Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Advocacy & Safety
Reload this Page >

Helmets cramp my style

Notices
Advocacy & Safety Cyclists should expect and demand safe accommodation on every public road, just as do all other users. Discuss your bicycle advocacy and safety concerns here.

Helmets cramp my style

Old 08-26-08, 12:55 PM
  #3801  
Zeuser
e-Biker
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Mississauga, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 951

Bikes: Gary Fisher, Strong GT-S eBike

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Originally Posted by randya View Post
FAIL! You should read up a bit on what anarchy really is, then you wouldn't be spouting this kind of nonsense.
Fail!

Anarchy (from Greek: αναρχία anarchía, "without ruler") may refer to any of the following:

* "Absence of government; a state of lawlessness due to the absence or inefficiency of the supreme power; political disorder."[1]
* "A theoretical social state in which there is no governing person or body of persons, but each individual has absolute liberty (without the implication of disorder)."[2]
* "Absence or non-recognition of authority and order in any given sphere."[3]
Which is exactly what I was showing. Lets just remove all the rules.

You know... your failure is epic because I did what you told me and it backfired on you! LOL !!!
Zeuser is offline  
Old 08-26-08, 01:42 PM
  #3802  
rocoach
Steel Rider
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 130

Bikes: Club Fuji

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
How about we make all beaches topless?

Oh wait... that's called Europe, and they don't generally wear crash hats.



Originally Posted by Zeuser View Post
How about we get rid of traffic lights?
How about we get rid of the rules where car drivers are supposed to be careful and watch for bikers?
How about we remove sanitation rules?
How about we get rid of the SCC and let the Enrons of the world take over?
How about we let car manufacturers build junk with no regard to quality or public safety?
How about we let Bike makers put cheap crap on weak frames and sell the junk as bikes?

How about we just forget about any rules at all?

Oh wait... that's called Anarchy!
People just wouldn't like it if they had not protection at all and let little chaotic punks loose on the world. But those anarchists won't conform because of their twisted logic patterns.

rocoach is offline  
Old 08-26-08, 06:42 PM
  #3803  
Six jours
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 6,401
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 8 Times in 8 Posts
Originally Posted by Zeuser View Post
People just wouldn't like it if they had not protection at all and let little chaotic punks loose on the world.
He's got a point. They let him in here and nobody likes it...
Six jours is offline  
Old 08-27-08, 03:41 PM
  #3804  
trombone
<user defined text>
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 417

Bikes: 80's peugeot. Somewhat knackered. Lovely new Salsa Casseroll singlespeed.

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Thanks for the reply John.

I'm going to stick with the noise exposure analogy a bit longer, as I think it's somewhat useful (although like all analogies can be taken too far!).

The reason I asked the question is, as you have explained, you need to know the amount of exposure to determine whether 92dBA is a problematic level.

So lets extend our analogy to represent the paper you quoted.

I have two factories. In one, the noise level varies, but rises as high as 95dBA. In the other, the noise level also varies, but only rises as high as 92dBA.

Which factory has the problem with noise exposure?

If I did analysis along the lines of the paper you quoted, I would say that the first factory is clearly the problem. It has a much higher noise exposure level, and therefore if steps are to be taken to protect the workers the priority should be factory A.

Were you to see this analysis, I am sure you would say 'Hang on! You can't jump to that conclusion! The problem might be greater in factory B, if the exposure time is different.'

The reason the conclusion is unsafe / unreliable is because I haven't considered exposure. For example, were additional data to be available that says factory A only experiences very brief peaks of 95dBA, and for the most part the noise floor is much much lower, whilst factory B has noise levels sustained at 92dBA for much of the working day, you would immediately be looking to take steps in factory B, as it represents a greater hazard.

However, to paraphrase your response to me when I asked for the equivalent of this data for the cycling paper you said; 'You're just setting up a straw man. This data is very hard to get, and ear defenders are useful for preventing hearing loss, so we should just give them to factory A because it it noisier and be done with it.'



