|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Time for fishing helmets
On 10/06/2019 16:32, TMS320 wrote:
On 10/06/2019 15:22, JNugent wrote: On 10/06/2019 15:18, TMS320 wrote: On 10/06/2019 00:38, JNugent wrote: On 09/06/2019 13:15, Simon Jester wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRpeOuBk5yQ If they had been wearing cycle helmets they would have been seen. Worst case the cycle helmet force field would have prevented the crash. You seem to be misremembering the assertions made by those opposing the compulsory *and* voluntary use of cycle helmets (the latter on the basis that they did not want such use to be more widely accepted). Assertions made were that the cyclist was at less risk of head injuries in a collision if not wearing a cycle helmet (as counter-intuitive as that may be). The mechanics of this were never fully explained (pace a reference to "rotational forces" and another to the thickness of the helmet structure), leaving those of us who are not immediately familiar with such items to the sole logical conclusion that the cyclist without a helmet would manage to keep his head the crucial couple of centimetres away from collision with the asphalt or street furniture, with a force-field indeed being the only means of protection. Simple mechanics provides the explanation - for those with a comprehension of simple mechanics. For those that don't, it might as well be a force field. So you are right and all the professional advice is wrong? What professionals? That's more like it: deny, deny, deny. Asking for a friend. Obviously. |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Time for fishing helmets
On 10/06/2019 18:15, Kerr-Mudd,John wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jun 2019 15:32:24 GMT, TMS320 wrote: On 10/06/2019 15:22, JNugent wrote: On 10/06/2019 15:18, TMS320 wrote: On 10/06/2019 00:38, JNugent wrote: On 09/06/2019 13:15, Simon Jester wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRpeOuBk5yQ If they had been wearing cycle helmets they would have been seen. Worst case the cycle helmet force field would have prevented the crash. You seem to be misremembering the assertions made by those opposing the compulsory *and* voluntary use of cycle helmets (the latter on the basis that they did not want such use to be more widely accepted). Assertions made were that the cyclist was at less risk of head injuries in a collision if not wearing a cycle helmet (as counter-intuitive as that may be). The mechanics of this were never fully explained (pace a reference to "rotational forces" and another to the thickness of the helmet structure), leaving those of us who are not immediately familiar with such items to the sole logical conclusion that the cyclist without a helmet would manage to keep his head the crucial couple of centimetres away from collision with the asphalt or street furniture, with a force-field indeed being the only means of protection. Simple mechanics provides the explanation - for those with a comprehension of simple mechanics. For those that don't, it might as well be a force field. So you are right and all the professional advice is wrong? What professionals? Asking for a friend. Obviously. A proper response: https://www.cyclehelmets.org/1100.html (slightly dated; but data trumps anecdote) Thank you for that. QUOTE: Data for the year 2002/3 Hospital admissions for head injury: All causes: 30,533 Cyclists: 2,183 Cycling represents 7.1% of all head injuries Proportion of all injuries that involve head injury: All causes: 34.2% Cyclists: 37.6% Pedestrians: 43.7% Serious head injuries: All causes: 5,875 Cyclists: 385 - 550 * Pedestrians: 4,564 Cycling represents 6.5% of all serious head injuries ENDQUOTE I'm not quite sure of how all those figures hang together (eg, cycling head injuries are 7.1% of all head injuries but 37.6% of all injuries which involve head injury). Perhaps there's a statistical distinction between hospital admissions and out-patient treatment and perhaps there's a further distinction in counting as between pure head injuries and head injuries accompanied by other injuries in the same incident (the latter of which seems the more likely when one considers that most people will attempt to protect themselves in one way or another). But either way, I still, instinctively, find myself in opposition to the compulsory use of cycling safety helmets by adult cyclists. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Time for fishing helmets
On 10/06/2019 18:36, Simon Jester wrote:
