Sad helmet incident

On 1/20/2020 5:37 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 13:25:42 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 1/19/2020 10:39 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 22:25:40 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 1/19/2020 2:45 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but it is very unlikely that
bicycle helmets will disappear or be outlawed in the foreseeable
future. Even if some neutral organization could be found to sponsor a
long term study proving that bicycle helmets cause some accidents, are
unsafe, and generally fail to deliver on advertised promises, bicycle
helmets will not disappear from the market or from general use.

That's because the PERCEPTION of safety is what sells bicycle helmets.
To the GUM (great unwashed masses), one is simply not riding safely
without a bicycle helmet.

I admit, I'm hoping for a sudden epidemic of acute rationality. Heck,
I'd be satisfied with slowly increasing chronic rationality.

I'm hoping that gradually, people will begin saying "Wait a minute, the
data shows there's just not much head injury risk in riding a bike." And
perhaps "It looks like bike helmets really aren't doing much good."

It's not impossible. The idealists who want to promote bicycling so
people stop driving cars are beginning to say "Helmet laws are
counterproductive" and sometimes even saying "Helmets aren't needed."
They're pointing out facts like tens of millions of American bike share
trips, with a total of only one fatality ever. They're actively
countering some of the worst nonsense.

I don't agree with everything these people say, but I think they're
right about MHLs.

https://usa.streetsblog.org/2020/01/...-laws-are-bad/

I've always been of the opinion that making laws to ensure people act
safe is the wrong way to approach the subject. I would rather see
something that obviously penalized the individual such as "if you
aren't wearing a helmet your hospitalization is null and void".

I guess you mean "your hospitalization insurance"? If so, I'd agree ONLY
if that were applied to absolutely everyone who appeared at a hospital
with a head injury. Not just bicyclists.

I'll note that statements like yours are not uncommon in helmet rants on
the internet, especially when non-cyclists post in comments on news
articles. But those non-cyclists always aim that prejudiced proposal
ONLY at bicyclists. Never at motorists and never at pedestrians,
although their count of head (or brain) injuries absolutely eclipses
that of bicyclists.

You are adapt at ignoring the point of the argument, aren't you. The
discussion is about bicycle helmets, not pedestrian helmets, auto
helmets, helmets for sleeping in, etc. Thus I was speaking of bicycle
helmets and posing a different solution, which I suggest is more fair
than, or at least offers more individual choice than, an all
encompassing "helmet law".

Explain why you think that would be fair if applied only to bicyclists.

http://www.copenhagenize.com/2009/05...high-risk.html

http://www.copenhagenize.com/2009/10...motorists.html

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 17:55:56 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 1/20/2020 5:37 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 13:25:42 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 1/19/2020 10:39 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 22:25:40 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 1/19/2020 2:45 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but it is very unlikely that
bicycle helmets will disappear or be outlawed in the foreseeable
future. Even if some neutral organization could be found to sponsor a
long term study proving that bicycle helmets cause some accidents, are
unsafe, and generally fail to deliver on advertised promises, bicycle
helmets will not disappear from the market or from general use.

That's because the PERCEPTION of safety is what sells bicycle helmets.
To the GUM (great unwashed masses), one is simply not riding safely
without a bicycle helmet.

I admit, I'm hoping for a sudden epidemic of acute rationality. Heck,
I'd be satisfied with slowly increasing chronic rationality.

I'm hoping that gradually, people will begin saying "Wait a minute, the
data shows there's just not much head injury risk in riding a bike." And
perhaps "It looks like bike helmets really aren't doing much good."

It's not impossible. The idealists who want to promote bicycling so
people stop driving cars are beginning to say "Helmet laws are
counterproductive" and sometimes even saying "Helmets aren't needed."
They're pointing out facts like tens of millions of American bike share
trips, with a total of only one fatality ever. They're actively
countering some of the worst nonsense.

I don't agree with everything these people say, but I think they're
right about MHLs.

https://usa.streetsblog.org/2020/01/...-laws-are-bad/

I've always been of the opinion that making laws to ensure people act
safe is the wrong way to approach the subject. I would rather see
something that obviously penalized the individual such as "if you
aren't wearing a helmet your hospitalization is null and void".

