Helmets and testing information

Tom Crispin wrote:
On 23 Mar 2011 10:49:09 GMT, Tony Raven wrote:

A few years ago when my daughters did a Dutch family exchange visit, the
reaction of the Dutch parents to their wanting to wear a helmet* was
puzzlement and "Why?".

You might have seen the same reaction to a British horse rider in the
1850s, a New York construction worker in the 1900s or a Brazilian
racing car driver in the 1950s.

So?

--
Tony

On Mar 23, 10:19*am, Tony Raven wrote:
Derek C wrote:
Children have slightly flexible skulls because the bones haven't yet
fused together. Once you become an adult the bones fully fuse and the
skull becomes rigid.

Ah, good old Derek, never failing to seize the opportunity to be wrong.

"To better model the head-helmet interaction, the headform must at least
have a deformable skull and brain."http://www.em.tue.nl/pdfs/Bosch%20Eric..pdf

--

http://www.ehow.com/about_6168006_hu...formation.html

Derek C

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
...
On 22/03/2011 20:27, alan.holmes wrote:
"The Medway wrote in message
...
On 20/03/2011 22:58, Just zis ****, you know? wrote:

On 20/03/2011 22:07, Adrian wrote:
"Just zis Guy, you gurgled happily,
sounding much like they were saying:

I'll go with the alternative, I think. They're scientists and
professionals at designing representative tests, based on a ****load
more actual data than Joe Public would actually have, no matter how
many miles he cycles in a week...

Ony problem is, the current standard is a weakened version of a
weakened
version of a test that was not designed by a standards body in the
first
place.

There's nothing to stop you buying and wearing a helmet which meets
considerably stronger standards, of course.

Other than lack of availability, cost, discomfort and the fact that
it's
unnecessary, of course :-)

Not according to the BMA. But I expect you know better than them.

Have you ever ridden a bicycle?

Only as a child. I grew up.

What a pity it doesn't show!





--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk





--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

Derek C wrote:
On Mar 23, 10:19 am, Tony Raven wrote:
Derek C wrote:
Children have slightly flexible skulls because the bones haven't yet
fused together. Once you become an adult the bones fully fuse and the
skull becomes rigid.

Ah, good old Derek, never failing to seize the opportunity to be wrong.

"To better model the head-helmet interaction, the headform must at least
have a deformable skull and brain."http://www.em.tue.nl/pdfs/Bosch%20Eric.pdf

--

http://www.ehow.com/about_6168006_hu...formation.html


Oh dear, having trouble telling the difference between hard and rigid?

--
Tony

"Judith" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 20:29:24 -0000, "alan.holmes"
wrote:

snip


Have you ever ridden a bicycle?



Yes - I currently do so.

And how many times have you fallen off and hurt your head?




Some claim it is illegal because it only has a single back pedal brake.

It is obviously very dangerous as it is a Dutch bike - and they have no
experience of making bikes
do they?

--

The BMA view of helmets:


The BMA (British Medical Association) urges legislation to make the
wearing of cycle helmets compulsory for both adults and children.
The evidence from those countries where compulsory cycle helmet use has
already been introduced is that such legislation has a beneficial effect
on cycle-related deaths and head injuries.
This strongly supports the case for introducing legislation in the UK.
Such legislation should result in a reduction in the morbidity and
mortality associated with cycling accidents.

"BartC" wrote in message
...


"Judith" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 20:29:24 -0000, "alan.holmes"
wrote:

snip


Have you ever ridden a bicycle?



Yes - I currently do so.

Some claim it is illegal because it only has a single back pedal brake.

It is obviously very dangerous as it is a Dutch bike - and they have no
experience of making bikes
do they?

Which is more dangerous then: riding one of those, or riding without a
helmet (both, say, in central London)?

I would love to see statistics which, if all the Boris-bikes are replaced
with those Dutch models, show whether bike accidents have decreased or
increased (taking of account that there would likely be a lot fewer
rentals).

Just out of interest, does Boris require people renting bikes to use a
helmet?




--
Bartc

On Mar 23, 9:13*pm, Tony Raven wrote:
Derek C wrote:
On Mar 23, 10:19 am, Tony Raven wrote:
Derek C wrote:
Children have slightly flexible skulls because the bones haven't yet
fused together. Once you become an adult the bones fully fuse and the
skull becomes rigid.

Ah, good old Derek, never failing to seize the opportunity to be wrong..

"To better model the head-helmet interaction, the headform must at least
have a deformable skull and brain."http://www.em.tue.nl/pdfs/Bosch%20Eric.pdf

--

http://www.ehow.com/about_6168006_hu...formation.html

Oh dear, having trouble telling the difference between hard and rigid?

--
Tony- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

One's skull won't deform that much before breaking!

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
...
On 22/03/2011 20:35, alan.holmes wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 13:57:49 -0000, wrote:



wrote in message
...
gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

One also asks oneself why you lot keep cross posting this ****e to
uk.rec.driving?

Wind up ******s like you?

Is that an admission of not actually giving the first **** about the
argument itself, and being no more than a vacuous troll?

I wonder if this is the same judith/Judith who posted this in
uk.rec.cycling
a few years back:

["(Non-) Use of cycling facilities"]

On Jun 19 2008, 10:27 pm, wrote:

However, your link doesn't say that the original poster won the bet
of £50 by winding up the well known nutters in the cycling community
by keeping a thread going until there were four hundred posts in it.

A colleague had visited uk.rec.cycling as part of some research
project and had observed "an unusual strata of newsnet society".

Some of the posts made were very sensible.

Others were just the nutters which my colleague predicted - and then
there were the ****wits. I would disagree that anyone was called a
****wit just for pointing out holes in any claims; they were genuine
****wits of the first degree - and quite a small number too.

I can't remember which group I put you in but I'll try and get you a
copy of the research paper when it's published if you want one.

Thanks to everyone for their contribution.

Goodnight

--
Bartc


Spot on - and proud of it - I am so glad that you remembered it - it
was
such easy money.

Were you trying to make a point?

--

The BMA view of helmets:


The BMA (British Medical Association) urges legislation to make the
wearing of cycle helmets compulsory for both adults and children.
The evidence from those countries where compulsory cycle helmet use has
already been introduced is that such legislation has a beneficial effect
on cycle-related deaths and head injuries.
This strongly supports the case for introducing legislation in the UK.
Such legislation should result in a reduction in the morbidity and
mortality associated with cycling accidents.

I'd like to see the proof?

And, as I think I have already asked, how many of these 'experts' has
ever
riden a bike?

What does that have to do with anything?

Only that if they have never riden a bike, what gives them the right to
dictate whether or not cyclists must wear a helmet?




--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

"Judith" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 18:33:21 -0000, "BartC" wrote:


snip


If such a helmet law was introduced, perhaps it should only apply to those
born after a certain date, for example from 1995 onwards (16 or below at
time of introduction). Then those who've been cycling for decades without
a
helmet, are exempt, and aren't suddenly forced to look like ****s.


Typical ****witted psycholist approach - introduce the red-herring of
compulsory wearing of helmets
in order to try and cloud the issue.

--

The BMA view of helmets:


The BMA (British Medical Association) urges legislation to make the
wearing of cycle helmets compulsory for both adults and children.
The evidence from those countries where compulsory cycle helmet use has
already been introduced is that such legislation has a beneficial effect
on cycle-related deaths and head injuries.
This strongly supports the case for introducing legislation in the UK.
Such legislation should result in a reduction in the morbidity and
mortality associated with cycling accidents.

Not sure whether I have asked this before, but how many severe head injuries
have been reported over the past year?

On Mar 23, 9:16*pm, "alan.holmes" wrote:
"BartC" wrote in message

...







"Judith" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 20:29:24 -0000, "alan.holmes"
wrote:

snip

Have you ever ridden a bicycle?

Yes - I currently do so.

Some claim it is illegal because it only has a single back pedal brake..

It is obviously very dangerous as it is a Dutch bike - and they have no
experience of making bikes
do they?

Which is more dangerous then: riding one of those, or riding without a
helmet (both, say, in central London)?

I would love to see statistics which, if all the Boris-bikes are replaced
with those Dutch models, show whether bike accidents have decreased or
increased (taking of account that there would likely be a lot fewer
rentals).

Just out of interest, does Boris require people renting bikes to use a
helmet?


No, of course not.
Why should he?

--
Simon Mason