a little dilemma. What to do? Tell him he couldn't
> ride with us? That would have been just silly - the roads are public,
> I had no legal authority, and I would have felt foolish even trying.
> It took me about 0.5 seconds to decide my helmet requirement was just
> wrong. That was the last time I ever suggested such a thing.
>
> I do know a guy who has said nobody can ride with him without a helmet.
> Despite being an otherwise nice guy, he's also lectured me publicly
> and rather impolitely about my riding without one (although my riding
> experience far exceeds his). Even though I like him pretty well I
> simply refuse to ride with him.
>
> - Frank Krygowski
>

 

[Mark Hickey]

[email protected] wrote:

>[email protected] wrote:
>>
>> The text description is dramatic, and we're all relieved
>> that Mark wasn't hurt worse, and angry at the truck driver
>> fr nearly killing him.
>
>This is a bit off-topic, but it seems Mark would have no reason to be
>angry at the truck driver. It wasn't the truck driver who nearly
>killed Mark. It was Mark who nearly suicided.
>
>Passing a line of stopped cars on the right at 20 mph sounds like
>suicide to me. I would _never_ do that voluntarily. And if someone
>somehow forced me to do it (perhaps at gunpoint) I'd insist on much
>more protection than a flimsy bike helmet.

Funny - I'm the one who always wears a helmet, but you're the one
who's paranoid about riding in traffic. I suppose I could slow to a
walking pace every time I pass a line of cars (and do where there's a
chance one might do something dumb). In the case of my accident,
there wasn't much of a chance for any of the stopped cars to get in my
way - I was in a BICYCLE LANE, Frank. Six feet of clean, clearly
marked bicycle lane next to a very adequately wide auto lane.

Perhaps you slow to a walking pace when passing stopped cars in the
adjacent lane when you drive, Frank?

My error was in not discerning a space through which a vehicle could
turn left through the stopped cars, nor in seeing the vehicle in time.
The same thing could happen when riding with MOVING traffic so I
suppose the only "non-suicidal" mode would be to slow to a walking
pace all the time, just to be safe.

Me, I'll take my chances and enjoy my ride. "On your left".

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

 

[Michael Press]

In article
<[email protected]>,
"Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email protected]> wrote:

> > "Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> In any event, I'm against mandatory helmet laws, even for kids, but at
> >> the
> >> same time require that people on my own rides wear them. They can choose
> >> not
> >> to ride with me, and I won't get on their case about it (at least not
> >> more
> >> than once; I'm naturally curious so I'll often ask why they choose not to
> >> wear one, but I'm not going to argue with them about it).
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > By demanding that someone wear a helmet you do `get on
> > their case about it.' Do not pretend otherwise.
>
> Uh, no, it's just a requirement for rides I lead. I have no problem riding
> with helmetless cyclists if it's not my own ride.

I think you do have a problem. One of them is that you
exclude people. Not because they are anti-social, or rude,
or dangerous, or abrasive; but because they do not bend to
your will.

> > I am not going to be your friend; that is because you wear
> > a bicycle helmet.
>
> OK. Seems kinda silly to me, but I'll live with it. I know of several
> helmetless cyclists that I consider to be friends of mine. Didn't occur to
> me that they resented my wearing a helmet so much. This issue is even more
> polarizing than I thought!

Yes, it seems silly. It is worse than silly. Saying that I
will not be your friend because you wear a helmet is
outrageously ill-mannered. Think about it. How will you
live with it if you do not think about?