I guess you mean "your hospitalization insurance"? If so, I'd agree ONLY
if that were applied to absolutely everyone who appeared at a hospital
with a head injury. Not just bicyclists.

I'll note that statements like yours are not uncommon in helmet rants on
the internet, especially when non-cyclists post in comments on news
articles. But those non-cyclists always aim that prejudiced proposal
ONLY at bicyclists. Never at motorists and never at pedestrians,
although their count of head (or brain) injuries absolutely eclipses
that of bicyclists.

You are adapt at ignoring the point of the argument, aren't you. The
discussion is about bicycle helmets, not pedestrian helmets, auto
helmets, helmets for sleeping in, etc. Thus I was speaking of bicycle
helmets and posing a different solution, which I suggest is more fair
than, or at least offers more individual choice than, an all
encompassing "helmet law".

Explain why you think that would be fair if applied only to bicyclists.


Oh, I must have been confused. I thought we were talking about bicycle
helmets, I had not realized that you were addressing a much broader
spectrum and were referring to auto helmets and perhaps even helmets
made for bungee jumping.

But you left out Ballet, all those folks leaping and spinning around,
sometimes on only one foot. They really should be wearing helmets,
shouldn't they?

http://www.copenhagenize.com/2009/05...high-risk.html

http://www.copenhagenize.com/2009/10...motorists.html
--
cheers,

John B.

On 1/20/2020 5:43 PM, sms wrote:
On 1/20/2020 7:32 AM, wrote:

snip

Personally I agree with Frank that helmets should not made mandatory.

I don't think anyone on r.b.t. has ever advocated for making helmets
mandatory.

False. They haven't done so for a long time, because they were shown to
be wrong in many ways. But there was a time we had posters who were in
favor of mandatory helmet laws.


But those that dismiss the overwhelming scientific and
statistical evidence just to try to justify their personal choices, are
not helping to prevent MHLs, it's the exact opposite.

Imagine a government hearing on an MHL. On one side you have ER doctors,
EMTs, RNs, etc., explaining the benefits of helmets and showing
statistical evidence comparing injury and fatality rates of helmeted
versus non-helmeted cyclists. On the other side you have someone talking
about foam hats and gardening helmets, and asking why driving helmets
should not also be made mandatory. The legislators have to decide who to
believe.

If you strip away your straw man arguments, you're describing an actual
event. But it went entirely opposite of the way you pretend.

Quite a few years ago, in the big MHL push of the 1990s, there was a
bill in committee in our state legislature to make helmets mandatory for
kids. A friend and I testified in opposition to the bill. We're both
well qualified, with excellent educational and cycling credentials.

We heard physicians and nurses testifying (most making use of the T&R
"85%" claim, which was still widely accepted in those days). We heard
testimony from some terrified little boy who said he was riding his bike
and fell off and hit his head, who broke down in tears and said if he
hadn't worn his helmet he would be dead. We heard from the ladies of
Safe Kids Inc., the main lobbying organization behind the bill.

Then my friend and I testified. My first move was to give each
legislator at the table a packet of data, plus a few papers from
scientific journals with appropriate highlights. The first page was a
summary of my main points, with certain pertinent graphs. Among the
inner pages was a list of helmet promotion claims, followed by the
rebuttals based on available data.

My friend's approach was different. He focused on the overemphasis on
helmets in safety education, discussing the actual reasons for kids
crashes, especially car-bike crashes. He pointed out the ineffectiveness
of badly worn or badly adjusted helmets. His main point is, there are
much more important safety considerations.

The reaction of the legislators was interesting. Throughout the
pro-helmet testimony, the chairman looked respectful, but most others
looked bored, in a "yeah, yeah" sort of way. One legislator was actually
nodding off.

