CopperBrompton
Bicycle: a means of transport between cake-stops
- Location
- London
Hairy Jock said:
I've done that rather directly, thanks
See earlier in the thread.
Research into helmet compulsion
- Thread starter magnatom
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
I've done that rather directly, thanks
See earlier in the thread.
I don't think anyone is going to change anyone else's mind on this, so I'm not going to get all het up.
However, an open question without any point-scoring - has anyone seen or got a copy of the EN1078 standard? I've seen plenty of reviews of the standard, but these nearly always have an agenda. The document itself costs £84.00 from BSI Standards Online!!
However, an open question without any point-scoring - has anyone seen or got a copy of the EN1078 standard? I've seen plenty of reviews of the standard, but these nearly always have an agenda. The document itself costs £84.00 from BSI Standards Online!!
Crankarm
Guru
- Location
- Nr Cambridge
Greenbank said:Exactly, but it goes to show that there are uninformed/stupid people on both sides of the debate.
Indeed Greenbank indeed.
Say you fancy being a human guinea pig sometime this weekend? We could do some tests. First test could be you wearing a decent cycling helmet such as one worn by the pros and you cycle toward me at 20mph and I drive toward you at about 20mph but brake before impact to try and simulate a real collision so your head impacts the windscreen at about 20mph taking into account deceleration of both your bike and my car. Don't worry I have an old banger, I can just call out Autoglass to get the screen replaced. For the second test we just repeat the first but this time you don't wear a helmet. What do you say? I have chosen you wearing a helmet first as this will mean you survive to take the second test. It would seem pointless you doing the test without helmet first as you might not survive to be able to repeat the test with helmet
.A wonderful and accurate test, now let's apply the same proof for pedestrians......
Say you fancy being a human guinea pig sometime this weekend? We could do some tests. First test could be you wearing a decent cycling helmet such as one worn by the pros and you run toward me at 8 mph and I drive toward you at about 20mph but brake before impact to try and simulate a real collision so your head impacts the windscreen at about 15mph taking into account deceleration of both your bike and my car. Don't worry I have an old banger, I can just call out Autoglass to get the screen replaced. For the second test we just repeat the first but this time you don't wear a helmet. What do you say? I have chosen you wearing a helmet first as this will mean you survive to take the second test. It would seem pointless you doing the test without helmet first as you might not survive to be able to repeat the test with helmet
I have therefore proved just howpedestrians are unwise for not wearing helmets, have I convinced you to wear one next time you are walking, if not then surely we have proved the test is invalid?
Especially as the collision is closer to the performance desighn of helmets and hence more protection offered
Lets have a serious answer rather than simply refuse to discuss pedestrians.
Say you fancy being a human guinea pig sometime this weekend? We could do some tests. First test could be you wearing a decent cycling helmet such as one worn by the pros and you run toward me at 8 mph and I drive toward you at about 20mph but brake before impact to try and simulate a real collision so your head impacts the windscreen at about 15mph taking into account deceleration of both your bike and my car. Don't worry I have an old banger, I can just call out Autoglass to get the screen replaced. For the second test we just repeat the first but this time you don't wear a helmet. What do you say? I have chosen you wearing a helmet first as this will mean you survive to take the second test. It would seem pointless you doing the test without helmet first as you might not survive to be able to repeat the test with helmet
I have therefore proved just howpedestrians are unwise for not wearing helmets, have I convinced you to wear one next time you are walking, if not then surely we have proved the test is invalid?
Especially as the collision is closer to the performance desighn of helmets and hence more protection offered
Lets have a serious answer rather than simply refuse to discuss pedestrians.
Crankarm
Guru
- Location
- Nr Cambridge
Cunobelin said:
You wanna be a pedestrian.........be my guest. Just have to scrape the blood and brain of the cyclist who wasn't wearing a helmet from the windscreen before we set the test up again for you.
Ask a serious question then you might get a serious answer
.No thanks. 20mph bike hitting 20mph car is roughly equivalent to a car hitting a stationary person (cyclist or not) at 30mph.
That's about an 80% chance of surviving (remember the "Hit me at 30 and there's an 80% chance I'll live" advert) I don't fancy those odds.
Turing it around, would you be prepared to undertake the first part of the test (i.e. wearing a helmet and being hit at 20mph) if you didn't have to do the second part of the test? Thought not, and I wouldn't blame you.
That's about an 80% chance of surviving (remember the "Hit me at 30 and there's an 80% chance I'll live" advert) I don't fancy those odds.
Turing it around, would you be prepared to undertake the first part of the test (i.e. wearing a helmet and being hit at 20mph) if you didn't have to do the second part of the test? Thought not, and I wouldn't blame you.
Thanks for the comparison C. Greeners, I think you're probably right about passing on copies of the standards. I had a little helmet debate with my LBS manager about a year ago and one thing we agreed on was that the standard should be freely available.
This debate's probably heading for 101, isn't it?
This debate's probably heading for 101, isn't it?
CopperBrompton
Bicycle: a means of transport between cake-stops
- Location
- London
Already reached there, I think. I'm gone.
Crankarm said:You wanna be a pedestrian.........be my guest. Just have to scrape the blood and brain of the cyclist who wasn't wearing a helmet from the windscreen before we set the test up again for you.
Ask a serious question then you might get a serious answer
Perfectly serious question........
Test 1 "proves" that cyclists benefit from helmets, and cyclists should wear them
Test 2 "Proves" (by the same criteria" that pedestrians would benefit from helmets and should wear them.
Do you feel that the pedestrian does not deserve such protection.. does it somehow hurt less, is it less traumatic?
Or is it simply inconvenient for your agenda to recognise that Your test has "proven" the case for pedestrian helmets to the same extent as you have claimed it does for cyclists.
Please feel free to avoid if you are unable to answer.
Bollo said:
We had a similar debate at a Bike Week event a few years ago. There was a Nurse who had never ridden a bicycle handing out vouchers for a "generic" helmet to children and berating anyone who wasn't interested.
When asked how she knew they woulkd actually fit the child, whether they would be adjustable to suitthe wide range she was targetting, or which standards they met...............................she had absolutely no idea, and asked upon what evidence she was basing her practice she was unable to provide any!
Given that a badly fitting helmet will discourage those who would wear them, and badly fitting, badly adjusted helmets can at best be ineffective and actually cause injuries... this is the worst type of helmet evangelism.
CopperBrompton
Bicycle: a means of transport between cake-stops
- Location
- London
It does indeed sound rather incompetent
MartinC
Über Member
- Location
- Cheltenham
Crankarm said:Indeed Greenbank indeed.
Say you fancy being a human guinea pig sometime this weekend? We could do some tests. First test could be you wearing a decent cycling helmet such as one worn by the pros and you cycle toward me at 20mph and I drive toward you at about 20mph but brake before impact to try and simulate a real collision so your head impacts the windscreen at about 20mph taking into account deceleration of both your bike and my car. Don't worry I have an old banger, I can just call out Autoglass to get the screen replaced. For the second test we just repeat the first but this time you don't wear a helmet. What do you say? I have chosen you wearing a helmet first as this will mean you survive to take the second test. It would seem pointless you doing the test without helmet first as you might not survive to be able to repeat the test with helmet.
How do you know this?