On Monday, June 10, 2019 at 12:38:51 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote: On 09/06/2019 13:15, Simon Jester wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRpeOuBk5yQ If they had been wearing cycle helmets they would have been seen. Worst case the cycle helmet force field would have prevented the crash. You seem to be misremembering the assertions made by those opposing the compulsory *and* voluntary use of cycle helmets (the latter on the basis that they did not want such use to be more widely accepted). Assertions made were that the cyclist was at less risk of head injuries in a collision if not wearing a cycle helmet (as counter-intuitive as that may be). The mechanics of this were never fully explained (pace a reference to "rotational forces" and another to the thickness of the helmet structure), leaving those of us who are not immediately familiar with such items to the sole logical conclusion that the cyclist without a helmet would manage to keep his head the crucial couple of centimetres away from collision with the asphalt or street furniture, with a force-field indeed being the only means of protection. And who knows? It could be right, I expect. I have no idea what you are trying to say but the phrase: 'Hook, line, sinker, rod, keep net, waders, sandwiches, thermos and copy of Angling Times' comes to mind. You seem to inhabit a peculiar world of your own. You certainly are not recalling the ukrc cycling helmet "discussions" with any degree of accuracy. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Time for fishing helmets
On 10/06/2019 20:15, JNugent wrote:
On 10/06/2019 16:32, TMS320 wrote: On 10/06/2019 15:22, JNugent wrote: On 10/06/2019 15:18, TMS320 wrote: On 10/06/2019 00:38, JNugent wrote: On 09/06/2019 13:15, Simon Jester wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRpeOuBk5yQ If they had been wearing cycle helmets they would have been seen. Worst case the cycle helmet force field would have prevented the crash. You seem to be misremembering the assertions made by those opposing the compulsory *and* voluntary use of cycle helmets (the latter on the basis that they did not want such use to be more widely accepted). Assertions made were that the cyclist was at less risk of head injuries in a collision if not wearing a cycle helmet (as counter-intuitive as that may be). The mechanics of this were never fully explained (pace a reference to "rotational forces" and another to the thickness of the helmet structure), leaving those of us who are not immediately familiar with such items to the sole logical conclusion that the cyclist without a helmet would manage to keep his head the crucial couple of centimetres away from collision with the asphalt or street furniture, with a force-field indeed being the only means of protection. Simple mechanics provides the explanation - for those with a comprehension of simple mechanics. For those that don't, it might as well be a force field. So you are right and all the professional advice is wrong? What professionals? That's more like it: deny, deny, deny. It is impossible for me to deny something you haven't told me. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Time for fishing helmets
On 10/06/2019 20:14, JNugent wrote:
On 10/06/2019 16:29, TMS320 wrote: On 10/06/2019 00:40, JNugent wrote: On 09/06/2019 13:15, Simon Jester wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRpeOuBk5yQ If they had been wearing cycle helmets they would have been seen. Worst case the cycle helmet force field would have prevented the crash. Did the bigger boat have the nautical equivalent of fixed-wheel and no brakes? Perhaps the skipper believed that shouting "Get out of the way; I'm not stopping" was sufficient? I have learnt from this group that those that shout get vilified so it is much better to keep silent. "the 75-year-old told investigators he couldn’t see where he was driving because he was sitting down and the dash of his boat was blocking his view." An interesting parallel (thank you for confirming it): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0I0Zs1G1ri4 There is none so blind as he who will not see, of course. It happens to be a common habit amongst drivers. (Many times a day.) |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Time for fishing helmets
