|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |