A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Bicycling specific clothing = why not?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old July 15th 19, 02:05 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
AMuzi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,447
Default Bicycling specific clothing = why not?

On 7/14/2019 9:30 PM, James wrote:
On 11/7/19 10:30 pm, news18 wrote:
On Thu, 11 Jul 2019 16:00:38 +1000, James wrote:


(In most of Australia it is a legal requirement to wear a
helmet. That
in itself could be said to be a change to what you're
wearing.)


Unless you've just been up a ladder.
Bacxkground; men over 60 feature significantly in deaths
from falling off
a ladder in Australia and I consider a bicycle helment of
better use than
those plastic "construction hats".


A fellow died when he crashed his bicycle in Newcastle, NSW
recently. He was wearing a bicycle helmet at the time. He
crashed negotiating, fairly recently installed, tram tracks
(street car tracks). The helmet didn't prevent the fatal
head injury that killed him.


AFAIK, plastic construction hats are more for offering some
protection from falling objects, rather than the person
falling and landing on their head.


I assume we can all agree that below some impact level a
helmet would not be necessary and above some level you're
dead anyway.

What we don't know are those limits and how significant the
effective range is to the set of all crashes, considering
both range of impact force and frequency at those values.

The testing protocol seems not very relevant to the real
world IMHO but I don't know that.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971


Ads
  #52  
Old July 15th 19, 03:43 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,511
Default Bicycling specific clothing = why not?

On Sunday, July 14, 2019 at 10:30:49 PM UTC-4, James wrote:
On 11/7/19 10:30 pm, news18 wrote:
On Thu, 11 Jul 2019 16:00:38 +1000, James wrote:


(In most of Australia it is a legal requirement to wear a helmet. That
in itself could be said to be a change to what you're wearing.)


Unless you've just been up a ladder.
Bacxkground; men over 60 feature significantly in deaths from falling off
a ladder in Australia and I consider a bicycle helment of better use than
those plastic "construction hats".


A fellow died when he crashed his bicycle in Newcastle, NSW recently.
He was wearing a bicycle helmet at the time. He crashed negotiating,
fairly recently installed, tram tracks (street car tracks). The helmet
didn't prevent the fatal head injury that killed him.


AFAIK, plastic construction hats are more for offering some protection
from falling objects, rather than the person falling and landing on
their head.


Yes, exactly. Bike helmet promoters have long claimed the critical difference is
the ability to absorb much more kinetic energy.

The standards battle for bike helmets began (as did all helmet insanity) in the
U.S. The tiny company Skid Lid was pushed out of the market by an impact
standard that Bell's design just passed, but Skid Lids failed. (When standards
are being set, it helps to be a big company who can talk to the standards setters.)

That was despite Skid Lid's heartfelt testimonials by users who claimed their
Skid Lid had saved their life.

- Frank Krygowski
  #53  
Old July 15th 19, 03:50 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,511
Default Bicycling specific clothing = why not?

On Monday, July 15, 2019 at 5:50:08 AM UTC-4, John B. wrote:

I think that the requirement to wear a hard hat on construction sites
is largely a requirement to pacify the insurance folks. At least that
is what the oil well drilling people used to tell us.


I've previously described watching a major repaving operation of a road near my
house. This road is busy enough they were doing the repaving only at night.

I watched one worker slowly driving a pickup truck along the road, stop it and
park it, then get out and walk back to the action. But before he got out, he
dutifully put on his construction hard hat.

All the work was being done at ground level. There was nothing overhead but the
stars. The hard hat would have done him more good _inside_ the truck, if anything.

But a rule is a rule, I'm sure.

- Frank Krygowski
  #54  
Old July 15th 19, 03:54 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Tom Kunich[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,231
Default Bicycling specific clothing = why not?

On Monday, July 15, 2019 at 6:05:03 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 7/14/2019 9:30 PM, James wrote:
On 11/7/19 10:30 pm, news18 wrote:
On Thu, 11 Jul 2019 16:00:38 +1000, James wrote:


(In most of Australia it is a legal requirement to wear a
helmet. That
in itself could be said to be a change to what you're
wearing.)

Unless you've just been up a ladder.
Bacxkground; men over 60 feature significantly in deaths
from falling off
a ladder in Australia and I consider a bicycle helment of
better use than
those plastic "construction hats".


A fellow died when he crashed his bicycle in Newcastle, NSW
recently. He was wearing a bicycle helmet at the time. He
crashed negotiating, fairly recently installed, tram tracks
(street car tracks). The helmet didn't prevent the fatal
head injury that killed him.