On Monday, June 10, 2019 at 8:24:00 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 10/06/2019 18:36, Simon Jester wrote: On Monday, June 10, 2019 at 12:38:51 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote: On 09/06/2019 13:15, Simon Jester wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRpeOuBk5yQ If they had been wearing cycle helmets they would have been seen. Worst case the cycle helmet force field would have prevented the crash. You seem to be misremembering the assertions made by those opposing the compulsory *and* voluntary use of cycle helmets (the latter on the basis that they did not want such use to be more widely accepted). Assertions made were that the cyclist was at less risk of head injuries in a collision if not wearing a cycle helmet (as counter-intuitive as that may be). The mechanics of this were never fully explained (pace a reference to "rotational forces" and another to the thickness of the helmet structure), leaving those of us who are not immediately familiar with such items to the sole logical conclusion that the cyclist without a helmet would manage to keep his head the crucial couple of centimetres away from collision with the asphalt or street furniture, with a force-field indeed being the only means of protection. And who knows? It could be right, I expect. I have no idea what you are trying to say but the phrase: 'Hook, line, sinker, rod, keep net, waders, sandwiches, thermos and copy of Angling Times' comes to mind. You seem to inhabit a peculiar world of your own. And it's so much better than Nugentworld. You certainly are not recalling the ukrc cycling helmet "discussions" with any degree of accuracy. Certainly I am. If a cyclist is killed whilst wearing a helmet it proves the helmet saved his life. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Time for fishing helmets
Simon Jester wrote:
On Monday, June 10, 2019 at 8:24:00 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote: On 10/06/2019 18:36, Simon Jester wrote: On Monday, June 10, 2019 at 12:38:51 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote: On 09/06/2019 13:15, Simon Jester wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRpeOuBk5yQ If they had been wearing cycle helmets they would have been seen. Worst case the cycle helmet force field would have prevented the crash. You seem to be misremembering the assertions made by those opposing the compulsory *and* voluntary use of cycle helmets (the latter on the basis that they did not want such use to be more widely accepted). Assertions made were that the cyclist was at less risk of head injuries in a collision if not wearing a cycle helmet (as counter-intuitive as that may be). The mechanics of this were never fully explained (pace a reference to "rotational forces" and another to the thickness of the helmet structure), leaving those of us who are not immediately familiar with such items to the sole logical conclusion that the cyclist without a helmet would manage to keep his head the crucial couple of centimetres away from collision with the asphalt or street furniture, with a force-field indeed being the only means of protection. And who knows? It could be right, I expect. I have no idea what you are trying to say but the phrase: 'Hook, line, sinker, rod, keep net, waders, sandwiches, thermos and copy of Angling Times' comes to mind. You seem to inhabit a peculiar world of your own. And it's so much better than Nugentworld. You certainly are not recalling the ukrc cycling helmet "discussions" with any degree of accuracy. Certainly I am. If a cyclist is killed whilst wearing a helmet it proves the helmet saved his life. Prick. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Time for fishing helmets
On 10/06/2019 21:18, TMS320 wrote:
On 10/06/2019 20:14, JNugent wrote: On 10/06/2019 16:29, TMS320 wrote: On 10/06/2019 00:40, JNugent wrote: On 09/06/2019 13:15, Simon Jester wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRpeOuBk5yQ If they had been wearing cycle helmets they would have been seen. Worst case the cycle helmet force field would have prevented the crash. Did the bigger boat have the nautical equivalent of fixed-wheel and no brakes? Perhaps the skipper believed that shouting "Get out of the way; I'm not stopping" was sufficient? I have learnt from this group that those that shout get vilified so it is much better to keep silent. "the 75-year-old told investigators he couldn’t see where he was driving because he was sitting down and the dash of his boat was blocking his view." An interesting parallel (thank you for confirming it): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0I0Zs1G1ri4 There is none so blind as he who will not see, of course. It happens to be a common habit amongst drivers. (Many times a day.) Drivers ride bikes into the backs of parked cars because they aren't looking where their bike is headed? Really? I didn't know that. You can learn something everyday. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Time for fishing helmets
On 10/06/2019 21:16, TMS320 wrote:
