Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
The one key statistic we are missing is how many people saved a trip to The hospital or even calling an ambulance because the helmet saved them.
I witnessed two crashes very recently where the person walked away, but their helmet was a complete shattered mess. That would have been their head and yes it is personal choice, but no one complains about wearing a seat belt. Please don’t say there is data, because the data we need re Helmets has not been gathered. Go visit a&e and see head injuries.
If the police get involved why not, remember it’s them who have all the paperwork, investigation and having to give the family the bad news
If a bike helmet is a “complete shattered mess”, it means that the energy involved was much greater than the helmet was designed to protect against. The main protection from a bike helmet comes from compressing the expanded polystyrene inside it, not from the thin plastic outer that holds it together, so if the helmet shatters, it means it’s not doing its job correctly and most likely provided only very minimal protection.
Real life impacts are very complicated actions, and it’s entirely possible that the inital ‘killing’ impact deformed the helmet and protected the wearer, but also ruined the integrity of the helmet such that subsequent smaller impacts destroyed the now substantially weakened helmet, but those impacts were not capable of doing serious damage to the encased skull. So, a destroyed helmet does not mean either that it was subject to impacts outside it’s design envelope, nor that it offered skant protection. Just because an air bag is a torn bloody, muddy floppy mess and the vehicle didn’t stop when it deployed doesn’t mean that the air bag offered no protection at the time of impact.
I get your point, but does that mean you support the opposite view, that if a helmet is destroyed it means that it provided a high level of protection? That’s what I was arguing against.
If a helmet is destroyed, as I pointed out, it may have provided a high level of protection, but for sure there will be instances where the helmet provided negligible protection and was destroyed. I think these may be the minority of cases where the rider survived though. To me it’s hard to envisage an impact destructive enough to destroy a helmet that wouldn’t have had fairly devastating effects on the head contained within had it not been there, which is really what saying ‘it provided negligible protection’ means
I’m not convinced as the general design of bike helmets has very clear structural weaknesses (or vents as they are often called) and any non-flat object hitting a helmet has a reasonable chance of destroying it. Your argument that a destroyed helmet most likely provided significant protection is begging the question.
The one key statistic we are missing is how many people saved a trip to The hospital or even calling an ambulance because the helmet saved them.I witnessed two crashes very recently where the person walked away, but their helmet was a complete shattered mess. That would have been their head and yes it is personal choice, but no one complains about wearing a seat belt. Please don’t say there is data, because the data we need re Helmets has not been gathered. Go visit a&e and see head injuries.
If the police get involved why not, remember it’s them who have all the paperwork, investigation and having to give the family the bad news
If a bike helmet is a “complete shattered mess”, it means that the energy involved was much greater than the helmet was designed to protect against. The main protection from a bike helmet comes from compressing the expanded polystyrene inside it, not from the thin plastic outer that holds it together, so if the helmet shatters, it means it’s not doing its job correctly and most likely provided only very minimal protection.
Real life impacts are very complicated actions, and it’s entirely possible that the inital ‘killing’ impact deformed the helmet and protected the wearer, but also ruined the integrity of the helmet such that subsequent smaller impacts destroyed the now substantially weakened helmet, but those impacts were not capable of doing serious damage to the encased skull. So, a destroyed helmet does not mean either that it was subject to impacts outside it’s design envelope, nor that it offered skant protection. Just because an air bag is a torn bloody, muddy floppy mess and the vehicle didn’t stop when it deployed doesn’t mean that the air bag offered no protection at the time of impact.
I get your point, but does that mean you support the opposite view, that if a helmet is destroyed it means that it provided a high level of protection? That’s what I was arguing against.
The one key statistic we are missing is how many people saved a trip to The hospital or even calling an ambulance because the helmet saved them.I witnessed two crashes very recently where the person walked away, but their helmet was a complete shattered mess. That would have been their head and yes it is personal choice, but no one complains about wearing a seat belt. Please don’t say there is data, because the data we need re Helmets has not been gathered. Go visit a&e and see head injuries.
If the police get involved why not, remember it’s them who have all the paperwork, investigation and having to give the family the bad news
If a bike helmet is a “complete shattered mess”, it means that the energy involved was much greater than the helmet was designed to protect against. The main protection from a bike helmet comes from compressing the expanded polystyrene inside it, not from the thin plastic outer that holds it together, so if the helmet shatters, it means it’s not doing its job correctly and most likely provided only very minimal protection.
I’m a fellow ‘waxer’ and one bit of advice I’d like to give is to fit the chain while it’s still reasonably warm. If you let it cool right down it’s like trying to thread a stick back onto your drivetrain
.He’s just spraying it on, not doing a warm wax bath.
