UK and Europe · Public discussion

Helmets

Started by Peter Taylor · · Last activity · 180 posts · 6,057 views

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
UK and Europe
Published
2 December 2004
Last activity
10 December 2004
Original author
Peter Taylor
Posts
180
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
6,057
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 61–80 of 180
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. in message <[email hidden]>, David WE Roberts

    (') said:

    Granted also that helmets only provide limited protection - full on
    impact with a speeding car is outside the design spec.

    The frightening thing about cycle helmets is how few of the people who
    believe in them have read the spec or considered what it means. The
    standard European test for cycle helmets involves dropping the helmet,
    containing a dummy head weighing not more than 6Kg, onto a flat surface
    from a height of 1.5 metres. I don't know about you, but I'm 1.88
    metres tall and I weigh 82Kg. If I just fall over from standing
    upright, I already exceed the impact which cycle helmets sold in Europe
    are tested to protect against - and exceed it by a very substantial
    margin. And that's before I've even got on my bicycle and started
    moving.

    --
    [email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

    my other car is #<Subr-Car: #5d480>
    ;; This joke is not funny in emacs.

  2. David WE Roberts said:
    Ian Smith said:
    David WE Roberts said:

    Anyone who seriously believes that a bus driver will take more care to
    avoid a cyclist if s/he isn't wearing a helmet has no need of a helmet
    because IMHO there is nothing in the cranial area to protect.

    Oh that's an original put-down. No-one has ever come up with that
    before, have they. And it's always so convincing when the best anyone
    can do to defend their position is to assert their opponent has no
    brain.

    O.K. then - chapter and verse.

    I've seen various postings with references to risk taking by the cyclist.

    Can you point to one that proves that bus drivers asses the risk of
    hitting a cyclist based on the headgear (or lack of it) of said cyclist?

    No. Can you do teh converse?

    There are, however, plenty of references to risk compensation. Can
    you list any that disprove it?

    regards, Ian SMith
    --
    |\ /| no .sig
    |o o|
    |/ \|

  3. David WE Roberts said:


    However no doubt we should legislate to have these taken out on the
    grounds that they only encourage people to drive faster and with less
    concern for safety.

    Now that "would" be a major contribution to road safety. Instead of the
    cosseted drivers passing on the risk to the more vulnerable road users
    they would feel more at risk themselves and drive their vehicles in a
    more safe manner

  4. Quoted message said:

    I don't know about you, but I'm 1.88
    metres tall and I weigh 82Kg. If I just fall over from standing
    upright, I already exceed the impact [...]

    <snippity>

    Yebbut as you're a cyclist about half of that weight is your thighs, so
    unless you do a rather spectacular over-handlebar-dive not all your
    bodyweight will be involved.

    For a conservative estimate, would a fall from six foot exceed the impact
    assuming it was just my severed head in the helmet?[1]

    This should provide a more realistic view than the alternative 'held by
    the ankles and dropped' - far too painful.

    Mark.

    p.s.
    A dodgy experiment with a junior hacksaw and a set of scales suggests my
    head weighs approx 4 1/4 kilos.[2]

    I am (well, was) 6'1", or 1.86-ish metres.

    [1] As head injuries are the _only_ way to be killed on a bike we can
    assume that protecting a severed head from concussion is a worthwhile
    precaution

    [2] Anyone replicating this experiment is advised either to perform it
    leaning over a worktop/desk, or take some painkillers 10 minutes before
    to take the sting out of the 'bounce' (six feet is indeedy a _long_ way
    to fall)

  5. In article <[email hidden]>, Mark

    Thompson said:
    Quoted message said:

    I don't know about you, but I'm 1.88
    metres tall and I weigh 82Kg. If I just fall over from standing
    upright, I already exceed the impact [...]

    <snippity>

    Yebbut as you're a cyclist about half of that weight is your thighs, so
    unless you do a rather spectacular over-handlebar-dive not all your
    bodyweight will be involved.

    For a conservative estimate, would a fall from six foot exceed the impact
    assuming it was just my severed head in the helmet?[1]

    This should provide a more realistic view than the alternative 'held by
    the ankles and dropped' - far too painful.