On 10/06/2019 20:15, JNugent wrote: On 10/06/2019 16:32, TMS320 wrote: On 10/06/2019 15:22, JNugent wrote: On 10/06/2019 15:18, TMS320 wrote: On 10/06/2019 00:38, JNugent wrote: On 09/06/2019 13:15, Simon Jester wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRpeOuBk5yQ If they had been wearing cycle helmets they would have been seen. Worst case the cycle helmet force field would have prevented the crash. You seem to be misremembering the assertions made by those opposing the compulsory *and* voluntary use of cycle helmets (the latter on the basis that they did not want such use to be more widely accepted). Assertions made were that the cyclist was at less risk of head injuries in a collision if not wearing a cycle helmet (as counter-intuitive as that may be). The mechanics of this were never fully explained (pace a reference to "rotational forces" and another to the thickness of the helmet structure), leaving those of us who are not immediately familiar with such items to the sole logical conclusion that the cyclist without a helmet would manage to keep his head the crucial couple of centimetres away from collision with the asphalt or street furniture, with a force-field indeed being the only means of protection. Simple mechanics provides the explanation - for those with a comprehension of simple mechanics. For those that don't, it might as well be a force field. So you are right and all the professional advice is wrong? What professionals? That's more like it: deny, deny, deny. It is impossible for me to deny something you haven't told me. You are well aware of the official advice that cyclists should wear safety helmets when cycling. You are well aware that doctors' organisations recommend the same thing, and for the same reasons. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/rules-for-cyclists-59-to-82 https://helmets.org/bmareport.htm But don't worry too much. Many people (including myself) support your right not to "look like a tit". |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Time for fishing helmets
On Tuesday, June 11, 2019 at 2:31:47 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 10/06/2019 21:16, TMS320 wrote: On 10/06/2019 20:15, JNugent wrote: On 10/06/2019 16:32, TMS320 wrote: On 10/06/2019 15:22, JNugent wrote: On 10/06/2019 15:18, TMS320 wrote: On 10/06/2019 00:38, JNugent wrote: On 09/06/2019 13:15, Simon Jester wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRpeOuBk5yQ If they had been wearing cycle helmets they would have been seen. Worst case the cycle helmet force field would have prevented the crash. You seem to be misremembering the assertions made by those opposing the compulsory *and* voluntary use of cycle helmets (the latter on the basis that they did not want such use to be more widely accepted). Assertions made were that the cyclist was at less risk of head injuries in a collision if not wearing a cycle helmet (as counter-intuitive as that may be). The mechanics of this were never fully explained (pace a reference to "rotational forces" and another to the thickness of the helmet structure), leaving those of us who are not immediately familiar with such items to the sole logical conclusion that the cyclist without a helmet would manage to keep his head the crucial couple of centimetres away from collision with the asphalt or street furniture, with a force-field indeed being the only means of protection. Simple mechanics provides the explanation - for those with a comprehension of simple mechanics. For those that don't, it might as well be a force field. So you are right and all the professional advice is wrong? What professionals? That's more like it: deny, deny, deny. It is impossible for me to deny something you haven't told me. You are well aware of the official advice that cyclists should wear safety helmets when cycling. You are well aware that doctors' organisations recommend the same thing, and for the same reasons. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/rules-for-cyclists-59-to-82 https://helmets.org/bmareport.htm But don't worry too much. Many people (including myself) support your right not to "look like a tit". In 2004 eggs and avocados were poison because of their high cholesterol. Now eggs and avocados are a superfood. Science advances and leaves religion behind. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Do helmets go bad over time? | RS | Techniques | 22 | July 13th 06 12:54 PM |
Do helmets go bad over time? | Stan Cox | UK | 7 | July 13th 06 12:54 PM |
Helmets - mean time betweef failures | flyingdutch | Australia | 4 | January 16th 06 03:41 AM |
time trial helmets | Katharine & Paul | Australia | 5 | August 4th 04 08:21 AM |
time trial helmets | Katharine & Paul | Techniques | 8 | August 2nd 04 10:11 AM |