One thing I've learned (I'd probably forgotten) in the last two days (thanks to the internets) is that by age 40 all the sutures of the skull are fully knitted such that the skull is essientially a more uniform structure. As a consequence, force applied on one area may transfer to another area of the skull as opposed to being localized. Post head injury, the impact consequences of the blow may not be initially detectable.

I've also learned that localized injury (back of the head for example) can affect very specific nerves.

Here's an interesting onservation. accidentally ended up at a climbing helmet site. What surprised me is that the site mentioned a 2 meter drop test for helmets. I understand the 2 meter height in bikes based on the "average" cyclist head being 2 meters above the ground but no explanation was given for 2 meters climbing helmet drop test. Climbers worry most about top of helmet rock fall but they also worry about side strikes if they fall. My friends who climbed (technical rock) always worried about an aggressive lead climber getting to far head of his protection. 3 meters above your protection can becomes a brutal 6 meter arrest (@ up to 39 km/hr)......if your protection holds.

I rode motorcycles since age 12 so using a helmet on a 2 wheeled bike was second nature and part of the gear. Helmets/face shields and hard hats have likely protected my head from some nasty scalp/head injuries. Like I noted earlier...I've learned exactly squat from posts on this thread with one exception...reading the links eventually gets you to real data after a lot of messing around.

cheers

While I really did initially post the inquiry in a tongue-in-cheek sort of fashion, I felt like a shifting of the goalposts was happening. The argument you pointed out that involved body armor was not the discussion I was referring to. You were clearly responding to a statement that introduced the subject of torso damage. I was talking about meanwhile's comments after mconlox mentioned MIPS helmets. After it was pointed out that there are helmets available to address rotational injuries, the argument shifted to torso damage. It was convoluted with many side arguments being made. Trying to look back and reconstruct it is more than I have the energy for, tonight.
Honestly, I wasn't accusing you of shifting the goalposts. I only mentioned you because of the fun we've had on the subject.

"changing the point first made to dodge a critique" is a good way to explain the concept, though. Thank you for that.

Well then... ya got me. :injured:

I honestly wasn't following meanwhile's conversation... I was assuming, since I was named, you were referring to my conversation. I'll follow your lead and forget going back to reconstruct in favor of... anything else. :p

That is an interesting observation. One cynical possibility that occurs to me is that a 2 meter drop with a head-form onto a flat surface coincides with the specific maximum energy absorption for EPS.

@ Siu:

I think you need an emoticon for sighing, so here is one:http://www.runemasterstudios.com/gra...mages/sigh.gif.

Much :love:,
3alarmer

I, for one, have noticed that I ride like more of a jackass when wearing one, than with the caution I take when I don't.

I'm sorry you felt the need to ban Meanwhile. I know he is sometimes scathing, but in part that is a cultural difference - he, and I, are in the UK and I have often observed that North Americans are shocked by the Brit enthusiasm for sarcasm and acerbity. Thin skin seems less prevalent over here, we are more likely to call a tool a tool. And Meanwhile is one of the more informed participants in this thread (and its predecessors), he actually posts evidence as well as opinion.

Don't take this personally. You are one of the most intelligent and nuanced moderators on the site, and of course you have your job to do. But this is A&S. Plus, this is the helmet thread in A&S. These aren't places for the faint-hearted, and Meanwhile is an asset rather than a liability.

I second that Meanwhile's rational posts with intelligent use of sarcasm and acerbity are far preferable on this thread, than numerous rhetorical "questions" and posts (often from the same person) that demonstrate an incapability or unwillingness to read/understand previous responses from other posters on the same subject.

I THIRD IT!!! I may not always agree with him but he has the right to post, and this thread was put on A&S and it was about helmets, he was voicing opinion and facts and he has that right. I also agree that Americans have become far to thin skinned.

Free meanwhile !!!
 

................so is meanwhile back at the ranch ?

