Motor cycle helmets

"Mike Sales" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

However, Adams then splits the states which repealed from the ones

which

Quoted message said:

kept compulsion. In all states deaths went up, but by rather more in the states which kept the
law. Throughout the period of repeals the death rate in the repeal states was on average 19% lower
than in the non repeal

states.

Quoted message said:

The effectiveness of motorcycle helmet compulsion is a myth. The use

of

Quoted message said:

this graph is typical of the helmeteers, and shows how the myth is maintained. In the first full
year of the British motor cycle helmet law fatality rates for motorcyclists increased 2%, while
for all classes of road user they decreased 3%.

But again, it would still be interesting to know the cause of death. Did the rates of death
attributable to head injury change at all? Was there any change in the rates of non-fatal accident-
related disablement attributable to head injury?

Rich

"A.lee" wrote

Quoted message said:

This helmet debate is completely boring, and has been done so many times before on this
group.Perhaps its time to start a new group just for

helmets

Quoted message said:

- then we wouldn't have to trudge through the usual responses when anyone mentions them.

I find many posts on this group boring, but I don't trudge through them, I just click "mark
conversation as read". I don't try to stifle them.

Quoted message said:

Comparing Motorcycle helmets with Cycle helmets is also a non starter - motorcycle helmets are
made a lot sturdier than Cycle helmets, and motorcycle riders can expect to be going a lot faster
than a cyclist for the majority of the time,thus they will have a far greater risk of injury if
falling off. I wont be following up again on this as the subject is so tedious.

If motorcycle helmets don't work, then how can a scrap of polystyrene be expected to? The myth that
motorcycle helmets worked is used as evidence in favour of cycle helmet compulsion. Mike Sales

Quoted message said:

This helmet debate is completely boring, and has been done so many times before on this
group.Perhaps its time to start a new group just for

helmets

Quoted message said:

- then we wouldnt have to trudge through the usual responses when anyone mentions them.

I sympathise. The problem is that people are trying to make many members of this group into
criminals for popping down to the shops. It's probably the biggest single issue facing the cycling
community, thus it will be discussed. The problem is that those discussing it (including me) are as
incompetent at statistics as those writing the websites we get our information from. Thus the debate
is generally of a low standard.

Fortunately over the past couple of months a consensus has emerged which should shorten the threads.
Helmets are a Good Thing if you're going to fall off. They're Worth A Go if you're going to be hit
by a car. People on this group very rarely fall off because, despite its perception, cycling is
pretty safe. Thus it's really not that suprising if you don't wear a helmet.

"Mike Sales" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

If motorcycle helmets don't work, then how can a scrap of polystyrene be expected to? The myth
that motorcycle helmets worked is used as evidence

in

Quoted message said:

favour of cycle helmet compulsion.

From my very personal experience motorcycle helmets most definitely do work. Twice in fact. I've
also crashed a bicycle wearing a bicycle helmet - that saved my bonce too (the helmet was smashed
just behind my ear).

If you don't believe they work, would you be so kind as try the following : Bash your head
against a brick wall wearing a nice trendy hat. Have someone else do the same while wearing a
motorcycle helmet.

Discuss results.

In the case of a whiplash injury - yes, motorcycle helmets can cause injury. In the case of object
penetration, impact, abrasion they are extremely tough. I'd suggest you do a bit more research into
the design of a modern helmet before you say it's a 'scrap' of polystyrene.

"dwb" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

If you don't believe they work, would you be so kind as try the following

:

Quoted message said:

Bash your head against a brick wall wearing a nice trendy hat. Have someone else do the same while
wearing a motorcycle helmet.

If you believe they work, would you be so kind as to try the following: Ask someone to bash their
head against a wall wearing a nice trendy hat Ask someone else to do the same while wearing
motorcycle helmet

See who is more likely to agree.

While awaiting results, read up on risk compensation theory.

--
Guy
===

WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
chapmancentral.demon.co.ukchapmancentral.demon.co.ukOpen ↗

Quoted message said:

If you believe they work, would you be so kind as to try the following: Ask someone to bash their
head against a wall wearing a nice trendy hat Ask someone else to do the same while wearing
motorcycle helmet

See who is more likely to agree.

While awaiting results, read up on risk compensation theory.

So basically you two will agree that helmets are a Good Thing if you are going to fall off (even
though they sometimes cause other injuries, the Good Thing bit outways this) BUT the knowledge that
you're that little bit safer wearing one ensures that when you look at the whole population of
motorcyclists they take ever so slightly more risks, so fall off more often. Falling off more often
outweighs the increased protection of the helmet, thus making helmets, on a population level, a Bad
Thing. Not because of the helmet, which is a Good Thing, but because we're stupid and go in for risk
compensation?