    Mark.

    p.s.
    A dodgy experiment with a junior hacksaw and a set of scales suggests my
    head weighs approx 4 1/4 kilos.[2]

    I am (well, was) 6'1", or 1.86-ish metres.

    [1] As head injuries are the _only_ way to be killed on a bike we can
    assume that protecting a severed head from concussion is a worthwhile
    precaution

    [2] Anyone replicating this experiment is advised either to perform it
    leaning over a worktop/desk, or take some painkillers 10 minutes before
    to take the sting out of the 'bounce' (six feet is indeedy a _long_ way
    to fall)

    I love the stuff people write at 1 am 🙂

    --
    Sara

  6. in message <[email hidden]>, Mark

    Thompson (') said:
    Quoted message said:

    I don't know about you, but I'm 1.88
    metres tall and I weigh 82Kg. If I just fall over from standing
    upright, I already exceed the impact [...]

    <snippity>

    Yebbut as you're a cyclist about half of that weight is your thighs,
    so unless you do a rather spectacular over-handlebar-dive not all your
    bodyweight will be involved.

    For a conservative estimate, would a fall from six foot exceed the
    impact assuming it was just my severed head in the helmet?[1]

    Well yes, since the dummy head in the helmet is designed precisely to
    represent a severed head, and it is dropped from only i.5 metres.
    Interestingly, smaller sized helmets are tested with lesser weights.

    --
    [email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

    [ This mind intentionally left blank ]

  7. Tony Raven said:

    Chris Malcolm wrote:

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    That convinced me to lie still and wait for the
    ambulance rather than struggle to my feet and find my poor motorcycle,
    which usually comes off a lot worse than me in these incidents.

    Quoted message said:

    You make habit of doing that?

    Well, if you mean stagger to one's feet, dazed and injured, to care
    for the probably worse injured motorcycle, lots of motorcyclists do do
    that, silly as it seems in retrospect. I suspect it comes of having a
    strong personal relationship with the motorcycle, and having been very
    recently knocked on the head.

    But you might mean do I make a habit of having accidents. I used to
    when I was a young fool. The incident I have described took place
    because I was taking what I then and most other motorists still
    consider to be acceptable risks, such things as assuming there is
    nothing nasty round a blind bend, everyone relevant has seen you and
    isn't going to do anything stupid, nobody is going to steam blindly
    through the just-green light while you're running the just-red, etc..

    In that unpleasant accident I did nothing technically wrong. I was
    caught out by the combination of a bus driver and a van driver going
    in opposite directions both of whom claimed not to have seen me, and
    who both planned to overtake other vehicles while passing one another
    without allowing for the space between which I was occupying.

    In fact I suspect they both did see me, but both assumed that the
    other wouldn't have been silly enough to start overtaking at the same
    time, and once it had happened, they thought "oh well, the bloody
    biker will simply have to get out of the way". As bikers frequently
    can, in ways which are both mysterious and often scary to drivers. But
    not always.

    I thought about accidents a lot while I was in hospital, and decided
    that rather than take the dinosaur Big Armour approach to traffic
    hazards, I would take the mammalian strategy of being small, agile,
    and intelligent, i.e., I would stick to motorcycles, and become an
    extremely paranoid defensive rider who would not rely on "acceptable
    risks" and other folk not doing stupid things, having seen me, etc..

    The re-education wasn't easy, and slowed me down a lot at first until
    I had established new skills and strategies, but I've never had an
    accident in the 35 two-wheeled years since, if you don't count falling
    over at slow speeds on very slithery stuff, which I sometimes do on a
    pedal bike as well as a motorcycle. Before The Scary Accident, I used
    to have an accident about once a year on a motorcycle, and once every
    two years on a bicycle. And I didn't take them seriously because they
    weren't serious and Weren't My Fault.