Originally Posted by John C. Ratliff View Post
Trombone,

Now, to take the analogy one step further, you need hearing protection from really loud noises, like gun shots (target range at close quarters). Any exposure here will damage hearing, whether on a temporary basis (temporary threshold shift), or permanently. The same goes for exposure at close distances to jet engines (test bed, or on the flight line), or flying in helicopters without noise insulation (combat). Again, any exposure will damage the inner ear hearing mechanism. This is the more appropriate analogy to head injuries for bicycling.

John
You could be right that this is a more useful analogy for cycling. I work in a quiet office. However, there is a very small risk that I might be exposed to a really loud noise that could damage my hearing. There might be an explosion in the electricity distribution cupboard (which is near where I sit), or the ceiling might collapse. Given that you have stated I need hearing protection from such really loud noises, I should be wearing ear defenders at work, right?
trombone is offline  
Old 08-28-08, 12:06 AM
  #3805  
John C. Ratliff
Senior Member
 
John C. Ratliff's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Beaverton, Oregon
Posts: 1,914

Bikes: Rans Stratus, Trek 1420, Rivendell Rambouillet

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Reasonably foreseeable

Trombone,

Well, you bring up an interesting analogy. The electrical distribution box is not something prone to explosions unless you are working on it. However, if you are actually working on it, and there is significant voltage, not only should you have hearing protection, but arc flash protection if you are close to the work.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-iClXrd50Z8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h10ALIpD0R4

These are reasonably foreseeable events, and protection needs to be there.

However, in your office, unless you have some young yahoo fiddling with things, you should be fine without hearing protection. But if you have some really gabby people around, HP would help you concentrate on you job. I use hearing protection when I go to a new hotel/motel to get to sleep, as I am pretty sensitive to sounds at night.

But why use a bicycle helmet? That is the question here. We ride, when we ride a regular (upright) bicycle, somewhat higher than when we walk. We are balanced on two wheels, which is fine when everything goes right, but not when it doesn't. I remember when I was a kid picking strawberries for summer work (now, kids cannot do that, unfortunately, due to concerns for pesticide exposure to youth). We rode in buses, and one day we were passing a kid on a bicycle when one of the pickers (pre-teen) leaned out the window, pointed dramatically at the boy's bicycle, and shouted "Hey, your front wheel's turning backwards!!!" to the cyclist. He did this as the bus was passing him within four feet. The boy looked down at his front wheel, turned the bike slightly in doing so, and fell. I don't know the outcome, but some of the kids laughed about it.

We cyclists are on that thin a balance, that a little thing can upset the cart, so to speak. My first bike accident was in the fifth grade, I think, when I was racing a friend home for lunch, got into some gravel beside the road, and fell hard on the side of my head. I wasn't knocked out, but had a badly scrapped up face (I was smaller, lighter, and lower than now), and in the afternoon experienced the first of periodic migraine headaches.

There are many posting here who feel that helmets do not work at all, or only for "superficial" types of injuries. I have always thought that was incorrect, and have endeavored through posts here to explain why. But with my most recent research, I have uncovered some new papers which show that some of the cherished views of posters here are false (views saying helmets may cause more problems than the solve, or don't protect). More on this later.

John
John C. Ratliff is offline  
Old 08-28-08, 08:10 AM
  #3806  
closetbiker
Senior Member
 
closetbiker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 9,630
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Liked 18 Times in 6 Posts
Originally Posted by John C. Ratliff View Post
... But why use a bicycle helmet? That is the question here...
Originally Posted by John C. Ratliff View Post
... without cars around, I would be willing to forgo the helmets on regular rides...
This is pretty basic.

John feels helmets save lives in collisions with motor vehicles even though they are made for protection from simple falls with little forward momentum and no third-party involvement - e.g. motor vehicles