Is this what you were getting at? Please say yes otherwise I've not got a clue what your
point was :-)

"Mark Thompson" <[email hidden] (change warm for hot)>
wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

So basically you two will agree that helmets are a Good Thing if you are going to fall off (even
though they sometimes cause other injuries, the

Good

Quoted message said:

Thing bit outways this) BUT the knowledge that you're that little bit

safer

Quoted message said:

wearing one ensures that when you look at the whole population of motorcyclists they take ever so
slightly more risks, so fall off more

often.

Quoted message said:

Falling off more often outweighs the increased protection of the helmet, thus making helmets, on a
population level, a Bad Thing. Not because of

the

Quoted message said:

helmet, which is a Good Thing, but because we're stupid and go in for risk compensation?

Indeed. My understanding is that PFDBs reduce the severity of consequences of impact by an
unspecified margin; this margin is undoubtedly well short of the inflated claims of liddites but the
16% (from memory) figure quoted by TRL (again, from memory) is plausible.

Hence my past advice that you should never wear a lid unless you absolutely believe it won't save
your life.

--
Guy
===

WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
chapmancentral.demon.co.ukchapmancentral.demon.co.ukOpen ↗

dwb said:

"Mike Sales" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

If motorcycle helmets don't work, then how can a scrap of polystyrene be expected to? The myth
that motorcycle helmets worked is used as evidence

in

Quoted message said:

favour of cycle helmet compulsion.

From my very personal experience motorcycle helmets most definitely do work. Twice in fact.

I too have personal experience that motorcycle helmets do work. Skating down the road after a 40 mph
crash - not much above high push bike speeds - I abraded through 3mm of glassfibre layup down to the
foam layer. Had it not been there, I would have had severe injury to my jaw.

Which is just the point. Bicycle helmets have virtually no abrasion resistance, and do not protect
the side of the head or the face at all. Bicycle helmets also have virtually no penetration
resistance - in fact, they have large holes, with a streamlined surface which will tend to deflect
protruding objects into those holes in a collision situation. All they have is a small amount - a
very small amount - if impact resistance, and that only works if you hit more or less square on.

If bicycle helmets were better there might be some point - but they're not.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) jasmine.org.uk~simonOpen ↗

'You cannot put "The Internet" into the Recycle Bin.'

Simon Brooke said:

I too have personal experience that motorcycle helmets do work. Skating down the road after a 40
mph crash - not much above high push bike speeds - I abraded through 3mm of glassfibre layup down
to the foam layer. Had it not been there, I would have had severe injury to my jaw.

I slid along a road at 30mph a few years ago, and abraded though a few mm of lycra and some skin.
Had I not been wearing anything, I would have suffered slightly worse abrasion to my bottom. As it
was, it was uncomfortable to sit down for a couple of days.

James

Mark Thompson said:

So basically you two will agree that helmets are a Good Thing if you are going to fall off (even
though they sometimes cause other injuries, the

Good

Quoted message said:

Thing bit outways this) BUT the knowledge that you're that little bit

safer

Quoted message said:

wearing one ensures that when you look at the whole population of motorcyclists they take ever so
slightly more risks, so fall off more

often.

I'd say they take far greater risks. I know that how I behave on either a motorbike, MTB or
snowboard is greatly influenced by how subjectively safe I feel. Wearing a helmet greatly increases
this feeling of safety.

Quoted message said:

Falling off more often outweighs the increased protection of the helmet, thus making helmets, on a
population level, a Bad Thing. Not because of

the

Quoted message said:

helmet, which is a Good Thing, but because we're stupid and go in for risk compensation?

I think it's actually rather ironic with regard to the motorcycle helmet issue that they have been
promoted as a safety benefit and made compulsory. Yet the one thing that they do without doubt is
increase the average speed of travel by bikers. Speed (which we know because several interested
parties keep telling us) is supposedly the major contributor to accidents on the road today. More
cake anyone?

<rantette mode> Personally I think these people should be made to go out and get jobs which actually
do something useful for society. I'm fed-up paying (through my taxes) for bunches of self appointed
'experts' to sit down and create non-sensical conflicting traffic policies which pander to the
government of the day's need to be seen to be doing something useful. ObCycle: Like creating a
cycling centric travel infrastructure. Which'd be greener, cheaper, safer, quieter, more healthy,
congestion busting, industry promoting, and get these bloody push bikes off major roads and outta my
face. ;-) </rantette mode>

--
Alex BMW R1150GS DIAABTCOD#3 MSWF#4 UKRMFBC#6 Ibw#35 BOB#8 team-ukrm.co.ukteam-ukrm.co.ukOpen ↗ Windy's
"little soldier"

James Annan wrote in message ...

Quoted message said:

I slid along a road at 30mph a few years ago, and abraded though a few mm of lycra and some skin.

C'mon to do that little damage, you must either have rolled quite a bit, or *slid* at a considerably
slower speed. With the weight of a human body on it lycra would wear through in a matter of feet.

Simon Brooke <[email hidden]> writed in
:"]news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

I too have personal experience that motorcycle helmets do work. Skating down the road after a 40
mph crash - not much above high push bike speeds - I abraded through 3mm of glassfibre layup down
to the foam layer. Had it not been there, I would have had severe injury to my jaw. Which is just
the point. Bicycle helmets have virtually no abrasion resistance, and do not protect the side of
the head or the face at all. Bicycle helmets also have virtually no penetration resistance - in
fact, they have large holes, with a streamlined surface which will tend to deflect protruding
objects into those holes in a collision situation. All they have is a small amount - a very small
amount - if impact resistance, and that only works if you hit more or less square on. If bicycle
helmets were better there might be some point - but they're not.

This is very similar to my experience - I slid along the A47 on my face and elbow after coming of a
250cc bike at about 40mph. The front of the helmet was a complete mess, and I broke my elbow. The
area covered by a bicycle helmet was not damaged in the slightest. It was a standard SMIDSY
collision which could have happened on a bicycle on the same road, albeit going in the opposite
direction (ie downhill)to get the same speed. All the times I've come off a bicycle - I've never hit
my head. Two out of the three times I've come off a motorbike I have - what statistically does that
prove? - Bugger all!

Mike - Leicester

"Alex Ferrier" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

< snip stuff>

Ferroff back to eating the pies!

dwb said:

Alex Ferrier wrote:

< snip stuff>

Ferroff back to eating the pies!

Hah! Jealousy will get you nowhere sunshine. Best get back out on t'track and learn how to use that
bike of yours... Slow boy. ;-)

--
Alex BMW R1150GS DIAABTCOD#3 MSWF#4 UKRMFBC#6 Ibw#35 BOB#8 team-ukrm.co.ukteam-ukrm.co.ukOpen ↗ Windy's
"little soldier"

"Alex Ferrier" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Hah! Jealousy will get you nowhere sunshine. Best get back out on t'track and learn how to use
that bike of yours... Slow boy. ;-)

Maybe in the spring... ;-)

In message you said:

Simon Brooke <[email hidden]> writed in
:"]news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

I too have personal experience that motorcycle helmets do work. Skating down the road after a
40 mph crash - not much above high push bike speeds - I abraded through 3mm of glassfibre layup
down to the foam layer. Had it not been there, I would have had severe injury to my jaw. Which
is just the point. Bicycle helmets have virtually no abrasion resistance, and do not protect
the side of the head or the face at all. Bicycle helmets also have virtually no penetration
resistance - in fact, they have large holes, with a streamlined surface which will tend to
deflect protruding objects into those holes in a collision situation. All they have is a small
amount - a very small amount - if impact resistance, and that only works if you hit more or
less square on. If bicycle helmets were better there might be some point - but they're not.

This is very similar to my experience - I slid along the A47 on my face and elbow after coming of
a 250cc bike at about 40mph. The front of the helmet was a complete mess, and I broke my elbow.
The area covered by a bicycle helmet was not damaged in the slightest. It was a standard SMIDSY
collision which could have happened on a bicycle on the same road, albeit going in the opposite
direction (ie downhill)to get the same speed. All the times I've come off a bicycle - I've never
hit my head. Two out of the three times I've come off a motorbike I have - what statistically
does that prove? - Bugger all!

Helmets increase the risk of hitting your head?

--
Gwyn

Gwyn said:

In message you said:

This is very similar to my experience - I slid along the A47 on my face and elbow after coming
of a 250cc bike at about 40mph. The front of the helmet was a complete mess, and I broke my
elbow. The area covered by a bicycle helmet was not damaged in the slightest. It was a standard
SMIDSY collision which could have happened on a bicycle on the same road, albeit going in the
opposite direction (ie downhill)to get the same speed. All the times I've come off a bicycle -
I've never hit my head. Two out of the three times I've come off a motorbike I have - what
statistically does that prove? - Bugger all!

Helmets increase the risk of hitting your head?

That's quite probable. They make it at least 50% bigger.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) jasmine.org.uk~simonOpen ↗

-- mens vacua in medio vacuo --

Simon Brooke <[email hidden]>typed

Quoted message said:

That's quite probable. They make it at least 50% bigger.

They also make it heavier...

--
Helen D. Vecht: [email hidden] Edgware.

Helen Deborah Vecht said:

Simon Brooke <[email hidden]>typed

Quoted message said:

That's quite probable. They make it at least 50% bigger.

They also make it heavier...

Dosn't that make it safer for your head, maybe at the expense of your neck and spinal cord?

Assuming accidents happen too quickly tolet you actually do much before your head hits anything,
adding mass to your head would tend to protect it and cause more damage to whatever it hit?

--
Andy Morris

"I fought the kerb and the kerb won"

AndyAtJinkasDotFreeserve.Co.UK

Love this:
Put an end to Outlook Express's messy quotes
home.in.tum.deoe quotefixOpen ↗