    It's a fine point in the philosophy of traffic accidents which many
    have failed to spot, that it is possible for an accident to both
    Someone Else's Fault and nevertheless Avoidable By You. Many folk
    assume that "Avoidable By Me" implies "My Fault", which is a point
    they will not concede on principle, the well-established principle
    that "I'm a pretty good driver, me". It is also not true that
    avoiding the possible folly of others involves travelling around in
    craven fear at pedestrian speeds. You do need to learn new skills,
    which if you haven't got them do make it seem impossible. But if
    bicycles were invented for the first time today, nobody would believe
    that not only could most people learn to ride them, but actually ride
    them safely in traffic.
    --
    Chris Malcolm [email hidden] +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
    IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
    [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

  8. (Patrick Herring) said:

    "Jeff A" <[email hidden]> wrote:

    Quoted message said:

    It looks like, from these two examples, that mild-to-medium concussion
    (I'm rating medium concussion as "what you get after unconsciousness"😉
    is right on the borderline of what helmets are useful for, whereas I
    had thought they were effective against mild concussion and would
    reduce medium c to mild c but not major c to medium c (they'd break
    before that) whereas you seem to have had something like the latter.

    That's the design problem that helmets face. While struggling to keep
    them at a saleable size and weight, you can't make them work for mild
    concussion without seriously reducing their ability to prevent
    damaging concussion. In fact the problem is worse than that: within
    saleable constraints, their ability to reduce injurious concussion is
    strictly limited. But we don't want to affect sales, so we don't point
    that out. After all, it's obvious they must do *some* good isn't it?

    In fact. I'd be more inclined to buy a helmet which was openly
    designed and sold as being totally useless at reducing damaging
    concussion, but was pretty good at stopping you feeling groggy after a
    mild wallop on the head -- which is much more likely to happen to me,
    and the helmets which allegedly reduce damaging concussion in
    practice, in traffic, seem if anything to make things worse. And as
    you have discovered, are not much good at reducing head wallops to
    below the groggy level; they're not *designed* to do that, it's
    specifically excluded in the design criteria.

    --
    Chris Malcolm [email hidden] +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
    IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
    [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

  9. Ian Smith said:

    Falling from head-height while stationary is outside the design spec,
    unless you've detached your head from teh rest of your body.

    Come on now, be fair! Falling over from a standing upright position
    and hitting your head on the ground is (just) covered by the design
    spec. It's the designed maximum impact. You don't need to detach the
    head. You simply have to assume that the impact will not take place
    head first, with at least some of the rest of the body's weight behind
    it. And since as we all know, head first impacts to cyclists are
    an extremely rare kind of accident, where's the problem?

    --
    Chris Malcolm [email hidden] +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
    IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
    [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

  10. Simon Brooke said:

    in message <[email hidden]>, David WE Roberts
    ([email hidden]'😉 wrote:

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Granted also that helmets only provide limited protection - full on
    impact with a speeding car is outside the design spec.

    Quoted message said:

    The frightening thing about cycle helmets is how few of the people who
    believe in them have read the spec or considered what it means. The
    standard European test for cycle helmets involves dropping the helmet,
    containing a dummy head weighing not more than 6Kg, onto a flat surface
    from a height of 1.5 metres. I don't know about you, but I'm 1.88
    metres tall and I weigh 82Kg. If I just fall over from standing
    upright, I already exceed the impact which cycle helmets sold in Europe
    are tested to protect against - and exceed it by a very substantial
    margin. And that's before I've even got on my bicycle and started
    moving.

    Come on, be fair! When you're on your bike you're a bit crouched, so
    your head is closer to the ground than when standing. They're not
    stupid, they've taken that into account. So if you actaully topple
    off your bike when stationary the helmet *will* protect you.

    As you've pointed out, a bicycle helmet is not good enough to be used
    as a *pedestrian" helmet, since people stand taller. But it's ok for
    cyclists. Just don't wear it when walking, folks.

    --
    Chris Malcolm [email hidden] +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
    IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
    [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

  11. Chris Malcolm said:
    Ian Smith said:

    Falling from head-height while stationary is outside the design spec,
    unless you've detached your head from teh rest of your body.

    Come on now, be fair! Falling over from a standing upright position
    and hitting your head on the ground is (just) covered by the design
    spec.

    Only if you're less than 1.5m high. Even I exceed 1.5m.

    Quoted message said:

    It's the designed maximum impact. You don't need to detach the
    head. You simply have to assume that the impact will not take place
    head first, with at least some of the rest of the body's weight behind
    it.