Last edited by closetbiker; 11-22-08 at 03:33 PM.
closetbiker is offline  
Old 08-28-08, 09:33 AM
  #3807  
dynodonn 
Out on Parole
 
dynodonn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: U.S. of A.
Posts: 7,466
Mentioned: 41 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1258 Post(s)
Liked 46 Times in 41 Posts
I have no illusions that a helmet is an absolute in saving my life when involving a motor vehicle/bicycle collision, but I personally like having some basic protection for my head since my head impacts have been without motor vehicle involvement. Again, I'm not fooling myself that a helmet is a magic bullet on saving all lives, just a couple of days ago, a local bicycle commuter died from blunt force head trauma from being hit from behind by a motor vehicle at freeway speed, and from what I deduced from the local newspapers, the bicyclist was wearing a helmet.
__________________
Prisoner No. 979




dynodonn is offline  
Old 08-28-08, 09:39 AM
  #3808  
chipcom 
Infamous Member
 
chipcom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 24,360

Bikes: Surly Big Dummy, Fuji World, 80ish Bianchi

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times in 3 Posts
Originally Posted by dynodonn View Post
I have no illusions that a helmet is an absolute in saving my life when involving a motor vehicle/bicycle collision, but I personally like having some basic protection for my head since my head impacts have been without motor vehicle involvement. Again, I'm not fooling myself that a helmet is a magic bullet on saving all lives, just a couple of days ago, a local bicycle commuter died from blunt force head trauma from being hit from behind by a motor vehicle at freeway speed, and from what I deduced from the local newspapers, the bicyclist was wearing a helmet.
To me, there are three main points that I would hope most folks would take from this thread...and debate in general:

1. In the event of a head impact, a helmet offers more protection than nothing at all.
2. In the event of a head impact, a helmet may, or may not, save your life or save you from serious injury.
3. Wearing or not wearing a helmet is a personal choice that is not an indicator of intelligence or common sense.

If some people could just grasp those three simple points, there would not be much to debate.
__________________
"Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws" - Edward Abbey
chipcom is offline  
Old 08-28-08, 09:43 AM
  #3809  
John C. Ratliff
Senior Member
 
John C. Ratliff's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Beaverton, Oregon
Posts: 1,914

Bikes: Rans Stratus, Trek 1420, Rivendell Rambouillet

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by closetbiker View Post
This is pretty basic.

John feels helmets save lives in collisions with motor vehicles even though they are made for protection from simple falls with little forward momentum and no third-party involvement - e.g. motor vehicles
Well, that depends...upon the type of bicycle/car involvement. I have stated many times, and Closetbiker knows this, that there is no question that when a bicycle and car collide head-on, or directly, with the car at highway speed, that the helmet will not be able to protect the bicyclist. But if the car brushes the bicyclist, knocks him/her off the bike and ground contact is made, then the helmet will help a lot. Depending upon the circumstances, the bicycle helmet can save a life in some of these circumstances.

John
John C. Ratliff is offline  
Old 08-28-08, 10:17 AM
  #3810  
closetbiker
Senior Member
 
closetbiker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 9,630
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Liked 18 Times in 6 Posts
Originally Posted by John C. Ratliff View Post
... if the car brushes the bicyclist, knocks him/her off the bike and ground contact is made, then the helmet will help a lot. Depending upon the circumstances, the bicycle helmet can save a life in some of these circumstances.

John


". . . helmets will mitigate the effects of falling off your bicycle and striking your head . . . If a cyclist is accelerated by a car, then the helmet will not work and will not prevent a severe or even fatal injury."

-- Dr. Michael Schwartz, neurosurgeon and member of Canadian Standards Association Committee establishing helmet standards

"In situations of a fall they [helmets] are next to useless because they do not protect against diffused brain damage. The damage to the brain would still have occurred because it is the rattling inside the skull that caused the damage."

-- Chief Pathologist Clive Cooke,
Coroner's Court Testimony, Perth, Australia

"Whilst helmets may possibly reduce the incidence of scalp lacerations and other soft tissue injury, there is the risk that helmets may actually increase both the cerebral and non-cerebral injury rates. ... The addition of a helmet will increase both the size and mass of the head. This means blows that would have been glancing become more solid and thus transmit increased rotational forces to the brain and may increase diffuse brain injury."