> "Michael Press" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > In article
> > <[email protected]>,
> > "Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> In any event, I'm against mandatory helmet laws, even for kids, but at
> >> the
> >> same time require that people on my own rides wear them. They can choose
> >> not
> >> to ride with me, and I won't get on their case about it (at least not
> >> more
> >> than once; I'm naturally curious so I'll often ask why they choose not to
> >> wear one, but I'm not going to argue with them about it).
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > By demanding that someone wear a helmet you do `get on
> > their case about it.' Do not pretend otherwise.
> >
> > I am not going to be your friend; that is because you wear
> > a bicycle helmet.
> >
> > --
> > Michael Press

--
Michael Press

 

[Jay Beattie]

peter wrote:

<snip>

> And you don't think that at least some of those mothers are so
> 'high-strung' about the dangers of bicycle riding because of all the
> messages from the schools, doctors, and various 'public service'
> announcements that keep saying that you *must* wear a helmet *whenever*
> you ride a bike? Many people quite reasonably associate helmet wearing
> with particularly risky activities. So unless they're familiar with
> the accident statistics showing cycling to be reasonably safe in
> comparison with other common activities, they may well conclude that
> letting little Suzy cycle to school is just too dangerous with or
> without a helmet and that they'd better drive her there instead.

I can't speak to what motivates young girls because I do not have a
daughter, and I wonder if the helmet-hair claim is just an excuse. I
do know what motivates parents, and yes, there seems to be a consensus
that riding to school is dangerous because of cars, and there is also
the stranger-danger fear as well. I don't think that most parents even
know that Oregon has an MHL and just want their kids to wear helmets.

Also, at least with boys, I just don't believe helmet wearing has that
much of an effect, if any, on ridership. If it did, then the football
and lacrosse fields would be empty. And for Carl, I live in a light
blue collar neighborhood, and probably fifty percent of the kids in my
son's class are from single parent or blended families (divorces).
They do manage to buy football helmets or lacrosse helmets (which has
become the new soccer in Portland) and bicycle helmets. -- Jay Beattie.

 

[41]

Mike Reed wrote:
> 41 wrote:
> > To put it more directly: you will die from brain deceleration long
> > before your skull is damaged in any impact with a hard object where it
> > is you that moves and not the object.
>
> Physics doesn't care what your f rame of reference is. Whether you ride
> into a sign post or are whacked across the head with one doesn't change
> the way the helmet behaves.

You need to think that one through more thoroughly. We are not dealing
with two basic objects A and B here, we are dealing with A, B, and S,
where B is delicately floating inside S. You might ask yourself: why
are hard hats worn on construction sites so different in design from
bicycle helmets? They have no styrofoam padding inside, only a sort of
harness ("suspension"). Why not use it for bicycle helmets if the
situation is as you believe?

Think of the 8lb battery falling 16 feet and hitting our poster S. here
square on the head, yet causing her hardly a hiccup. Since you are
confident of your ability in physics, why don't you do the calculations
and see what the impact velocity is. If you do so, you will find that
the speed substantially exceeds that for the Snell standard for the
impact of the headform with the ground. Coincidentally, 8lbs is also a
typical weight for a human head. Go take a look at a construction hard
hat and see how little to it there is. Why was it able to protect S.
from that high-speed impact, when if her head were dropped from that
height in a Snell test, even with that helmet worn on top of a bicycle
helmet, we could shall we say kiss her and her scrambled brain goodbye?
If the situation were as you described, there should be no difference,
because "Physics doesn't care what your f rame of reference is".



> I just don't understand what part of logic is missing that prevents
> people from seeing how a helmet can h elp if you hit your head. It
> doesn't solve every problem, and I'm not claiming it does, but it
> helps.

Well, a helmet certainly cannot protect you at all if you hit your
head. It can only protect you if you hit your helmet. So before you
start complaining about logical failures in others, just as with errors
in physics, consider your own more carefully. Whether wearing a helmet
solves any problems is one thing. Whether it creates any that are in
total worse is another.>

 

[41]

Samatha wrote:

> 1) I'm a beginning rider, prone to wobbling, ditching int o curbs when
> startled, and just plain losing control and whoop! down on the ground.

> 3) I have lousy eyesight - big, thick glasses. I tend to run into
> overhanging objects before realizing I'm in trouble

> 4) Weird, dumb accidents sometimes just happen. On the job, I was once
> saved from a very hard blow to the top of my head

> 5) That darn bike lane puts traffic WAY too clos e for me to have a
> cozy, warm feeling. Lots of Texans favor honking huge trucks, with even
> huger mirrors extending some distance from the vehicle body. There
> isn't much I can effectively do about a
> side-to-the-body-and-bike-swipe, or a mirror thwacking my shoulder

> a two to four -ton- vehicle may encounter me
> directly - whatever our mutual vectors! - on a mere 25 pound (if that)
> vehicle

> Or I fell over for no better reason than my own
> clumsiness, falling so out-of-balance as to land badly and thwack on my
> own head of the pavement (sadly, a far more likely risk).