    You have to assume that the head is attached to nothing or that no
    force is conducted up teh neck. The only way I can foresee a head
    striking the ground and no force being conducted up teh neck is to
    sever the neck. You don't need to drop vertically head first for body
    weight to affect the impact on the head. Topppling over (as I
    suggested) will do it.

    regards, Ian SMith
    --
    |\ /| no .sig
    |o o|
    |/ \|

  12. On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 12:07:37 +0000 (UTC), [email hidden] (Chris

    Malcolm) said:

    Well, if you mean stagger to one's feet, dazed and injured, to care
    for the probably worse injured motorcycle, lots of motorcyclists do do
    that, silly as it seems in retrospect.

    I am reminded of an anecdote told by a mate of mine, Martin. He went
    for a ride pillion on the back of some nutter's bike, in poor weather.
    The inevitable happened: taking a corner slightly too fast, they
    encountered a mixture of ice and an oncoming car which culminated in
    bike and riders parting company. Said rider picked himself up,
    examined the machine and pronounced: "The bike's OK, that's the
    important thing." Martin - a big man - faced squarely up to him,
    stated "No it bloody isn't!" and felled him...

    Guy
    --
    "then came ye chavves, theyre cartes girded wyth candels
    blue, and theyre beastes wyth straynge horn-lyke thyngs
    onn theyre arses that theyre fartes be herde from myles
    around." Chaucer, the Sheppey Tales

  13. On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 12:44:30 +0000 (UTC), Ian Smith
    <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    <[email hidden]>:

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Come on now, be fair! Falling over from a standing upright position
    and hitting your head on the ground is (just) covered by the design
    spec.

    Quoted message said:

    Only if you're less than 1.5m high. Even I exceed 1.5m.

    On the trice? ;-)

    Guy
    --
    "then came ye chavves, theyre cartes girded wyth candels
    blue, and theyre beastes wyth straynge horn-lyke thyngs
    onn theyre arses that theyre fartes be herde from myles
    around." Chaucer, the Sheppey Tales

  14. On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 12:36:26 +0000 (UTC), [email hidden] (Chris

    Malcolm) said:

    Come on, be fair! When you're on your bike you're a bit crouched

    Speak for yourself. I'm reclining in comfort, me ;-)

    Guy
    --
    "then came ye chavves, theyre cartes girded wyth candels
    blue, and theyre beastes wyth straynge horn-lyke thyngs
    onn theyre arses that theyre fartes be herde from myles
    around." Chaucer, the Sheppey Tales

  15. you know? said:

    On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 12:44:30 +0000 (UTC), Ian Smith
    <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    <[email hidden]>:

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Come on now, be fair! Falling over from a standing upright position
    and hitting your head on the ground is (just) covered by the design
    spec.

    Quoted message said:

    Only if you're less than 1.5m high. Even I exceed 1.5m.

    On the trice? ;-)

    Rarely am I in "a standing upright position" on teh trice.

    regards, Ian SMith
    --
    |\ /| no .sig
    |o o|
    |/ \|

  16. Chris Malcolm said:


    Come on, be fair! When you're on your bike you're a bit crouched, so
    your head is closer to the ground than when standing. They're not
    stupid, they've taken that into account. So if you actaully topple
    off your bike when stationary the helmet *will* protect you.

    .... which, if I have understood the test procedure, can be asserted with
    confidence so long as your head is detached from your body. Frankly,
    once my head is detached, I don't care very much any more. But perhaps
    that's just me.

    --
    Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap

  17. you know? said:

    On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 12:36:26 +0000 (UTC), [email hidden] (Chris

    Malcolm) said:

    Come on, be fair! When you're on your bike you're a bit crouched

    Speak for yourself. I'm reclining in comfort, me ;-)

    Guy

    In which case your head is even closer to the ground so the helmet must be
    even more effective! ;-)
    --
    Michael MacClancy

  18. Chris Malcolm said:
    (Patrick Herring) said:

    "Jeff A" <[email hidden]> wrote:

    Quoted message said:

    It looks like, from these two examples, that mild-to-medium
    concussion (I'm rating medium concussion as "what you get after
    unconsciousness"😉 is right on the borderline of what helmets are
    useful for, whereas I had thought they were effective against mild
    concussion and would reduce medium c to mild c but not major c to
    medium c (they'd break before that) whereas you seem to have had
    something like the latter.