AFAIK, plastic construction hats are more for offering some
protection from falling objects, rather than the person
falling and landing on their head.


I assume we can all agree that below some impact level a
helmet would not be necessary and above some level you're
dead anyway.

What we don't know are those limits and how significant the
effective range is to the set of all crashes, considering
both range of impact force and frequency at those values.

The testing protocol seems not very relevant to the real
world IMHO but I don't know that.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971


Since my paper was old I looked at the latest relationship between helmet wearing, bicyclist's deaths and pedestrians deaths that that relationship is the same. So the effects of helmets is still too small to be detectable. Again I think that the latest Bontrager Wavecel helmets might possibly be a real change. But that remains to be seen as they are the only one's using that technology.
  #55  
Old July 15th 19, 05:02 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
JBeattie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,870
Default Bicycling specific clothing = why not?

On Monday, July 15, 2019 at 7:43:23 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Sunday, July 14, 2019 at 10:30:49 PM UTC-4, James wrote:
On 11/7/19 10:30 pm, news18 wrote:
On Thu, 11 Jul 2019 16:00:38 +1000, James wrote:


(In most of Australia it is a legal requirement to wear a helmet. That
in itself could be said to be a change to what you're wearing.)

Unless you've just been up a ladder.
Bacxkground; men over 60 feature significantly in deaths from falling off
a ladder in Australia and I consider a bicycle helment of better use than
those plastic "construction hats".


A fellow died when he crashed his bicycle in Newcastle, NSW recently.
He was wearing a bicycle helmet at the time. He crashed negotiating,
fairly recently installed, tram tracks (street car tracks). The helmet
didn't prevent the fatal head injury that killed him.


AFAIK, plastic construction hats are more for offering some protection
from falling objects, rather than the person falling and landing on
their head.


Yes, exactly. Bike helmet promoters have long claimed the critical difference is
the ability to absorb much more kinetic energy.

The standards battle for bike helmets began (as did all helmet insanity) in the
U.S. The tiny company Skid Lid was pushed out of the market by an impact
standard that Bell's design just passed, but Skid Lids failed. (When standards
are being set, it helps to be a big company who can talk to the standards setters.)

That was despite Skid Lid's heartfelt testimonials by users who claimed their
Skid Lid had saved their life.


When was the last time you saw someone in a Skid Lid? 1987? Most people have never even heard of a Skid Lid -- or the heartfelt testimonials of users. I don't even remember those. I do remember Skid Lid's do-no-harm approach, viz., the helmet won't harm you in an accident. https://tinyurl.com/y6ybzg32 The selling point for the local shops was that the helmet straps would separate if it got hung-up on something, unlike the Bell Biker. The Skid Lid was my first helmet-- prescribed by my girlfriend after I got hit by a car.

BTW, its easy to talk to the standard setters during rule making -- and you don't have to be a big company, but you better be prepared to make a case for a less protective standard. Its the Consumer Product Safety Commission and not the Consumer Product Sales Commission.

-- Jay Beattie.
  #56  
Old July 15th 19, 11:05 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,511
Default Bicycling specific clothing = why not?

On Monday, July 15, 2019 at 12:02:46 PM UTC-4, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, July 15, 2019 at 7:43:23 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Bike helmet promoters have long claimed the critical difference is
the ability to absorb much more kinetic energy.

The standards battle for bike helmets began (as did all helmet insanity) in the
U.S. The tiny company Skid Lid was pushed out of the market by an impact
standard that Bell's design just passed, but Skid Lids failed. (When standards
are being set, it helps to be a big company who can talk to the standards setters.)

That was despite Skid Lid's heartfelt testimonials by users who claimed their
Skid Lid had saved their life.


When was the last time you saw someone in a Skid Lid? 1987?


Sometime around them, I suppose. That's not surprising. As I understand it, it's
not legal to sell a bike helmet that doesn't meet the CPSC standard, a 2 meter
(roughly six foot) drop of a model of a decapitated head onto a flat surface.
The Skid wouldn't pass. The Bell Biker did.

So what's the scientific basis for 2 meters? There is none, except perhaps that
the Bell Biker would pass it. Articles at the time reported it was a crude
attempt to say "If a six-foot tall guy topples over at zero speed and hits his
head, this will probably prevent a serious problem." But reports also said that
brain injury specialists said it was clearly insufficient - as in "But bicyclists
will be moving" and "they will get hit by cars with much higher relative velocity." The response was "This is all we can do. A more protective helmet
won't be wearable."
So Skid Lid failed a completely arbitrary test, and thus was forced off the market.