> being struck by bits
> sticking out of vehicl es seems possible, just from my observations thus
> far

Based on your description, I propose to you that you present a serious
risk to your own life and that you really are in great and imminent
danger. I propose that the greatest things that you can do in order to
save your life from imminent doom are the following, in reverse order
of importance:

4. Get aspheric high-refraction index plastic lenses and well-fitting
wire-framed glasses.
3. Learn to fall properly on your bicycle. This is done on a golf
course.
2. Learn to ride properly on your bicycle. This is done on a golf
course, in a parking lot, on a trainer, anywhere and everywhere.
1. Flee Texas.

 

[[email protected]]

Mike Reed wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:

> > Considering that helmet fit is universally accepted to be the single
> > most important factor in choosing a helmet, I would say this sounds
> > like very bad advice!! Seems like this goes against all accepted
> > ideology. It will also allow the helmet move around more on the
> > wearer's head - a dangerous thing. Sounds like that this would be
> > going against all helmet manufacturer's suggestions for use as well as
> > common sense.
>
> Actually, many helmets come with different sized pads to be placed
> inside to improve fit. So helmet manufacturers actually DO expect you
> to buy a helmet that's too big, and pad it to fit. Otherwise, they'd
> just offer thinly padded helmets in 500 different shapes and sizes.

Actually, they would make 500 different shapes and sizes if it were
possible and practical to do so. They offer different thickness pads
because peoples heads are different. Naturally folks will have to
choose from the available sizes. But to suggest to someone that they
buy a bigger size than fits best for cooling is bad advice and
irresponsible at best.

d2g

 

[Sandy]

Michael Press a écrit :
> In article
> <[email protected]>,
> "Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Uh, no, it's just a requirement for rides I lead. I have no problem riding
>> with helmetless cyclists if it's not my own ride.
>
> I think you do have a problem. One of them is that you
> exclude people. Not because they are anti-social, or rude,
> or dangerous, or abrasive; but because they do not bend to
> your will.

The problem is yours, Mr Priss. Take a hint, that when someone doesn't
to ride with you, you are beinng antisocial, rude, dangerous and
abrasive by insisting on joining the ride, barging into the action, and
pushing your point. Maybe it's because people just don't want to hang
out with you, with or without a helmet.

>>> I am not going to be your friend; that is because you wear
>>> a bicycle helmet.
>> OK. Seems kinda silly to me, but I'll live with it. I know of several
>> helmetless cyclists that I consider to be friends of mine. Didn't occur to
>> me that they resented my wearing a helmet so much. This issue is even more
>> polarizing than I thought!
>
> Yes, it seems silly. It is worse than silly. Saying that I
> will not be your friend because you wear a helmet is
> outrageously ill-mannered. Think about it. How will you
> live with it if you do not think about?

You stuffed a phrase in Mike's mouth and now you want to argue that
point. It would be a snap to live with a decision like Mike's, if
you're the odd guy out. Roads are open - find your own group - lead
your own ride. In fact, you could theoretically ride with my group - we
have no exclusion regarding helmets. But two things would be necessary
- you'd have to keep up with us, and you'd have to behave yourself
nicely. Unlikely that you'll be on either ride.
--
Bonne route !

Sandy

 

[41]

Sandy:
> beinng antisocial, rude, dangerous and
> abrasive by insisting on joining the ride, barging into the action, and
> pushing your point.

SAND n. example of something highly abrasive.

Indeed, we must respect the abrasive one's opinions in this regard,
because he is the world's leading expert on the above-described
activity.

"Bonne foutre!"f

 

[Sorni]

Michael Press wrote:
> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>> Press wrote:

>>> By demanding that someone wear a helmet you do `get on
>>> their case about it.' Do not pretend otherwise.

