|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Can't Use Helmets in the Sun????
Wearing the helmet on your ass voids the warranty. Martin Borsje wrote: The UV rays will not reach the foam inside your helmet..... -- Posted by news://news.nb.nu |
Ads |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Can't Use Helmets in the Sun????
NYC XYZ wrote:
Right -- I was only wondering, though, how they could sound as if they're admitting that their helmets are useless! I mean, I was always suspicious of mere styrofoam, but if even they themselves will say that mere sunlight and heat can damage it -- and thus negate the whole point of wearing one...well, I dunno, maybe helmets are for dummies who can't see the contradiction in that! Energy-absorbing car bumpers are made from EPS foam, like helmets. Automakers don't seem terribly concerned about the implications of exposing a car bumper to environmental levels of heat. Of course, they know if they tell you "replace your bumper if it gets hot", then that will make you less inclined to buy their particular product again, whereas the functional monopoly on bike helmets makes any helmet replacement an overwhelmingly likely sale for Bell Sports (who make both Bell and Giro helmets). Chalo Colina |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Can't Use Helmets in the Sun????
While 90% of all accidents fall into that catagory you should probably be aware that just falling over and hitting your head against a curb will substantially exceed the protective capacity of a helmet. Yeah, OK. So, what is your point. I would rather fall over and hit my hit while wearing a helmet than while not wearing a helmet. Sid |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Can't Use Helmets in the Sun????
Sid wrote:
{somone else wrote} While 90% of all accidents fall into that catagory you should probably be aware that just falling over and hitting your head against a curb will substantially exceed the protective capacity of a helmet. Yeah, OK. So, what is your point. I would rather fall over and hit my hit while wearing a helmet than while not wearing a helmet. But...but...you haven't STUDIED THE ISSUE. (Apparently it supplants common sense after a while.) HTH, BS |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Can't Use Helmets in the Sun????
Sid wrote: While 90% of all accidents fall into that catagory you should probably be aware that just falling over and hitting your head against a curb will substantially exceed the protective capacity of a helmet. Yeah, OK. So, what is your point. I would rather fall over and hit my hit while wearing a helmet than while not wearing a helmet. Seems so commonsensical, doesn't it? I am amazed at those who can't grasp this simple point. Are they blinded by their anti-helmet agenda? |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Can't Use Helmets in the Sun????
Ozark Bicycle wrote: Sid wrote: Yeah, OK. So, what is your point. I would rather fall over and hit my hit while wearing a helmet than while not wearing a helmet. Seems so commonsensical, doesn't it? I am amazed at those who can't grasp this simple point. Are they blinded by their anti-helmet agenda? I'd describe the point as "simplistic" rather than "simple." Ozark and Sorni are big fans of reducing complex issues down to levels they can understand. That seems to preclude actually learning anything - hence Sorni's mockery of study, and Ozark's refusal to consider that "common sense" is often wrong. So we have the above pair, quite content to strenuously defend a device that is obviously under-designed, because - what? It's better than nothing, even if it's no good for its advertised purpose? And to advocate its use only for cycling - why? Because cycling is responsible for such a tiny number of head injuries, compared to other sources? Of course, they haven't assimilated the fact that the best data indicates these things don't work, and aren't generally needed anyway - how could they? That would require reading! But they laugh at the idea of taking any time to read any serious studies on this issue - why? Because they need all their time to blather on Usenet? I'd suggest learning enough about this issue to at _least_ defend your views logically, based on real-world facts instead of overconfident daydreams. But I know that won't happen. - Frank Krygowski |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Can't Use Helmets in the Sun????
wrote in message
oups.com... Matt O'Toole wrote: Gary, it takes *a lot* of UV exposure to break down plastics. We've all seen styrofoam cups, coolers, and beach toys crumbling from exposure to the elements, but we forget they've been lying around outside for decades, and exposed to worse things than UV. Helmets may get a few hours a day of exposure, a few times a week, if that. Newer ones have non-structural plastic caps on them, and dyes in the styrofoam to protect from UV. So the structural styrofoam is well protected. Basically this is not worth worrying about. I agree that foam breakdown from direct sunlight is unlikely to be a problem. OTOH, I had a person show me her helmet with a cracked "microshell." The thin vacuum-formed plastic that carried the decorations seemed to have gotten very brittle. Or perhaps it always was brittle. In any case, a very minor bump (she dropped the helmet from about three feet) caused a chunk of that plastic to break off, and it was obvious the rest was fragile. I wondered if this was intended to sell helmets. In her case, the broken-out bit wasn't very conspicuous, but I could see the helmet looking bad after a few repetitions. Some people might buy a new helmet just because the first looked ratty. Others might become convinced the magic had leaked out. Note, I recall reading an article where a man talked of quitting his VP position at a consumer products company, in part (he claimed) because he found out they purposely compounded plastic items to degrade from UV exposure. Can't say for sure it was true, of course. He never named the company, and it was just a remark in passing. And you're complaining about others not adequately "studying the issues"??? The example you cite, and the paragraph above are anecdotal hearsay...at best. GG - Frank Krygowski |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Can't Use Helmets in the Sun????