When we began to testify, the nodding guy came awake, and all of them
perked up - as in "Oh, this is information we hadn't heard!" They
listened attentively, paged through the packet a bit, asked me a few
questions and asked my friend even more questions. And afterwards, one
of the pro-helmet testifiers (IIRC, the only male to testify pro-helmet)
came up to us and said "You pointed out many things I didn't know.
You've really given me a lot to think about," or words to that effect.

The bill never made it out of committee. Similar bills have been
introduced a couple times, but those did even worse.

And I'll point out, I have much more data these days than I did for that
testimony. It's no guarantee that legislative craziness won't occur. But
since the 1990s, very few MHLs have been passed.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 1/20/2020 11:14 AM, jbeattie wrote:

snip

Ah, the good old days: https://attheu.utah.edu/home-page/be...alt-lake-city/ At Specialized, I think he can get a helmet for like $1. He's seen his friends injured and has had spills of his own racing and riding, so he generally wears a helmet when he rides.

OMG, does he realize that by doing so he's silently voting for
compulsory helmet laws?

On 1/20/2020 6:36 AM, Duane wrote:

snip

You forgot about the bit where you say you cracked your helmet and get
back "you only hit your head because of the added thickness of the
helmet." Like SRA says, it's not possible to make such conclusions with
no clue of the circumstances.

LOL, since when has Frank having no clue of the circumstances prevented
him making such proclamations. That has been going on in r.b.t. for decades.

On Monday, January 20, 2020 at 2:36:47 PM UTC, Duane wrote:
On 1/20/2020 6:17 AM, wrote:
On Monday, January 20, 2020 at 11:00:17 AM UTC+1, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Monday, 20 January 2020 03:55:02 UTC-5, wrote:
On Sunday, January 19, 2020 at 11:40:34 PM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, January 19, 2020 at 11:39:07 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/19/2020 12:02 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, January 19, 2020 at 8:38:52 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Even on this group, we've
had people who used to say helmets saved lives or prevent brain
injuries. Now they piously say they wear a helmet only to prevent minor
injuries.

But they never ride without it.

. . . because they would prefer to avoid scalp injury, skull fracture, maybe even mitigate concussion. Sounds like a reasonable thing to do. I'm going out in a bit -- wet pavement, poor traction, rough roads. Seems like an appropriate time for a helmet. Why not? Wearing a helmet does not crush my soul, enslave my head, embolden Big Helmet or pose any other existential threat -- at least to me. I also wear gloves for hand protection.

You're allowed to wear it, Jay. You can justify it to yourself however
you like. Ditto the gloves.

But two points:

First, I also ride roads that are famous - or rather, notorious - for
roughness. (I can explain why in terms of state funding for county
roads, if you like.) I'm sure I ride far fewer miles on wet roads than
you, but I still ride them, the last time being about five days ago..
It's certainly possible to do these things without hitting one's head.
Since becoming an adult, the only time my head ever touched earth
(lightly) from a bike crash was about 12 years ago, when our tandem's
forks suddenly snapped off.

I think I'm more cautious than you. Maybe that's because I don't feel
protected by a helmet?

Second point: The people I'm talking about say they _never_ ride without
a helmet. I also know people who never ride without gloves. Really? Is
_every_ ride so dangerous that protective gear is needed?

I strongly suspect that most of those people will jump in a car to ride
two blocks to buy a magazine. And indeed, I recall the day when I had
ridden my bike less than half a mile to a store, where a guy I know said
"Where's your helmet??"

This mania for protection - but ONLY when traveling by bicycle - can't
help but dissuade a lot of bike use.

Speaking of manias, you've made helmets your own white whale or bete noire -- pick your color. If you don't want to wear a helmet, fine. Helmets have prevented me from having more extensive injuries, so I wear one. I don't see the same deep, deep downside as you. And no, there is no giant conspiracy to pass a MHL in Oregon, so I'm not going to agonize over looming helmet laws and the possible enslavement of my hair.

-- Jay Beattie.

Jay what would Frank do with his time when everyone agreed with his views. Like you I make my own judgement and distrust any data of any study about helmet use. Saves me a lot of time which we can spend on actual riding our bike(s).