Most people have never even heard of a Skid Lid -- or the heartfelt testimonials of users. I don't even remember those.


At that time, I was attending national bike conventions, and they typically had
exhibitors from various companies. (The first time I tried index shifting was
at one, fitted to a bike on a trainer.) Anyway, a Skid Lid booth had dozens of
letters claiming the helmet saved the writers' life. The most memorable one had
a drawing showing how the writer/artist hit an obstruction, flew over the
handlebars and landed on the crown of his head. It saved his life!

Obviously, those "saved my life" tales didn't convince the contemporary crop of
helmeteers. Obviously, those letter writers were mistaken, because the helmets
didn't pass the six-foot drop test. Just as obviously, all those people who
claim CPSC six-foot-plus-a-few-inches helmets saved their lives cannot be
doubted! And isn't it amazing how prescient that arbitrary limit turned out to
be? It's _precisely_ the difference between life saving and total junk!

BTW, its easy to talk to the standard setters during rule making -- and you don't have to be a big company, but you better be prepared to make a case for a less protective standard. Its the Consumer Product Safety Commission and not the Consumer Product Sales Commission.


Oh, sure, I'm positive the CPSC is always totally without bias. I'm sure its
functionaries are immune to influences like nice meals, a friendly gift, perhaps
use of a nice condo, box seats at a big game... You know, just like everyone
else.

- Frank Krygowski
  #57  
Old July 16th 19, 12:20 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Tom Kunich[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,231
Default Bicycling specific clothing = why not?

On Monday, July 15, 2019 at 3:05:07 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Monday, July 15, 2019 at 12:02:46 PM UTC-4, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, July 15, 2019 at 7:43:23 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Bike helmet promoters have long claimed the critical difference is
the ability to absorb much more kinetic energy.

The standards battle for bike helmets began (as did all helmet insanity) in the
U.S. The tiny company Skid Lid was pushed out of the market by an impact
standard that Bell's design just passed, but Skid Lids failed. (When standards
are being set, it helps to be a big company who can talk to the standards setters.)

That was despite Skid Lid's heartfelt testimonials by users who claimed their
Skid Lid had saved their life.


When was the last time you saw someone in a Skid Lid? 1987?


Sometime around them, I suppose. That's not surprising. As I understand it, it's
not legal to sell a bike helmet that doesn't meet the CPSC standard, a 2 meter
(roughly six foot) drop of a model of a decapitated head onto a flat surface.
The Skid wouldn't pass. The Bell Biker did.

So what's the scientific basis for 2 meters? There is none, except perhaps that
the Bell Biker would pass it. Articles at the time reported it was a crude
attempt to say "If a six-foot tall guy topples over at zero speed and hits his
head, this will probably prevent a serious problem." But reports also said that
brain injury specialists said it was clearly insufficient - as in "But bicyclists
will be moving" and "they will get hit by cars with much higher relative velocity." The response was "This is all we can do. A more protective helmet
won't be wearable."
So Skid Lid failed a completely arbitrary test, and thus was forced off the market.

Most people have never even heard of a Skid Lid -- or the heartfelt testimonials of users. I don't even remember those.


At that time, I was attending national bike conventions, and they typically had
exhibitors from various companies. (The first time I tried index shifting was
at one, fitted to a bike on a trainer.) Anyway, a Skid Lid booth had dozens of
letters claiming the helmet saved the writers' life. The most memorable one had
a drawing showing how the writer/artist hit an obstruction, flew over the
handlebars and landed on the crown of his head. It saved his life!

Obviously, those "saved my life" tales didn't convince the contemporary crop of
helmeteers. Obviously, those letter writers were mistaken, because the helmets
didn't pass the six-foot drop test. Just as obviously, all those people who
claim CPSC six-foot-plus-a-few-inches helmets saved their lives cannot be
doubted! And isn't it amazing how prescient that arbitrary limit turned out to
be? It's _precisely_ the difference between life saving and total junk!

BTW, its easy to talk to the standard setters during rule making -- and you don't have to be a big company, but you better be prepared to make a case for a less protective standard. Its the Consumer Product Safety Commission and not the Consumer Product Sales Commission.


Oh, sure, I'm positive the CPSC is always totally without bias. I'm sure its
functionaries are immune to influences like nice meals, a friendly gift, perhaps
use of a nice condo, box seats at a big game... You know, just like everyone
else.