-- The Australian National Health and Medical Research Council

"Many studies ignore completely the differences between impacts involving only the injured cyclist and those resulting in collisions with motor vehicles, yet it is fundamental to assessing cycle helmet effectiveness... Cycle helmets are primarily designed for falls without any other vehicle involved... Cycle helmets could be designed like motorcycle helmets to offer much greater levels of protection...I have studied where a cyclist was in a collision with a motorised vehicle, the impact potentials were of a level that outstripped those that we use to certify Grand prix motor racing helmets... "

--Brian Walker, one of the leading experts on the mechanics of helmets, and whose company Head Protection Evaluations is the principal UK test laboratory for helmets and head protection systems of all kinds

"There is no evidence that hard shell helmets have reduced the head injury and fatality rates. The most surprising finding is that the bicycle-related fatality rate is positively and significantly correlated with increased helmet use."

-- Conclusions of a survey of 15 years and 8 million cases of American cyclist injury/fatality incidents by G.B Rodgers, Journal of Products Liability

"Helmets and Safety: The Meat of the Argument --

Helmet promotion is often pushed by medics working in accident & emergency. They see "lots" of cycling head injuries. Of course, most of them are trivial. Scalps bleed profusely, and people are far more likely to attend A&E for a cut head than a cut leg, if only because it is harder to dress a wound in the scalp using domestic first aid kits. There are loads of reasons why head injuries are more likely to end up in hospital than injuries elsewhere. And all these are counted, and the number looks big. Anything up to 100,000, if you believe BHIT. Or it might be 28,000 this week, that's a bit of a moving target. It is these kinds of figures on which prospective studies are based, and these are the studies used to justify promotion and even compulsion of helmets. They show figures for efficacy up into the high 80s percent (but more on that in a minute).
Population-level figures generally include only serious and fatal injuries, because these figures are much easier to collect in a robust manner (and because who needs to know about non-serious injuries?). At that level, helmets apparently have no effect. Even where compulsion has been introduced and helmet use has doubled or more over a period of three years or less it is still not possible to see the effect of helmets on cyclist head injuries (provided you control out the massive reductions in the numbers of cyclists caused by the laws, of course - something the helmet promoters sometimes forget to do, or in one case even count as a benefit, having removed people from "danger"; this is extreme, most medics will acknowledge without hesitation that cycling is good).
This is not at all inconsistent: if helmets prevent a high proportion of cut heads but no serious injuries or deaths in crashes involving cars, for example, that would explain the disparity between the population-level figures and the prospective studies right away. It would also be consistent with the claims of the helmet manufacturers, which are much more modest than those of the campaigners, presumably for legal reasons, and with the published standards for helmets, which involve impacts equivalent to a very low speed crash or a fall from a stationary riding position. All this makes perfect sense. The logical disconnect comes when you say "helmets prevent 85% of injuries, therefore they would prevent 85% of deaths". I don't think it requires particularly acute critical faculties to see the flaw in that chain of logic. You can call cuts and bruises lacerations and contusions, to make them sound worse, and you can lump everything from a cut ear to acute neurological trauma into one basket of "scary head injuries", but trivial injuries remain trivial; a device which protects against such injuries cannot without substantial additional evidence be assumed to prevent more serious consequences."

---https://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/wiki/Cycle_helmet_debate

Last edited by closetbiker; 08-28-08 at 10:49 AM.
closetbiker is offline  
Old 08-28-08, 10:56 AM
  #3811  
Rocky1405
Hey, I AM peddling!
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Hastings Minnesota
Posts: 31

Bikes: Dahon Espresso 26" and Raleigh Passage 4.0

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Guys & Gals: After 60 years of riding w/o a mis-hap and after wearing a helmet ever since helmets became available and affordable, last week I made a simple mistake on a curve at about 20 MPH and fell hard. It happened so fast I can't even tell you what all happened but I can tell you that when I fell, my head got slapped onto the ground so hard it left a big dent in the back of my helmet. The fall involved going off a trail and side-swiping a trail sign that spun me around and literally bounced my head onto the ground like a basketball. Once the world stopped spinning and I started to do damage assessment, the first thought in my mind was how glad I was because I had been wearing a helmet when I went down. I have no doubt my life as I know it would have been over if I hadn't have been wearing that "Brain Bucket". So, wear one if you want to but if you don't wear one, realize that you are risking EVERYTHING! Best of Luck, and keep the rubber side down!
Rocky1405
Rocky1405 is offline  
Old 08-28-08, 10:58 AM
  #3812  
John C. Ratliff
Senior Member
 
