Petition to the Women's Institute

[Titan yer tummy]

I refute that a cycling helmet any offers any realistic protection to the wearers head in a cycling accident because:
a. the wealth of available evidence suggests it doesn't
b. I've never seen a quantified rationale as to why a helmet conforming to the common standards (EN1078, CPSC, Snell B90) would be able to
b. common sense suggests that 300gms of ventilated EPS isn't capable of doing much

Please don't misquote or attribute to me, points points that I haven't made.

Many thanks.

 

[benb]

I didn't and don't. Please read what I have posted more carefully.



'Cap' and 'fits' in the same sentence. I am as entitled to my point of view as you.

Cheers

Yes, obviously you're entitled to your own opinions, but there is no need to brand people who do not share your views "fools"

 

[Titan yer tummy]

This is obviously the thread to report an experiment I did some years ago.

Because cycle helmets are not tested with regard to the protection they would provide if in collision with another vehicle, I was interested in the relative protection given by different materials when struck by a lump of sharp metal. Now I don't have a test rig, but I did have a helmet that had been left around by someone who didn't want it any more. I also had a box of tissues.

I took the seatpost out of my (then one and only) bicycle (leaving the saddle attached as a convenient handle) and, on a tarmac surface, struck the helmet with the end of the seatpost. To my horror, it penetrated easily.

I repeated the experiment with a box of tissues. Imagine my surprise when I discovered that the box of tissues completely protected the underlying tarmac from contact with the sharp metal!

Ever since then, I have worn a box of tissues strapped to my head. It provides more protection than a cycle helmet and therefore anyone who does not wear a box of tissues strapped to their head is an idiot (and I have the evidence to prove it). I shall campaign for it to be public policy that no cyclist with any injury whatsoever be treated with my tax money, unless they were wearing a box of tissues (in an appropriate place) when the injury occurred. In order to be consistent of course, the campaign will also ensure that the same is in place for pedestrians, car drivers, lorry and bus drivers ....

Edit: posted before my comment was added. (iPad misbehaving)

I don't think there is anything that I could politely add which would say more about the persons who either posted or 'liked' this!

Sincerely.

 

[growingvegetables]

I believe I make sensible life-style choices which benefit both me and the world in which I live.

I defy anyone to refute the statement: a cycling helmet protects the wearers head. For this reason I choose to wear one.

Eeeh - you'll like this one then
http://www.thudguard.com/

 

[benb]

I suggest you are taking issue with a point I didn't make!

Yours etc.

No. You said you would be pissed off if someone needed medical attention for an injury they could have prevented by wearing a helmet. I pointed out that at the energies where a head injury is likely, a helmet will do nothing to prevent it.

Can you please answer the point about pedestrians being equally at risk of a head injury, but you are not encouraging them to wear a helmet?

 

[benb]

Edit: posted before my comment was added. (iPad misbehaving)

I don't think there is anything that I could politely add which would say more about the persons who either posted or 'liked' this!

Sincerely.

Translation: I don't have a meaningful response to the well made point.

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

Please don't misquote or attribute to me, points points that I haven't made.

Many thanks.

Do you understand the concept of Kinetic Energy and how Kinetic Energy(Ke) is measured?

 

[Titan yer tummy]

No. You said you would be pissed off if someone needed medical attention for an injury they could have prevented by wearing a helmet. I pointed out that at the energies where a head injury is likely, a helmet will do nothing to prevent it...........

You have correctly reported what I said and I stand by it. You have then made a secondary comment which is your view which you are entitled to hold.

.......Can you please answer the point about pedestrians being equally at risk of a head injury, but you are not encouraging them to wear a helmet?

There may be a case for pedestrians wearing protective clothing. If that is a matter you would like to discuss that's fine but that discussion won't be with me; particularly in the light of the cheap shot you have stooped to in the following post.

If you recall this thread is about the WI voting to support a motion in favour of making helmet wearing for cyclists compulsory. My point was that ultimately I think the insurance lobby will have the greatest influence on the decision (either in favour of or against) depending on what the financial outcomes are. Personally I think that's isn't terribly complicated and pretty equitable.

Regards.

 

[Titan yer tummy]

Do you understand the concept of Kinetic Energy and how Kinetic Energy(Ke) is measured?

Even if I did I would not deprive you of the opportunity of enlightening us all by displaying your knowledge of the subject. :-)

Best wishes.

 

[Titan yer tummy]

Equitable? Insurance companies pay out in respect of head injuries to pedestrians, vehicle occupants, and cyclists. They only seek to reduce that pay out where there is a failure to wear a helmet for one class of claimant.

But there are other safety measures in place for the other classes you mention.

Regards

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

Even if I did I would not deprive you of the opportunity of enlightening us all by displaying your knowledge of the subject. :-)

Best wishes.

Can I take that then, as, you do not understand the concept of Ke, or how it is measured?

 

[benb]

It's simple. If you're pissed off at cyclists who don't wear helmets who then need medical treatment (regardless that there is no evidence that helmets are effective at reducing head injuries) why are you not also pissed off at pedestrians who do the same? Or people who injure themselves in the home? Can you see the inconsistency in your position?

 

[Titan yer tummy]

Can I take that then, as, you do not understand the concept of Ke, or how it is measured?

If my answer above is unclear I am led to wonder if you really have grasped the complexity of kinetic energy or the concept of Ke.

Regards.

 

[ufkacbln]

It's my opinion and my decision and I'm quite comfortable with it. I don't ask you to agree, I actually don't care very much provided I don't end up, as a tax payer, paying for your medical treatment for an injury you could have protected yourself from, but chose not to. Because that would pi55 me off.

You will be aware the 60% of head injuries requiring admission and / or treatment are related to alcohol?

These injuries could easily be prevented with full face helmets (with an aperture for a straw) being worn when drinking alcohol!


Anyone choosing not to prevent such injury ..........

I feel fully entitled to take issue with anyone who, being so stupid as to sustain a preventable injury by not wearing a helmet, expects me through the tax system to fund their treatment and recuperation.

So where do you stand with unprotected drinking?

 

[Titan yer tummy]

What safety measures are they? ............

I would suggest that motorists are strapped inside a padded box, motorcyclists wear helmets and leathers etc. Pavements, walkways and footpaths are provided for walkers.

Why do they not include helmets?

As I have mentioned above there are classes of pedestrians who wear helmets, if there is a wider case for pedestrians to wear helmets more regularly (and there may well be) I am not proposing to make it for them.

Best wishes.