1) where did the "minimum" qualifier come from? It suggests that you have evidence that there is a demonstrable effect above 100J of impact energy

2) you may be right that helmets are able to reduce acceleration below 300g (<--- pedantry note, the unit is not "G"), but what I'm interested in seeing is values within that range, which you have repeatedly referenced. Again and again you have pointed simply to part of the Snell testing standard which _does not_ test all the values within that range, instead the bit you insist on quoting is actually the specification of point values. The helmet is tested at those values for no more than four hits.

Please supply the information of which you claim to be in possession, showing the relationship between acceleration measured on the headform and the _range_ of impact energies.

As an ancillary note, within that range, from 0-100J of impact energy, what proportion would actually be causing brain damage. Obviously we can discount 0J... what about 1J? 10? 30?

I'm sure License2Ill will take your admonishment seriously
http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread...1#post15861772

Except that it doesn't actually bear out in the real-world. There is a disconnect between the lab and the real world somewhere, because exponentially rising helmet use rates have had a lukewarm, debatable effects on cycling deaths. I'm sure you've seen the chart posted...

:rolleyes: Oh, puh-lease. Much melodrama and righteous indignation abound...

I don't know how that conclusion is being made, based on what measurement. If you're saying that helmeted cyclists are getting the same brain injuries with our without a helmet, then I'd like to see that, but every study out there states exactly the opposite in their findings of helmeted vs non-helmeted head injury rates and levels of head trauma.

Search the thread. There were studies done when places like Australia enacted mandatory helmet laws. There was a chart posted here with the information. Cycling deaths have slowly been on the decline for decades, and the institution and exponential increase of helmet use had very little effect on this trend. It did continue down, as it had been, but even if we're generous in granting that all of that downward trend since their adoption is because of helmet use (EDIT: which is being very generous, as authors of the Australian study mentioned that at the same time there was a downward trend in ped/driver deaths because of new DUI and road safety enforcement laws), it is still a very lackluster effect. Certainly not what we would expect to see if they were really as proficient as people claim.

EDIT: Here, I'm feeling generous on doing legwork today.

No, the idea is that the standard is a minumum. Whether or not a helmet can perform above that range is unknown. It is a minimum standard. What is your major malfunction in understanding that a standard only measures to that minimum requirement?

It is known that EPS works a linear manner and that lower impacts below the lowest used for testing only result in lower acceleration measurements. You can't possibly have a narrow enough vision to think that the standards makers haven't already thought of this? No, you're the first person to have the question, ever. The same thing goes for motorcyclist and auto racing helmets which have to deal with two hits and much higher impact energies. The lower impact energies are not an issue.

Read the Snell documents. You are not reading, you are at the infancy stage in your thoughts and pretending that the life's work of people working on the standards and crash helmet research have not jumped beyond your simplistic concerns.

There is no impact energy below that which is tested that is going to cause a larger than 300g acceleration with those helmets that pass the standard. Without a helmet, it is unclear at what point the acceleration could be deadly or cause major injury, but it's from less than 2 meters fall, especially if the fall is against a more pointed edge.

So you are saying it's OK to do things like this?

I don't think it was a "fabrication" meant to pull the wool over people's eyes. Bringing up banning was just a new level of ridiculous.

If it wasn't a fabrication, then what was it? If he was simply trying to offer his interpretation, he could have made his own post rather than changing the quote. Bush league.

So you do think it's OK to do things like that... Just on the internet? Or in person too? Maybe on the witness stand?

Yes, I do think witness stands and Internet forums have different levels of expected decorum. I'm just crazy like that.

Well I must be old, ancient even, a dinosaur... When I try to communicate with someone and they come back and say I said something/make up something I didn't say, it just doesn't go down too good, and it doesn't matter who, what, where, when, or why... It doesn't make for a good discussion... JMO I guess. EDIT; I have been called stoopid, dumb, uneducated, no common sense, less sense than a 12 year old and so on in this thread so far... But that's OK in a way because it's the internet and they are just opinions, so I have never really complained, face to face I would wager not too many people would have called me any of those to my face and probably never will... BUT, to lie about what someone said (change the words or wording in a quote) is just wrong, it's as simple as that, flat out 100% wrong... :notamused: And thinking it's OK is not right either, IMO

I wear a helmet on training and group rides. When commuting two miles, or riding on a bike path with friends/family, then I don't wear one because the speed is slower.