>> Uh, no, it's just a requirement for rides I lead. I have no problem
>> riding with helmetless cyclists if it's not my own ride.

> I think you do have a problem. One of them is that you
> exclude people. Not because they are anti-social, or rude,
> or dangerous, or abrasive; but because they do not bend to
> your will.

Bend to his will?!? He's LEADING a group ride -- most likely representing
his business but even if not he's assuming some repsonsibility for the
participants' well-being and safety.

A lawyer would eat him alive if his or her client was injured on "Mike's
Ride" while not wearing a helmet.

Someone DOES sound rude, anti-social and abrasive here: Michael, not Mike.

BS

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 05:11:54 GMT, "Sorni"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Of course. I missed JFT's use of the word "chances" above, as it did NOT
>accurately portray what I said to Greg (context was removed by JFT, too).

I don't see why things I write have to accurately portray what you
write. I wasn't trying to deceive you or anyone -- I was pointing out
that not talking about odds is, er, odd. The fact that you just
skipped over that should not be laid at my feet but rather at yours --
it's an example of the way people talk about helmets: not carefully
enough.

Sorry if that seems obnoxious, but I wasn't trying to fly something by
you in some sort of trick.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 22:59:00 -0700, Mark Hickey <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>Funny - I'm the one who always wears a helmet, but you're the one
>who's paranoid about riding in traffic. I suppose I could slow to a
>walking pace every time I pass a line of cars (and do where there's a
>chance one might do something dumb). In the case of my accident,
>there wasn't much of a chance for any of the stopped cars to get in my
>way - I was in a BICYCLE LANE, Frank. Six feet of clean, clearly
>marked bicycle lane next to a very adequately wide auto lane.

It's really strange to hear you promoting helmet use and at the same
time taking issue with someone who pointed out serious operator error
on your part. And calling him paranoid for saying he wouldn't do
something that, to me also, doesn't seem prudent.

>
>Perhaps you slow to a walking pace when passing stopped cars in the
>adjacent lane when you drive, Frank?

Well, for sure drivers of cars tend to spot other cars better than
they spot cyclists, so sad to say that when riding a bike around a lot
of cars we actually have to be even more careful sometimes. I wish it
wasn't that way, but it is. Or I guess we can just wear a helmet and
mock other people like you do. Great.

>The same thing could happen when riding with MOVING traffic

It is FAR less likely with moving traffic.

JT



****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

 

[Dave Larrington]

In article <[email protected]>, Mike
Reed ([email protected]) wrote:

> Miracle? Adding material to increase structural stability is
> engineering, not theology. How does armor work? If we changed the term
> "bicycle helmet" to "armor," then do you think they would work better?
>
> I woke up in the hospital one day following my ride home from work, and
> found my helmet to be cracked and compressed. I was in the hospital for
> a pneumothorax caused by my broken rib. My helmet had completely
> smashed through the rear side window of the car that drove in front of
> me. I believe the helmet saved me from some serious head injuries. Even
> with the helmet, I still had a mild concussion, but the helmet
> prevented skull deformation that would have caused a more serious brain
> injury. At least that's what my neurologist told me.
>
> But WTF does he know, right? Stupid brain surgeon.

I trust you went out unhelmeted and repeated the experiment to test the
validity of the mechanic's point of view?

--
Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/>
I am Wan, for I am pursued by the Army of Plums.

 

[Mike Reed]