John C. Ratliff's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Beaverton, Oregon
Posts: 1,914

Bikes: Rans Stratus, Trek 1420, Rivendell Rambouillet

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by dynodonn View Post
I have no illusions that a helmet is an absolute in saving my life when involving a motor vehicle/bicycle collision, but I personally like having some basic protection for my head since my head impacts have been without motor vehicle involvement. Again, I'm not fooling myself that a helmet is a magic bullet on saving all lives, just a couple of days ago, a local bicycle commuter died from blunt force head trauma from being hit from behind by a motor vehicle at freeway speed, and from what I deduced from the local newspapers, the bicyclist was wearing a helmet.
Dynodonn,

Thanks for the mention of the “magic bullet.” It got me to thinking about comparing the forces involved with a bullet verses the forces involved with a car in a collision with a person. We all know what a 22 caliber bullet will do to the human body. I have personally pronounced (as a deputized coroner when I was an EMT) an accidental shooting victim who was hit by a 22 caliber bullet in the chest. A 22 caliber bullet is about the lightest, and perhaps the slowest, bullet in the “normal” inventory of firearms in the USA. Here is a website that gives information about it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.22_Long_Rifle

From this information, the foot-pounds per second can be calculated, which is the momentum of the bullet verses the car.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum

We can also calculate the forces involved if we wish (I won’t do it in this post, but it is easily done), by looking at the change in velocity (acceleration) involved between a bicyclist and a car during a complete collision. This would give us a the forces involved and show that in relationship to survival of the human body, according to Newton’s Second Law:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%...esultant_force

But for this post, I’ll simply compare the momentum of a car (one ton, or 2000 pounds) at 55 mph to a 22 caliber bullet:

A car traveling at 55 mph is going 80 feet per second. The auto weighs 2000 pounds, so the momentum of the car is the product of the two, 80 ft/sec x 2000 pounds = 160,000 ft-pounds/second.

A 22 caliber bullet is 30-60 grains, which is 1.9-3.9 grams, or 0.067 to 0.1375 ounces. The 22 caliber long rifle bullet travels between 350 and 1750 feet per second. 0.067 ounces / 16 ounces / pound = 0.0042 pounds. 0.1375 ounces / 16 ounces / pound = 0.0086 pounds. Multiplying the lightest weight for a 22 caliber long rifle bullet by the lowest velocity gives:

22 caliber bullet momentum (low) = 0.0042 pounds x 350 ft/sec = 1.47 foot-pounds/second

22 caliber bullet momentum (high) = 0.0086 pounds x 1750 ft/sec = 15.05 foot-pounds/second

Compare the highest values of 15.05 foot-pounds/second for a bullet with the car at 160,000 foot-pound/second at 55 mph shows the destructive value of a car in a collision with a pedestrian or bicyclist.

The car has over 10,000 times the destructive momentum of a 22 caliber long rifle bullet. Both can easily kill, but when you are saying that a bicycle helmet can help in a auto-bicyclist collision where there is a full, frontal collision is saying that you can stop a bullet with that piece of foam. So people like Closetbiker who say that a bicycle helmet in a full collision with a car will not help are correct, as far as that goes. But if there is not a full collision, just a nudge from the side which causes a fall to the ground, then the helmet can help.

John
John C. Ratliff is offline  
Old 08-28-08, 11:02 AM
  #3813  
John C. Ratliff
Senior Member
 
John C. Ratliff's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Beaverton, Oregon
Posts: 1,914

Bikes: Rans Stratus, Trek 1420, Rivendell Rambouillet

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Closetbiker,

Don't you ever update your information? You've been quoting the same people, with the same quotes, for about three years now. I'll have some new reading materials for you tonight. But Rocky1405 is correct, the helmet can save lives and protect against brain injury.

John

Last edited by John C. Ratliff; 08-28-08 at 11:03 AM. Reason: replace period with question mark
John C. Ratliff is offline  
Old 08-28-08, 11:21 AM
  #3814  
closetbiker
Senior Member
 
closetbiker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 9,630
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Liked 18 Times in 6 Posts
Originally Posted by John C. Ratliff View Post
Closetbiker,

Don't you ever update your information? You've been quoting the same people, with the same quotes, for about three years now. I'll have some new reading materials for you tonight. But Rocky1405 is correct, the helmet can save lives and protect against brain injury.