    That's the design problem that helmets face. While struggling to keep
    them at a saleable size and weight, you can't make them work for mild
    concussion without seriously reducing their ability to prevent
    damaging concussion. In fact the problem is worse than that: within
    saleable constraints, their ability to reduce injurious concussion is
    strictly limited. But we don't want to affect sales, so we don't point
    that out. After all, it's obvious they must do *some* good isn't it?

    In fact. I'd be more inclined to buy a helmet which was openly
    designed and sold as being totally useless at reducing damaging
    concussion, but was pretty good at stopping you feeling groggy after a
    mild wallop on the head -- which is much more likely to happen to me,
    and the helmets which allegedly reduce damaging concussion in
    practice, in traffic, seem if anything to make things worse. And as
    you have discovered, are not much good at reducing head wallops to
    below the groggy level; they're not *designed* to do that, it's
    specifically excluded in the design criteria.

    All I'm saying, in my example is that the helmet reduced the injury to my
    head. It wasn't a mild wallop. It was13 stone of me hitting a wall on my
    head at ~20mph. I was groggy after that hence the visit to A&E. All
    accidents are different, but my helmet helped in this circumstance.

    What did me laugh, though, was that the Doc I saw in A&E gave me a 4 page
    leaflet about head injuries. Page 4 was "Compensation - needn't be a pain"
    etc "Call now, no win no fee".

  19. On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 18:35:10 -0000, "Jeff A" <[email hidden]>

    wrote in message : said:

    All I'm saying, in my example is that the helmet reduced the injury to my
    head. It wasn't a mild wallop. It was13 stone of me hitting a wall on my
    head at ~20mph. I was groggy after that hence the visit to A&E.

    This is what doctors call a "brain injury" and was supposed to have
    been prevented by the helmet :-)

    Guy
    --
    "then came ye chavves, theyre cartes girded wyth candels
    blue, and theyre beastes wyth straynge horn-lyke thyngs
    onn theyre arses that theyre fartes be herde from myles
    around." Chaucer, the Sheppey Tales

  20. Ian Smith said:
    David WE Roberts said:
    Ian Smith said:

    On Sat, 04 Dec 2004, David WE Roberts <[email hidden]> wrote:

    > Anyone who seriously believes that a bus driver will take more care to
    > avoid a cyclist if s/he isn't wearing a helmet has no need of a helmet
    > because IMHO there is nothing in the cranial area to protect.

    Oh that's an original put-down. No-one has ever come up with that
    before, have they. And it's always so convincing when the best anyone
    can do to defend their position is to assert their opponent has no
    brain.

    O.K. then - chapter and verse.

    I've seen various postings with references to risk taking by the cyclist.

    Can you point to one that proves that bus drivers asses the risk of
    hitting a cyclist based on the headgear (or lack of it) of said cyclist?

    No. Can you do teh converse?

    There are, however, plenty of references to risk compensation. Can
    you list any that disprove it?

    Risk compensation is being quoted with reference to helmeted riders taking
    more risks than helmetless riders.

    There have been several posts suggesting that "if you don't wear a helmet
    motorists will take more care" or similar.

    However there seems to be no evidence so far to back this up.
    Certainly no one has so far posted any.

    The premise that motorists currently take more care if they see a cyclist
    without a helmet is (to me at least) pretty far fetched.

    So far fetched that it undermines any of the more reasoned arguments put
    forward, and gives me the impression of a crank who will dredge up any
    argument, however far fetched, to support a point of view.

    You suggest that I prove the converse?
    Oh, come on now!
    You can propose any wild stupidity then claim it is valid because nobody
    can point to a scientific study which disproves it?

    What I have not seen so far is any proposal to campaign for a better, more
    scientific set of standards for cycling helmets.
    If people are being sold protective gear which is not 'fit for purpose'
    then surely cyclist should be campaigning for the proper design and
    development of safety gear.

    Campaigning for people not to wear helmets carries a strong message that
    cyclists are against reasonable safety precautions.

    So - (for the anti-helmet brigade) if safety helmet design was revised and
    a helmet of proven worth was produced, would you wear it or would you
    still be against it?

    If against, then why?

    Cheers

    Dave R

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.