Lou

A number of years ago I wiped out with such force that my helmeted head bounced off the pavement twice and had a very nice dent in the temple area. Frank's response to my post about that incident was if I had not been wearing the helmet my head would not have struck the pavement. It's amazing what Frank can see from thousands of miles or thousands of kilometers away from every incident.

Cheers

I think annoying is that if someone report a crash or fall and claims that he benefited from wearing a helmet (not save our life) he often says because it never happened to Frank to him that:
- he/she took too much risk/misjudged the situation,
- he/she could prevented it by riding more carefully or should have taken a course or read a book,
- wearing a helmet didn't make a difference,
- wearing a helmet make us guilty of the fear mongering.

And the most annying is that after this he says: 'you can do/wear/buy' whatever you want.

Lou

+1

You forgot about the bit where you say you cracked your helmet and get
back "you only hit your head because of the added thickness of the
helmet." Like SRA says, it's not possible to make such conclusions with
no clue of the circumstances.

I'm with Jay and Andre. I wear a helmet because road rash on my head
hurts like hell and scalp wounds bleed a lot and though my ears are
larger than necessary I don't want to scrape them down in size.

I have no confidence that a bike helmet with prevent concussions. Hell
football helmets don't and they're a lot stronger than bike helmets.
Both may mitigate the damage but I wouldn't depend on it.

What I really want is armour to protect my little fingers, especially at the first joint. I have bumps on both little fingers where they've been repeatedly broken in the first joint. It doesn't matter what sort of a wipe-out it is, I will probably be perfectly okay (I still have very fast reflexes and the break fall was drilled into me when I was a junior national judo champion -- an amazing thing for someone my size but the little nimble people were all down with flu that year and the next year I wisely decided not to defend my title, choosing instead to go on a rugby tour of Argentina), except for the broken little finger and one occasion when I took a header over the bars in avoiding a drunken motorist, two broken little fingers.

Andre Jute
Not asking for much

On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 13:38:19 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 1/20/2020 11:09 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
...
So, what is left for a bicycle helmet company to do? Well, they can
divert R&D money into political lobbying or perception advertising in
the hope of making their products mandatory. They can push for
declaring their products defunct or unsafe after every collision, thus
creating a replacement market....

Vaguely related: We recently heard and read several news articles
cautioning parents to NEVER buy a used car seat for a child. Why?
Because the car seat may have been in a crash and suffered invisible
damage.


Don't worry about damaged helmets. Some new and undamaged helmets may
not meet the various safety standards:
"Bike Helmets That Don't Meet Safety Standards Are Widely
Available, Consumer Reports Finds"
https://www.consumerreports.org/bike-helmets/bike-helmets-that-dont-meet-federal-safety-standards-are-widely-available/

A lot like a used bike helmet, that may have bumped on the ground and
invisibly caused its magic to leak out.

Magic foam perhaps? As long as the outer shell isn't damaged,
repairing the EPS foam with a suitable adhesive (3M #78):
https://www.amazon.com/3M-Polystyrene-Insulation-Adhesive-INVERTED/dp/B004M8S29M/141-0401742-7628754
should work. I would probably try it with my own helmets, but not on
a customers, friends, or child's helmet. Too much risk involved.
Anyway, if you're worried about internal damage to the EPS foam, you
can probably feel it through the thin shell or spray on coating.

Methinks it would be possible to design a helmet that could be easily
inspected for damage to the magic foam. Dope the EPS foam with UV
luminescent phosphor. Coat or dip the foam in some kind of paint or
conformal coating that does not contain a UV luminescent indicator.
When the foam cracks, the UV doped core is exposed through the cracks,
which can be detected with a UV light (even through the shell).
https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=uv+flashlight
Kinda like the magic foam version of Magnaflux.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On 1/20/2020 6:18 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 17:55:56 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 1/20/2020 5:37 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 13:25:42 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 1/19/2020 10:39 PM, John B. wrote:


I've always been of the opinion that making laws to ensure people act
safe is the wrong way to approach the subject. I would rather see
something that obviously penalized the individual such as "if you
aren't wearing a helmet your hospitalization is null and void".