John
well, until research shows that the brain operates in a different way than previously thought, and until the helmet manufacturers change their standards of energy absorption to offer more protection, it's still relevant.

It's certainly far more qualified than a bunch of internet posters who claim life saving capabilities that have not been realized
closetbiker is offline  
Old 08-28-08, 11:26 AM
  #3815  
closetbiker
Senior Member
 
closetbiker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 9,630
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Liked 18 Times in 6 Posts
Originally Posted by Rocky1405 View Post
Guys & Gals: After 60 years of riding w/o a mis-hap and after wearing a helmet ever since helmets became available and affordable, last week I made a simple mistake on a curve at about 20 MPH and fell hard. It happened so fast I can't even tell you what all happened but I can tell you that when I fell, my head got slapped onto the ground so hard it left a big dent in the back of my helmet. The fall involved going off a trail and side-swiping a trail sign that spun me around and literally bounced my head onto the ground like a basketball. Once the world stopped spinning and I started to do damage assessment, the first thought in my mind was how glad I was because I had been wearing a helmet when I went down. I have no doubt my life as I know it would have been over if I hadn't have been wearing that "Brain Bucket". So, wear one if you want to but if you don't wear one, realize that you are risking EVERYTHING! Best of Luck, and keep the rubber side down!
Rocky1405
so... in your previous 60 years of riding, you've never fallen? And just how many cyclists have died falling off their bicycles on a trail in your area? Any more than have died falling down the stairs?

https://www.examiner.com/x-264-Celebr...alling-at-home

Dave Freeman, co-author of "100 Things to Do Before You Die," a bucket list guide that inspired many to get out there and live a little, died after falling down and hitting his head at home. He as 47.

Last edited by closetbiker; 08-28-08 at 06:46 PM.
closetbiker is offline  
Old 08-28-08, 11:27 AM
  #3816  
J B Bell
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 205

Bikes: 2007 ICE Trice T; 2008 Brompton M6L; 2009 Surly LHT; 2010 Surly Cross Check

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Hi John,

Your point about cars and bullets is well-taken, but it seems like you haven't figured out the area which that force is distributed over. After all, the person shooting a .22 absorbs exactly the same force (2nd law of thermodynamics and all that), but doesn't die, namely because it's spread over their hand by the shape of the gun.

--JB
J B Bell is offline  
Old 08-28-08, 12:21 PM
  #3817  
Zeuser
e-Biker
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Mississauga, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 951

Bikes: Gary Fisher, Strong GT-S eBike

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Originally Posted by Rocky1405 View Post
Guys & Gals: After 60 years of riding w/o a mis-hap and after wearing a helmet ever since helmets became available and affordable, last week I made a simple mistake on a curve at about 20 MPH and fell hard. It happened so fast I can't even tell you what all happened but I can tell you that when I fell, my head got slapped onto the ground so hard it left a big dent in the back of my helmet. The fall involved going off a trail and side-swiping a trail sign that spun me around and literally bounced my head onto the ground like a basketball. Once the world stopped spinning and I started to do damage assessment, the first thought in my mind was how glad I was because I had been wearing a helmet when I went down. I have no doubt my life as I know it would have been over if I hadn't have been wearing that "Brain Bucket". So, wear one if you want to but if you don't wear one, realize that you are risking EVERYTHING! Best of Luck, and keep the rubber side down!
Rocky1405
I had a motorcycle crash back in 1992 at about 60km/h. I went end over end a few times. the bike went end over end too. I lost a big piece of skin on my arm and had a broken rib. But I was able to get up and had all of my senses.

After getting home from the hospital I examined my helmet and noticed the massive damage to the right side. Had that been my face I would have to spend the rest of life looking like the phantom of the Opera.

That was the day I came to the simple conclusion: Some protection is better than no protection at all.

The helmet didn't protect me entirely. I lost a big piece of skin and had a broken rib but I did save my face and most probably my brain as well.