"NYC XYZ" wrote in message
ups.com... GaryG wrote: Get a clue, NYC...many outdoor products have a "shelf life" (e.g., tents, lawn furniture, etc.), due to the effects of UV and heat. In the case of helmets, there's also the fact that they are designed to be light and comfortable. You could probably design a stainless steel helmet that was not subject to UV breakdown...but, you wouldn't want to wear it. GG The point, again, is that this is a piece of safety equipment -- CRITICAL, to hear folks speak of it -- which can somehow fail simply from being in "heat"...which I take to mean sunlight as well, most of all. Considering that most biking is done in the summertime, in daytime, etc., this characteristic seems to fundamentally contradict the very purpose of the product! Are you a dumbass, or just a troll? Exposure to sunlight during normal use is not the same thing as leaving a helmet on the dash of a car with the windows rolled up. Babies and helmets can be exposed to the former, but will perish in the latter. It's really not that difficult to see the difference. GG |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Can't Use Helmets in the Sun????
GaryG wrote: wrote in message oups.com... Note, I recall reading an article where a man talked of quitting his VP position at a consumer products company, in part (he claimed) because he found out they purposely compounded plastic items to degrade from UV exposure. Can't say for sure it was true, of course. He never named the company, and it was just a remark in passing. And you're complaining about others not adequately "studying the issues"??? The example you cite, and the paragraph above are anecdotal hearsay...at best. I know they are, and I presented them as such. Note the "he claimed" and "Can't say for sure it was true." I was nowhere near presenting that as proven fact. Here's the way this stuff works, Gary. People notice things, and begin to discuss them. If there's enough scientific curiosity, someone will propose a hypothesis. If the curiosity grows, someone might perform a test. If the issue's deemed important enough, someone might do a full-blown study. And so on. And so we learn. Taking the first step, as I did above, is different from pretending an anecdote is scientific proof. It's different from what we get from the crowd proclaiming "I hit my head and my helmet cracked. I _know_ it saved my life!!!" By the way, we have two plastic garbage cans, the large kind we haul to the curb once a week. Both are roughly the same age. One is cracked and torn, the other is perfectly intact. I've wondered why. - Frank Krygowski |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Can't Use Helmets in the Sun????
wrote in message
oups.com... GaryG wrote: wrote in message oups.com... Note, I recall reading an article where a man talked of quitting his VP position at a consumer products company, in part (he claimed) because he found out they purposely compounded plastic items to degrade from UV exposure. Can't say for sure it was true, of course. He never named the company, and it was just a remark in passing. And you're complaining about others not adequately "studying the issues"??? The example you cite, and the paragraph above are anecdotal hearsay...at best. I know they are, and I presented them as such. Note the "he claimed" and "Can't say for sure it was true." I was nowhere near presenting that as proven fact. Then why waste bandwidth on them? They seem to do nothing but decrease the signal to noise ratio. In an earlier post today, you stated "I'd suggest learning enough about this issue to at _least_ defend your views logically, based on real-world facts instead of overconfident daydreams.", and took others to task because "they need all their time to blather on Usenet". I'd suggest you take your own advice. GG Here's the way this stuff works, Gary. People notice things, and begin to discuss them. If there's enough scientific curiosity, someone will propose a hypothesis. If the curiosity grows, someone might perform a test. If the issue's deemed important enough, someone might do a full-blown study. And so on. And so we learn. Taking the first step, as I did above, is different from pretending an anecdote is scientific proof. It's different from what we get from the crowd proclaiming "I hit my head and my helmet cracked. I _know_ it saved my life!!!" By the way, we have two plastic garbage cans, the large kind we haul to the curb once a week. Both are roughly the same age. One is cracked and torn, the other is perfectly intact. I've wondered why. - Frank Krygowski |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Children should wear bicycle helmets. | John Doe | UK | 516 | December 16th 04 12:04 AM |
Bicycle helmets help prevent serious head injury among children, part one. | John Doe | UK | 3 | November 30th 04 03:46 PM |
Elsewhere, someone posted this on an OU forum | Gawnsoft | UK | 13 | May 19th 04 03:40 PM |
BRAKE on helmets | Just zis Guy, you know? | UK | 62 | April 27th 04 09:48 AM |
Compulsory helmets again! | Richard Burton | UK | 526 | December 29th 03 08:19 PM |