I guess you mean "your hospitalization insurance"? If so, I'd agree ONLY
if that were applied to absolutely everyone who appeared at a hospital
with a head injury. Not just bicyclists.

I'll note that statements like yours are not uncommon in helmet rants on
the internet, especially when non-cyclists post in comments on news
articles. But those non-cyclists always aim that prejudiced proposal
ONLY at bicyclists. Never at motorists and never at pedestrians,
although their count of head (or brain) injuries absolutely eclipses
that of bicyclists.

You are adapt at ignoring the point of the argument, aren't you. The
discussion is about bicycle helmets, not pedestrian helmets, auto
helmets, helmets for sleeping in, etc. Thus I was speaking of bicycle
helmets and posing a different solution, which I suggest is more fair
than, or at least offers more individual choice than, an all
encompassing "helmet law".

Explain why you think that would be fair if applied only to bicyclists.


Oh, I must have been confused. I thought we were talking about bicycle
helmets, I had not realized that you were addressing a much broader
spectrum and were referring to auto helmets and perhaps even helmets
made for bungee jumping.

But you left out Ballet, all those folks leaping and spinning around,
sometimes on only one foot. They really should be wearing helmets,
shouldn't they?

That's one of the major points, John. People have been taught to pretend
that bicycling - any bicycling, even in the calmest locations at the
most casual speeds - is a major risk for brain injury; and therefore
they're told any bicyclist - no matter how short, tame or careful their
rides - really ought to wear a helmet for every ride.

Why the special attention for bicyclists? Why the fear mongering? It's
certainly not because data shows great risk!

I believe here's why: Bicycling, at least in America (where this all
started) encompasses a huge market of people who are engaged in an
unusual activity, and whose most avid members "suit up" with special
clothes for any ride they do. So: "Hey, I bet we can sell them a special
hat!"

They suit up because they don't use their bike for much ordinary travel.
Most Americans who ride 100km at the drop of a hat won't bike to the
grocery or pharmacy. They treat each bike ride as a quasi-sporting
event. And sports - well, gosh, by definition that's pushing yourself to
your limits, right? And isn't pushing to the limit dangerous?

But aren't you more perceptive? Aren't you capable of looking up numbers
for the actual risk, relative to other common activities?

Why give those other activities a free pass?

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 19:48:16 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 1/20/2020 6:18 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 17:55:56 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 1/20/2020 5:37 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 13:25:42 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 1/19/2020 10:39 PM, John B. wrote:


I've always been of the opinion that making laws to ensure people act
safe is the wrong way to approach the subject. I would rather see
something that obviously penalized the individual such as "if you
aren't wearing a helmet your hospitalization is null and void".

I guess you mean "your hospitalization insurance"? If so, I'd agree ONLY
if that were applied to absolutely everyone who appeared at a hospital
with a head injury. Not just bicyclists.

I'll note that statements like yours are not uncommon in helmet rants on
the internet, especially when non-cyclists post in comments on news
articles. But those non-cyclists always aim that prejudiced proposal
ONLY at bicyclists. Never at motorists and never at pedestrians,
although their count of head (or brain) injuries absolutely eclipses
that of bicyclists.

You are adapt at ignoring the point of the argument, aren't you. The
discussion is about bicycle helmets, not pedestrian helmets, auto
helmets, helmets for sleeping in, etc. Thus I was speaking of bicycle
helmets and posing a different solution, which I suggest is more fair
than, or at least offers more individual choice than, an all
encompassing "helmet law".

Explain why you think that would be fair if applied only to bicyclists.


Oh, I must have been confused. I thought we were talking about bicycle
helmets, I had not realized that you were addressing a much broader
spectrum and were referring to auto helmets and perhaps even helmets
made for bungee jumping.

But you left out Ballet, all those folks leaping and spinning around,
sometimes on only one foot. They really should be wearing helmets,
shouldn't they?