I've never argued that a helmet is 100% effective but it's better than the 0% effectiveness of a bare head.

As for freedom of choice? I disagree. There's a reason airbags and mandatory in cars these days. There's a reason seatbelts are mandatory. There's a reason motorcycle helmets are mandatory in many places. I believe the same will and should happen to bikes.

We're already half way there. In most provinces in Canada it's mandatory for kids under 16. It's only a matter of time until it's mandatory for everyone. And I'm all for it.

"oh my god, I've lost an important part of my freedom. Facists!" - anti-helmet people. Oh cry me a river, it's not like we're going to put you on the terrorist list because you're not wearing one; unlike trying to bring toothpaste in a carry-on on an airplane. Just wear the damn helmet. If it happens to work so much the better. If it doesn't you just lost a few bucks you cheapo.
Zeuser is offline  
Old 08-28-08, 12:47 PM
  #3818  
chipcom 
Infamous Member
 
chipcom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 24,360

Bikes: Surly Big Dummy, Fuji World, 80ish Bianchi

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times in 3 Posts
Originally Posted by Zeuser View Post
I had a motorcycle crash back in 1992 at about 60km/h. I went end over end a few times. the bike went end over end too. I lost a big piece of skin on my arm and had a broken rib. But I was able to get up and had all of my senses.

After getting home from the hospital I examined my helmet and noticed the massive damage to the right side. Had that been my face I would have to spend the rest of life looking like the phantom of the Opera.

That was the day I came to the simple conclusion: Some protection is better than no protection at all.

The helmet didn't protect me entirely. I lost a big piece of skin and had a broken rib but I did save my face and most probably my brain as well.

I've never argued that a helmet is 100% effective but it's better than the 0% effectiveness of a bare head.

As for freedom of choice? I disagree. There's a reason airbags and mandatory in cars these days. There's a reason seatbelts are mandatory. There's a reason motorcycle helmets are mandatory in many places. I believe the same will and should happen to bikes.

We're already half way there. In most provinces in Canada it's mandatory for kids under 16. It's only a matter of time until it's mandatory for everyone. And I'm all for it.

"oh my god, I've lost an important part of my freedom. Facists!" - anti-helmet people. Oh cry me a river, it's not like we're going to put you on the terrorist list because you're not wearing one; unlike trying to bring toothpaste in a carry-on on an airplane. Just wear the damn helmet. If it happens to work so much the better. If it doesn't you just lost a few bucks you cheapo.
^^^^
Good example of one of those who just can't get his wittle mind around the three simple points I made earlier and just can't stand not being able to impose his will on others.
__________________
"Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws" - Edward Abbey
chipcom is offline  
Old 08-28-08, 12:48 PM
  #3819  
John C. Ratliff
Senior Member
 
John C. Ratliff's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Beaverton, Oregon
Posts: 1,914

Bikes: Rans Stratus, Trek 1420, Rivendell Rambouillet

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by J B Bell View Post
Hi John,

Your point about cars and bullets is well-taken, but it seems like you haven't figured out the area which that force is distributed over. After all, the person shooting a .22 absorbs exactly the same force (2nd law of thermodynamics and all that), but doesn't die, namely because it's spread over their hand by the shape of the gun.

--JB
JB, I've got that concept down pretty well, having treated bullet wounds and fired them before. But not all the momentum is absorbed sometimes. We had one fellow trying to qualify for the USAF using a 44 mag revolver, and shooting John Wayne style. He put the hammer into his forehead with that relaxed stance.

My main point here is that people are saying that bicycle helmets are not effective in collisions with cars, and I wanted to point out that what they are comparing is the equivalent of a bullet or more in momentum (10,000x more, actually). The bullet, because of the very small surface area, simply goes right through a person. But the car, with the 10,000x momentum, accelerates the entire body of the person and throws the person, sometimes 100 feet or more. The injuries can be massive. But if the "hit' is only to the handlebar on the left side of the rider, and the rider simply falls to the ground from the loss of balance, then the helmet can do wonders. Why? For the same reason you point out here, that it increases the surface area impacted, thus decreasing the force on the contact point of the skull. It also crushes, allowing for a decrease in the acceleration forces that injure the brain from the motion. So your point about surface area is well taken. This is also why drivers don't realize the amount of damage that they can do with their vehicles--they have no concept of the amonut of momentum that they really have in that vehicle that they are driving.