41 wrote:
> Mike Reed wrote:
> > 41 wrote:
> > > To put it more directly: you will die from brain deceleration long
> > > before your skull is damaged in any impact with a hard object where it
> > > is you that moves and not the object.
> >
> > Physics doesn't care what your f rame of reference is. Whether you ride
> > into a sign post or are whacked across the head with one doesn't change
> > the way the helmet behaves.
>
> You need to think that one through more thoroughly. We are not dealing
> with two basic objects A and B here, we are dealing with A, B, and S,
> where B is delicately floating inside S. You might ask yourself: why
> are hard hats worn on construction sites so different in design from
> bicycle helmets? They have no styrofoam padding inside, only a sort of
> harness ("suspension"). Why not use it for bicycle helmets if the
> situation is as you believe?
>
> Think of the 8lb battery falling 16 feet and hitting our poster S. here
> square on the head, yet causing her hardly a hiccup. Since you are
> confident of your ability in physics, why don't you do the calculations
> and see what the impact velocity is. If you do so, you will find that
> the speed substantially exceeds that for the Snell standard for the
> impact of the headform with the ground. Coincidentally, 8lbs is also a
> typical weight for a human head. Go take a look at a construction hard
> hat and see how little to it there is. Why was it able to protect S.
> from that high-speed impact, when if her head were dropped from that
> height in a Snell test, even with that helmet worn on top of a bicycle
> helmet, we could shall we say kiss her and her scrambled brain goodbye?
> If the situation were as you described, there should be no difference,
> because "Physics doesn't care what your f rame of reference is".

Ugh, I'm talking about the same resultant kinetic energy for the same
objects. A sign post hitting you with the same energy with which you
hit a sign post, in the same location on your mellon, the helmet
behaves the same.

Nice story though.

>
>
>
> > I just don't understand what part of logic is missing that prevents
> > people from seeing how a helmet can h elp if you hit your head. It
> > doesn't solve every problem, and I'm not claiming it does, but it
> > helps.
>
> Well, a helmet certainly cannot protect you at all if you hit your
> head. It can only protect you if you hit your helmet. So before you
> start complaining about logical failures in others, just as with errors
> in physics, consider your own more carefully. Whether wearing a helmet
> solves any problems is one thing. Whether it creates any that are in
> total worse is another.>

Yeah, you're right. Please stop wearing your helmet immediately.

-Mike

 

[Mike Reed]

G.T. wrote:
> Mike Reed wrote:
> > G.T. wrote:
> >
> >>Mike Reed wrote:
> >>
> >>>jtaylor wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Helmets don't work.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Darwin works. Happy riding.
> >>>
> >>
> >>So you believe in the miracle that helmets will save lives? Ironic.
> >>
> >>Greg
> >
> >
> > Miracle? Adding material to increase structural stability is
> > engineering, not theology. How does armor work? If we changed the term
> > "bicycle helmet" to "armor," then do you think they would work better?
> >
> > I woke up in the hospital one day following my ride home from work, and
> > found my helmet to be cracked and compressed. I was in the hospital for
> > a pneumothorax caused by my broken rib. My helmet had completely
> > smashed through the rear side window of the car that drove in front of
> > me. I believe the helmet saved me from some serious head injuries. Even
> > with the helmet, I still had a mild concussion, but the helmet
> > prevented skull deformation that would have caused a more serious brain
> > injury. At least that's what my neurologist told me.
> >
> > But WTF does he know, right? Stupid brain surgeon.
>
> Was he a physicist, too?

Given his comment, he must have been a physicist. At least H.S.
physics. Pretty elementary statement.

I was wearing a helmet and received a brain injury. He said that I
would have had a worse brain injury without a helmet. Obviously, some
of my impact was absorbed by the helmet (compressed, cracked), and that
energy was transfered to my brain more slowly.

Do you wish to challenge this?

> > Let's say I go out to the local hike and bike trail and start cracking
> > random cyclists over the head with a 2x4. Would it be a miracle that
> > the helmetless riders would go to the hospital more than the helmeted?
>
> Yes, for cuts and bruises.
>
> >
> > Do you think helmets don't offer protection?
>
> Yes, from cuts and bruises.
>
> >
> > Do you think accidents don't happen where helmets prevent injury?
>
> No, they prevent cuts and bruises.
>
> >
> > Are you sure you haven't already sustained such an injury that's
> > swaying your opinion here?
> >
>
> Possibly, but it wasn't from wearing or not wearing a helmet.

It's obvious that you're hopelessly conviced that helmets only prevent
cuts and bruises. Would you be willing to add scrapes (abrasions) to
the list? (maybe we should try these one at a time)

-Mike