That's one of the major points, John. People have been taught to pretend
that bicycling - any bicycling, even in the calmest locations at the
most casual speeds - is a major risk for brain injury; and therefore
they're told any bicyclist - no matter how short, tame or careful their
rides - really ought to wear a helmet for every ride.

Ah but... bicycling is dangerous. In the neighborhood of ~700 die
annually. You can argue about the degree of danger but the fact
remains they are laying there in the street, One can also argue that a
substantial number, in some studies more than half, died through their
own stupidity, thru reckless riding, but, I suppose, one does not want
to talk bad about the dead.

And people want the cheap and easy solution and just as you seem to
believe, in spite of all evidence to the contrary, that more gun laws
will stop the carnage, so advocates of bicycle helmets seem to believe
that if everyone just wore a helmet that everything would be
hunky-dory.

The fact that the kid was pulling wheelie in the middle of a four lane
high way when the 10 wheeler hit him or had diagnosed but untreated
mental problems before he shot up the school is rather complicated and
difficult to accept so just make a law and every bicyclist will be
safe and shootings will stop,

Why the special attention for bicyclists? Why the fear mongering? It's
certainly not because data shows great risk!

I believe here's why: Bicycling, at least in America (where this all
started) encompasses a huge market of people who are engaged in an
unusual activity, and whose most avid members "suit up" with special
clothes for any ride they do. So: "Hey, I bet we can sell them a special
hat!"

They suit up because they don't use their bike for much ordinary travel.
Most Americans who ride 100km at the drop of a hat won't bike to the
grocery or pharmacy. They treat each bike ride as a quasi-sporting
event. And sports - well, gosh, by definition that's pushing yourself to
your limits, right? And isn't pushing to the limit dangerous?

But aren't you more perceptive? Aren't you capable of looking up numbers
for the actual risk, relative to other common activities?

Why give those other activities a free pass?

Probably because they are the results of common happenings. As you
say, to ride a bike one must first don special clothing, fingerless
gloves and even special footwear but to drive down to Joe's house one
just hops in the car. Thus, auto accidents have become almost the norm
and are apparently acceptable to the public. In fact I doubt that the
U.S. public would stand for stringent auto laws, and their
enforcement.

One example is Singapore. They banned the use of hand phones while
driving a motor vehicle and established the penalty of a S$1,000
and/or several months in jail and enforced the law and guess what?
Nobody uses a hand phone while they are driving. I might add that at
the time the law was established $1,000 was more than a month's salary
for the average Singapore working man.

Ask SMS if he believes that recommending the promulgation a new law
providing a mandatory $1,350 fine and a possible jail sentence for use
of a hand phone while driving would enhance his efforts to be
reelected?
--
cheers,

John B.

On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 09:36:40 -0500, Duane
wrote:
I'm with Jay and Andre. I wear a helmet because road rash on my head
hurts like hell and scalp wounds bleed a lot and though my ears are
larger than necessary I don't want to scrape them down in size.

Well, if you don't care about impact protection, the design of a
bicycle helmet to protect against abrasion (road rash) is much
simpler. Instead of a web suspension and foam padding, all that's
needed is a sacrificial skull cap made of almost anything that can
prevent penetration when the road tries to act like a belt sander on
your head. Your brain might turn to mush from the impact damage, but
your skin, scalp, and ears will probably survive intact.

Time for some recreational math...
My Harbor Fright 1x30" belt sander runs at:
3260 ft/min = 54.3 ft/sec = 37 mph
https://www.harborfreight.com/1-in-x-30-in-belt-sander-61728.html
That's a bit fast for a bicycle, which I would guess can do 15 mph.
15 mph = 22 ft/sec
I need to slow down my belt sander by 1/2. A 40 grit aluminum oxide
belt should simulate a rather abrasive road surface. Now, all I need
to do is apply pressure to the half speed belt sander equal to the
weight of one's head (about 11 lbs), and see how long I might survive
before the belt breaks through the helmet. From the time, the
distance I might survive a head first skid into the pavement can be
easily calculated (1 sec = 22 ft at 15 mph).

Hmmm... let me think about this some more. I'm not sure I want to
know the answer.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558