Are cameras tougher than skulls?

[jefmcg]

From another thread.

http://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/teesside-news/helmet-footage-shows-moment-charity-9937548

Well looks like he isnt giving up

"and the state of the helmet - well, if that had been my head, I wouldn’t be here. I’m thinking about doing some campaiging on helmet safety actually now I’ve seen first-hand now how important it is.”"

I don't want to attack someone who's been in a crash, but watching the video, the camera seems in OK shape after the crash, and the lens is definitely not dislodged or cracked. Why does he think his skull is softer than his camera?

 

[classic33]

Part of the impact will have been taken by the helmet, leaving a camera shaped dent in it.

 

[JMAG]

Maybe because the camera didn't hit anything?

 

[Sea of vapours]

...Why does he think his skull is softer than his camera?

Quite! (Though as above, it's reasonable to assume that the camera didn't hit anything.)

Rather than attributing his survival to his helmet, he might more usefully campaign on paying attention to basic road signage since that bend had at least five items warning of it, quite apart from the fact that it was really obvious, just from reading the road.

 

[JMAG]

Because it carried on filming after the impact?

 

[mjr]

Why does he think his skull is softer than his camera?

I don't know his camera but mine is cased in metal and that's part of the reason it gets attached to the bike rather than me!

 

[JMAG]

[QUOTE 3874945, member: 9609"]on the video it seems to die.[/QUOTE]

The clip ends with a fade out done within video editing software. A camera that dies wouldn't add a transition just before it pops its clogs!

 

[cd365]

Maybe he should campaign for better cycling since his skills don't seem to be that good.

 

[Tin Pot]

Isn't it obvious that he's just another plum who crashed a bike. Why would you pay heed to anything he concludes about the crash?

 

[mjr]

Maybe he should campaign for better cycling since his skills don't seem to be that good.

I have suggested before that maybe there should be a training requirement on sportives and longer charity rides. There seem to be too many people on those events with enough speed to get themselves into trouble without the bike sense or skills to get themselves out of it.

Or traffic police could just come and stop tons of riders for the sorts of dodgy riding I've seen during events around here (wrong side of the road over blind brows or around blind bends, overtaking on the left, overtaking too close silently, not leaving stopping distance from a rider they don't know, overlapping and clipping wheels ...) - they wouldn't even need to fine many, as the worst offenders would probably be most grumpy at their "race" time getting messed up by being stopped and told off Really, if they want to race, they should get a licence, join a racing club and do it properly IMO.

 

[Racing roadkill]

Helmets give you a chance. They are not a magic panacea. They won't save you if you get run over by stampeding elephants, or a sniper shoots you from a mile away, but they will give you a chance, if you get twatted by a mirror, or something gets fired skull wards, from a passing vehicle, or you topple off the bike and go head first towards a kerb etc. Cameras, won't help, except for insurance purposes.

 

[Profpointy]

Quite! (Though as above, it's reasonable to assume that the camera didn't hit anything.)

Rather than attributing his survival to his helmet, he might more usefully campaign on paying attention to basic road signage since that bend had at least five items warning of it, quite apart from the fact that it was really obvious, just from reading the road.

yebbut if you know you are reckless and accident prone, isn't a helmet a wise precaution?

PS i am being facetious not trying to start the dreaded debat

 

[JMAG]

Only thing I know is I've had 2 offs in the last month and hit my head hard both times (especially the last one) whilst wearing a helmet. I suffered no rotational injuries and I am glad I was wearing a helmet. I believe my injuries would have been much worse had I not been wearing a helmet.

My rather simplistic take on it is that if I had to headbut a brick wall (or a tarmac road) and was given the choice of doing so with or without a helmet, I would go with the helmet. I'm totally happy for others to make their own choice though.

Edit. I also know I should look at taking my cycling proficiency test again!

 

[ufkacbln]

Its basic commonsense innit!

Helmets are invincible and will always save your life... so no need to cycle in a sensible manner, reactto signage or road conditions when you have a helmet

 

[classic33]

Blah blah rotational injury blah blah point of attachment blah blah Michael Schumacher blah blah.

Camera mount in that case. Neither the helmet or the camera.