One time during a group ride, I was riding down a steep hill and crashed on a turn. I got some road rash on my side, but I remember thinking how lucky I was for not hitting my head. Then I took off my helmet and saw that it was cracked. I didn't even feel it, but the helmet possibly saved my life.

So what you're trying to say in your fumbling, inarticulate way is that you don't actually have the information that you've been puffing about for several pages now. Namely, a graph or table of the range of impact energies and the acceleration sustained by the brain.

In addition I wonder whether besides your confusion over such basics as G vs g I suspect that you have no idea of the difference between a monotonic and a linear relationship. Hint: it's possible to be linear but non-monotonic.

For bonus points during your research I'd like you to find the origins of the word "blowhard".

I told you that I'm not going to play fetch for the sake of satiating your ignorance. If you'd like to get up to speed, please read the Snell info. If not, stop trying to pretend that the first question you can come up with doesn't have a simple answer. Yes, you've completely stumped them.

Any thoughts on the charts I posted from the Australian MHL study?

There isn't as much consensus as you seem to think.

This is nuts. You have one chart from one source...Australia; America, and Canada have dozens of studies that I and others have posted, but you would rather believe one study instead of dozens? Not to mention years and years of statistical evidence that I and others have posted to show that helmets do indeed work better then wearing no helmet at all. This isn't about which study is right anymore, this about what YOU want to be right and to hell with all the other studies that prove otherwise because they don't agree with YOU and not wanting to wear a helmet. That's fine if you don't want to wear a helmet because you have that right, so we're not here trying to force you to wear a helmet, but don't use some lame study to contradict years and years of studies and statistics to convince others that helmets are useless.

I find this amazing, you believe that global warming is caused by man because of all the evidence but when it comes to helmets you won't believe all the evidence!

I don't quite know where this particular argument is at, but the Australian study focuses on serious head injuries. Helmets are not proof against such -- manufacturers state as much and the forces involved in serious head injury is way beyond those involved with testing. Woah, a study confirms what helmet manufactures plainly state in warning labels and literature. Go figure. :rolleyes:

There's no commentary in the Australian study about less than serious head injuries, but recent studies indicate that helmets do provide significant increases in protection against such injury.

License2Ill is offbase if claiming that helmets help or prevent most serious head/brain injury. If we're talking injury in general, he may be correct. And if we're talking less than serious injury, he is most certainly correct.

Surely you aren't so inept that you didn't realize there was more than one source in the very link I posted? There were not one, but THREE separate ones you managed to miss. I even had pretty pictures so you wouldn't hurt your brain too much trying to make out big words. Sorry I gave you too much credit working that out on your own (protip: the words on the charts might give you a hint as to their origin. You know, like "Australian Study", "Safety In Numbers", and "New Zealand"). Are you being obtuse or disingenuous is suddenly forgetting the other sources posted?

My whole point from the jump hasn't been "LOLZ, look I haz study", which you've seemed all too happy to bandwagon onto. In fact, you've hardly posted jack yourself that actually matters to the discussion... you've been all too happy letting the grownups post real content while you chime in like an annoying sidekick to rah-rah your "team". My entire point has been there is a lot of conflicting evidence here, particularly when we look at injuries in the real world.

Jeez, its really no wonder meanwhile went off the rails. What a joke.

Actually your the one that is extremely inept, we've posted a heck of alot more then 3 and yet there you are totally ignoring the facts. The jokes on you.

I can't no longer respond to such ineptness, you are beyond hope and reality.

That's not what I said. What I said is that we know the range of impact energy and we know the threshold g-forces for those type of head injuries that cause death or profound brain injury.

It's the studies that show that helmeted heads are working to reduce those injuries as specified. Certainly an impact outside the capabilities of a helmet can happen, and certainly not everybody that crashes will receive a fatal blow to the head. What is known is that when a blow to the head happens, a helmet will change outcomes in majority of the types of crashes seen that result in head impacts.

About what I expected of you.

This "study" shows that more people are riding and that head injuries seen are decreasing. Seems pretty clear.

... decreasing along the same rate they had been despite helmet use spiking, coupled with ped and driver death rates dropping due to better traffic safety enforcement. Also... study in quotes?