John
John C. Ratliff is offline  
Old 08-28-08, 01:59 PM
  #3820  
Tommyr
Older "newbie"
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Hudson Valley of NY
Posts: 157

Bikes: Fuji Newest 4.0 just bought 7/26/08!

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by John C. Ratliff View Post
Closetbiker,

Don't you ever update your information? You've been quoting the same people, with the same quotes, for about three years now. I'll have some new reading materials for you tonight. But Rocky1405 is correct, the helmet can save lives and protect against brain injury.

John



They can quote ALL the stats they can find, quote ALL the doctors they want but it's YOUR head on the line in a fall or accident. Helmets HAVE protected many a head and saved many an injury of worse over the years, that is plenty good enough reason to me to wear one.
Tommyr is offline  
Old 08-28-08, 02:14 PM
  #3821  
Zeuser
e-Biker
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Mississauga, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 951

Bikes: Gary Fisher, Strong GT-S eBike

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Originally Posted by chipcom View Post
^^^^
Good example of one of those who just can't get his wittle mind around the three simple points I made earlier and just can't stand not being able to impose his will on others.
I agree with all except point #3. And it's not "my will", it's what's best for everyone. You're just being selfish about your freedoms.

Honestly, you're going to cry a river because your forced to wear a cheap bike helmet?
Zeuser is offline  
Old 08-28-08, 04:49 PM
  #3822  
Six jours
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 6,401
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 8 Times in 8 Posts
Good news, Zeuser! I'm on my way to your house right now, so that I can go through your fridge and ensure that your freedoms aren't going to cost me anything.

Thanks for your cooperation!
Six jours is offline  
Old 08-28-08, 05:14 PM
  #3823  
chipcom 
Infamous Member
 
chipcom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 24,360

Bikes: Surly Big Dummy, Fuji World, 80ish Bianchi

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times in 3 Posts
Originally Posted by Zeuser View Post
I agree with all except point #3. And it's not "my will", it's what's best for everyone. You're just being selfish about your freedoms.

Honestly, you're going to cry a river because your forced to wear a cheap bike helmet?
Not gonna cry cuz it ain't gonna happen - busy-bodies like you are still a minority in this world and the only way you can get things done is to get folks like me to sell it and enforce it for you...otherwise all you can do is wring your hands and wail at the inhumanity of the world!
__________________
"Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws" - Edward Abbey
chipcom is offline  
Old 08-28-08, 05:38 PM
  #3824  
closetbiker
Senior Member
 
closetbiker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 9,630
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Liked 18 Times in 6 Posts
Originally Posted by Tommyr View Post


They can quote ALL the stats they can find, quote ALL the doctors they want but it's YOUR head on the line in a fall or accident. Helmets HAVE protected many a head and saved many an injury of worse over the years, that is plenty good enough reason to me to wear one.
well then, how would you react when the entire population switches to helmets, yet the fatality rates remained the same?

What if you've known someone who died from a head injury while wearing a helmet? Would it still be just a stat that didn't matter?
closetbiker is offline  
Old 08-28-08, 05:48 PM
  #3825  
John C. Ratliff
Senior Member
 
John C. Ratliff's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Beaverton, Oregon
Posts: 1,914

Bikes: Rans Stratus, Trek 1420, Rivendell Rambouillet

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by J B Bell View Post
Hi John,

Your point about cars and bullets is well-taken, but it seems like you haven't figured out the area which that force is distributed over. After all, the person shooting a .22 absorbs exactly the same force (2nd law of thermodynamics and all that), but doesn't die, namely because it's spread over their hand by the shape of the gun.

--JB
I don't think it's the second low of thermodynamics:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_...Thermodynamics

I think it is Newton's third Law:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%...f_acceleration

(I had to look it up too, so I'm not trying to make hay of this. It is important to the understanding of how collisions occur, and what forces are generated, and where they are generated.)


All forces occur in pairs, and these two forces are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction.
John
John C. Ratliff is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.