B.S. While I agree everyone has a right to their "opinion" and the right to be/appear and say stoopid,/unedumacated things, ( I sometimes do).... One should not have the right to bully, demean, call others stupid... Getting slapped down for doing that is/can be the price of being, what should I say...? Too educated and thinking others are, .... too stoopid and nothing they say is worthwhile... Get over it, this is the INTERNET, Some of the things said to me in this thread would have resulted in someone going to the hospital, if it was a face to face conversation... :innocent: EDIT; now... Having said that, I am not against meanwhile being allowed to be here as he did clean-up his act since his warning a while ago, but, really, calling people stoopid, uneducated, saying a 12 year old has more sense... Well maybe yes maybe no, having a discussion on a subject means you say no, you are wrong because, a, or b, and or a&b... JMO ;) OH, and if the person misses the point, maybe he did maybe he didn't, or maybe he just ignored it like other people do with many other points that have been presented in this thread...

Homie don't play that? Ha! Nobody loves the umpires, but they are part of the game.

This is some funny schit!! :roflmao2: :lol: :roflmao:

I haven't been to the helment thread in ages.........I'm gonna have to follow it more closely.

After all, I have a helment. (I'm afraid to state whether I wear it or not.:twitchy:)

Huh. I guess this is more evidence that helmeteers need rules to make others conform to their sensibilities while the bare-head brigade is more likely to just let others be. ;)

The helmet thread is a vast, inexhaustible well of crazy.

It's almost like the thread itself is demonstrative of this vast population of bicycle riders, all suffering varying degrees of brain injury.:bike2:

You'd think he would be smart enough to avoid violating forum rules after being warned (more than once). It's not hard.

Calling people "stupid" isn't really an "intellegent use of ... acerbity".

Meanwhile's bombast and insults are a tool to cover the fact that he has nothing new to add. The studies he cites as irrefutable evidence are full of qualifications which prove them far from authoritative. Just that, like many on both extreme fringes, he conveniently drops limiting qualifications from his declarative statements, and misrepresents quoted studies knowing as others do that most will not actually read the linked studies and articles.

He tries to bully and bulldoze, but offers little of substance past sheer entertainment value.

This coming from a man who objected that I used too many qualifiers in my posts.

Sounds like a seeker after The Truth.

Unfortunately life is a bit more complicated than that. Best to leave other people to get on with theirs and stop selling the fear.

Selling the "fear".... Us helmet wearers aren't selling the "fear"... We are/I am trying to put things in perspective. While you, the helmet less brigade are trying to sell the risk is not worth wearing a helmet scenario, (which I can actually understand, if you are willing to take the risk, not because there is no risk), and others actually saying that riding a bike is "safer" without a helmet than with scenario, UN F'ing beleiveable... While I agree the first step to safety, is riding experience and picking safe routes, and some other common sense things... You guys are TOTALY IGNOREING THE FACT, THAT ACEDECTS HAPPEN... AND WLL/CAN HAPPEN, TO EVERY BODY... Whether helmets are being worn or not... Betting your life outcome without a backup, (as slim as it is/maybe) and telling others not to wear a helmet is irresponsible... Now I have had a few beers and am going to have a few more, so bend me over some more about how me being too stoopid to understand that helmets don't save lives... Well I guess I will just have to stay with the basics... Having a helmet on when you need one is better than not having a helmet on.... JMO as it seems I'm not edumacated enough to "prove" it... :twitchy:

So, even if a helmet doesn't save a life, why did someone come up with the present design and what does it do for the average rider?

It's a stupid design probably hurts it's effectiveness, purely for looks/streamlined for sales IMO...

When you speak of "the present design" it suggests that even after all the time that you've spent on this thread you're unaware that there are multiple helmet standards to choose from.

Helmets in limited circumstances provide protection against non-brain threatening head injuries.

For the average rider in locations where they are mandated by law they also provide the ability to ride one's bicycle without being interfered with by busy bodies.

They also confer upon "the average rider" a magical safeness ( many of these average riders would have DIED without their helmets! )

It's also something not very well known, but if you read the small print that comes with your helmet you'll find it there, that possession of a helmet confers upon the wearer the right to shout at non-helmet wearers to wear a helmet, also to post in internet forums about how they're smart and responsible for wearing them. This comes with the proviso that any questioning of the Saved is a sort of victimization by the forces of evil.

Helmets also allow the suppression of mind-control waves (which are otherwise picked up by the antennae, or "hair") and enable the wearer to clearly see which of the other cyclists are Saved, or Unbelievers.