- Frank Krygowski


The way Bell put it was "we can't make them any larger or people will not wear them because of the size". It had nothing to do with weight since motorcycle riders hardshell helmets are far more heavy. It has to do with sheer physical size and people not wanting to look like bobbleheads.
  #58  
Old July 16th 19, 12:27 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Tom Kunich[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,231
Default Bicycling specific clothing = why not?

On Monday, July 15, 2019 at 3:05:07 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Oh, sure, I'm positive the CPSC is always totally without bias. I'm sure its
functionaries are immune to influences like nice meals, a friendly gift, perhaps
use of a nice condo, box seats at a big game... You know, just like everyone
else.


Frank, you taught school. You're supposed to dissuade children that the world is evil and only they are honest. Instead it appears they taught you their version of the world.

It is like those moronic Democrat presumptive nominees saying we will tax those in the top .5% to pay for everyone's college tuition.

The top .5% make over $20 Million per year - there are 400 of those in the USA.

This insanity of "everyone is wicked but thee and me and sometimes I wonder about thee" are people afraid to grow up.
  #59  
Old July 16th 19, 12:30 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
jOHN b.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,421
Default Bicycling specific clothing = why not?

On Mon, 15 Jul 2019 07:50:47 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Monday, July 15, 2019 at 5:50:08 AM UTC-4, John B. wrote:

I think that the requirement to wear a hard hat on construction sites
is largely a requirement to pacify the insurance folks. At least that
is what the oil well drilling people used to tell us.


I've previously described watching a major repaving operation of a road near my
house. This road is busy enough they were doing the repaving only at night.

I watched one worker slowly driving a pickup truck along the road, stop it and
park it, then get out and walk back to the action. But before he got out, he
dutifully put on his construction hard hat.

All the work was being done at ground level. There was nothing overhead but the
stars. The hard hat would have done him more good _inside_ the truck, if anything.

But a rule is a rule, I'm sure.

- Frank Krygowski


Perhaps it was mandatory to wear a "hard hat". I've certainly worked
on projects where not wearing a hard hat was cause to be terminated
and most drilling rigs will not allow even "those guys wearing
suits" to go on the rig floor without a hard hat. It might be noted
that probably the lightest thing hanging over your head on a drilling
rig is the traveling block and swivel that probably weighs 3,000 lbs,
or more :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

  #60  
Old July 16th 19, 04:54 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,511
Default Bicycling specific clothing = why not?

On Monday, July 15, 2019 at 7:31:10 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jul 2019 07:50:47 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Monday, July 15, 2019 at 5:50:08 AM UTC-4, John B. wrote:

I think that the requirement to wear a hard hat on construction sites
is largely a requirement to pacify the insurance folks. At least that
is what the oil well drilling people used to tell us.


I've previously described watching a major repaving operation of a road near my
house. This road is busy enough they were doing the repaving only at night.

I watched one worker slowly driving a pickup truck along the road, stop it and
park it, then get out and walk back to the action. But before he got out, he
dutifully put on his construction hard hat.

All the work was being done at ground level. There was nothing overhead but the
stars. The hard hat would have done him more good _inside_ the truck, if anything.

But a rule is a rule, I'm sure.

- Frank Krygowski


Perhaps it was mandatory to wear a "hard hat". I've certainly worked
on projects where not wearing a hard hat was cause to be terminated
and most drilling rigs will not allow even "those guys wearing
suits" to go on the rig floor without a hard hat. It might be noted
that probably the lightest thing hanging over your head on a drilling
rig is the traveling block and swivel that probably weighs 3,000 lbs,
or more :-)


Oh, I have no doubt it was mandatory for these paving guys to wear hard hats.
I also have no doubt it was a stupid requirement. Realistically, the guys
biggest chance of a head injury was when he was getting out of his truck; he
might have bumped his head on the upper edge of the roof.

There was nothing above his head. There would be nothing above his head except
perhaps some telephone lines during the entire operation.

- Frank Krygowski
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
OT : Help - very specific tool required Judith[_4_] UK 15 April 26th 13 05:40 PM
Trike-specific shops? [email protected][_2_] Recumbent Biking 3 September 25th 09 06:15 PM
Unicycling-specific shorts kerosian Unicycling 9 August 4th 07 02:22 AM
Looking for a specific manufacturer Steve Hodgson UK 4 January 13th 07 10:22 PM
looking for a specific tyre dan de man Unicycling 7 July 7th 06 09:58 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:48 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.