I’ve always allowed the chain to cool down and then loosened each link by hand to remove excess wax and to make it more supple.
Haven’t tried that product
Haven’t tried that product but have a little experience with wax on bicycle chains. If you’re going to use wax, it works best if you completely degrease the chain first and then only use wax and not grease on the chain. This allows the wax to better stick to the metal and thus stay put longer.
I don’t think it would cause any problems with a new chain (providing you degrease it) and cassette unless you let it wear off (wax doesn’t last as long between applications as traditional lubes) and then do lots of riding on a dry chain. That shouldn’t be a problem as the chain would get noisy as the wax wears off, so it should be obvious.
Ride it for a year and then
Ride it for a year and then you’ll know whether you want to upgrade components or get a new bike.
The elephant in the room that
The elephant in the room that no-one seems to be discussing is why are there so many uphill roads? Surely if we are to encourage cycling, we need as many roads as possible to be going downhill?
It isn’t just the roads. The entire infrastructure of the UK is being left to rot whilst the neoconservatives who have power, transfer more and more of the country’s wealth to themselves and to the other members of their caste. The NHS is close to collapse. The roads are a clear and present danger to health. The public transport network is only slightly more reliable than Cambodia’s. Crime is at record levels and police don’t bother to investigate most of the offences which are reported to them. The only reason these phenomena aren’t getting talked about is that our media organisations are owned by the same people who are stealing from us, or (as is the case with the BBC) have been so cowed by threats of ‘regulation’ that they’re toeing the party line anyway.Monetarism – that toxic ideology born in the fascist regimes of South America, imported into Britain in 1979 and foisted on the majority by a at most ten thousand greedy, ultra right-wing bastards, is like a snake around the throat of Britain. If a snake wraps itself around your throat, what do you do? You kill the snake.
Everyone knows what needs to be done, but no one dare say it aloud, because they’ll get a visit from the police.
Is it moaning on Road.cc forums? I think we’ve already tried that and nothing seems to be improving.
I ‘hate’ the concept of a hate crime. We have perfectly good laws in place (or we can make them) without resorting to little more than penalising subjective thought and expression. Let’s not worry about calling people names; let’s worry about catching and preventing those who cause bodily harm.It’s a tricky issue.
On the one hand, hate crimes depend on the motive of the criminal and thus is akin to a thought-crime.
On the other hand, it can be tricky for vulnerable groups to get sufficient protection from the law. Hate crimes are more difficult to investigate due to the lack of a non-hate motive (e.g. pre-existing argument between victim and attacker) and can be more difficult to prosecute if the juries feel sympathetic with the “hating” of the victim.
Personally, I think that the concept of hate crimes is needed and that cyclists should be considered a vulnerable group.
It’s not paranoia if they really are out to get you: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2018/may/11/theyre-out-to-get-you-study-finds-cyclists-face-paranoia-about-driversI read that article. Surely riding as if they’re out to get you (ie. riding defensively) is not the same as actually believing that they’re out to get you?
The study was about people’s reported paranoia levels rather than their behaviour. So, although cyclists reported lower general paranoia (i.e. trait paranoia), they reported higher paranoia whilst cycling (i.e. state paranoia). In contrast, the underground users reported less paranoia whilst travelling, but had a higher general paranoia.
And yes, riding defensively doesn’t necessarily mean that you’re feeling frightened.
It’s not paranoia if they
It’s not paranoia if they really are out to get you: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2018/may/11/theyre-out-to-get-you-study-finds-cyclists-face-paranoia-about-drivers
@ClubSmed – thanks for the
@ClubSmed – thanks for the update. I, for one, will be keeping my distance from Evans if they treat customers like that.
davel wrote:
I’m skeptical. I’d need to check the correlation between helmet-wearing and severed arteries in the legs. Anyone got any graphs?As it happens, I have already done the research for this, so I can present the following definitive correlation:
I agree with StraelGuy.
I agree with StraelGuy.
The “crack” will be on both sides of the rim in the same place if it’s the extrusion join and also it will be smooth to the touch as the joint is usually smoothed out during manufacture.
By the way, haven’t you heard the news? Cycling infrastructure is now hated by both the anti-cycling, pro-congestion lobby AND the oversensitive social “scientists” graduating from places like the LSE: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/73593/That paper seems to be decrying Hackney’s particular approach to cycling infrastructure i.e. spatial interventions such as filtered permeability, a borough-wide 20 mph speed restriction, and speed humps. It then goes on to make the case that these spatial interventions are raising the profile of privileged, white, male cyclists and thus are not apolitical. Presumably, the paper’s author would be happier with dedicated cycle infrastructure.
.