not one for being stubborn or sticking your head in the sand at all are you max - though if you get a chance speak to a few paramedics and ask them what they think about the injured cyclists they pick up who werent wearing a helmet

simply saying - oh its uncomfortable is a bit lame - they weigh next to nothing tbh..

5-7k per year without a helmet in central london & youd have to have a death wish tbh...

Quote from: funkychicken9000

Quote from: M3ta7h3adListen up, here comes the science bit!

I hate to say it mate, but for all your supposed sciencey talk you have absolutely no grasp on the concepts of momentum and energy.

When you tip over sideways on a bike, you have angular momentum.  What happens when your shoulder hits the ground?  You dont "bounce back up", far from it.  Your body isnt a solid beam, surprise surprise bits move!  Your body stops, your head carries on due to its momentum and hits the ground.  Fall over sideways without anticipating it and I would put money on your head making contact with the floor.  Who cares if your head hits the ground 0.01s before it would do if you werent wearing a helmet?  If youre wearing one youll walk away from it like I did when it happened to me, and if youre not then you may just have a trip to A&E and some lovely concussion to go with it.  That type of contact is exactly what a helmet is designed to soothe, they never pretended to help in head-on collisions with lorries.  Toppling sideways as often happens when cars pull out into you at roundabouts, crossings and junctions is where they come into their own.

For a guy who appears to proclaim himself "ENGINEERING PHYSICS DOODAD" You appear to try and "forget" what you need in order to try and make others appear stupid.

Can you tell me, what happens during elastic deformation?

Your head hitting the floor 0.01 seconds before your shoulders have fully compressed is the same difference between your head hitting a deflated airbag, or a full one.

Your body specifically your hips, spine, neck and head can be simulated by a hinged beam.

If using the elastic deformation hint, and the hinged beam concept you still cannot figure out exactly what I mean, I believe you need to have a bit of a gander at some GCSE Physics books.

Helmets are for kids, mtbs, and cyclists concerned with visibility, Oh lets add one more... slightly misguided physics students.

Quote from: funkychicken9000

Quote from: maximusotterSo wearing something that causes accidents because of heatstroke, annoyance, and sweat cascades, is good because it prevents injury in a few select cases? Circular logic!

FC2K, dont use some assumptive imaginary figures, if you want to play the numbers game, quote some numbers. None of this "9/10 ER nurses say..." baloney. Yeah, Ive had stitches twice, so what, helmut wouldnt have helped in either case. Even if it had, I wouldnt be converted. People fall walking every day, but we dont have pedestrian helmets.

By far and away the thing that affects safety is behavior, and by focusing on the red herring of helmets, subscribers to that sort of theology undermine public safety.

I often see whole families out riding these days, as cycling is very popular in our local parks and residential streets. Invariably, theyre riding three abreast or on the wrong side of the road or weaving or running stop signs causing motorists to slam on their brakes. But theyve got their Helmuts on! Yay, woo.

In this country, heatstroke is rare and sweat cascades arent a problem for the majority of the cycling public out on their pleasure rides or commutes.  So no circular logic here.  Also I dont see anywhere where Ive quoted any figures.  Ive stated what happens when a person falls sideways as Id like to think I understand the various motions involved quite well.  Perhaps you could point the figures you dissagree with out and Ill try to address them?

But its important also to note that you can be as safe as you like, but theres a limit to what you can protect yourself from.  You cant always account for other peoples behaviour, women driving into you while theyre busy applying their makeup, etc etc and this is why people take precautions.

I fully appreciate that the majority of cycling accidents are behavioural.  But really thats a seperate issue; if people feel wearing a helmet stops the need for sensible biking then they need the problem addressing through education - not by taking the helmet away!  Theres really no need to compromise on safety.  With more education people are more than capable of being safe cyclists, helmet or no helmet.  I dont think anyone can dispute that really.  

Prove to me that helmets work. Period. The burden of proof is in your court, not mine. Prove that they work beyond preventing laceration. Prove that theyre statistically worth while. You wont be able to. The figures beyond subjective guesses simply dont exist.

Want a real argument? Talk to a Dutchman, theyll probably collapse laughing. Last time I was in Amsterdam, people could spot the Americans because of their beanies, and folks found it highly amusing.

In addition to proving that helmets are effective statistically, go ahead and prove that cycling is a hazardous activity when done on the road responsibly. Thats another impossible task, but youre welcome to piss away your time on it. Meanwhile, Ill spend mine in the saddle.

I know Im right, so no more posting here for me. Bye now.

Quote from: M3ta7h3adFor a guy who appears to proclaim himself "ENGINEERING PHYSICS DOODAD" You appear to try and "forget" what you need in order to try and make others appear stupid.

Can you tell me, what happens during elastic deformation?

Your head hitting the floor 0.01 seconds before your shoulders have fully compressed is the same difference between your head hitting a deflated airbag, or a full one.

Your body specifically your hips, spine, neck and head can be simulated by a hinged beam.

If using the elastic deformation hint, and the hinged beam concept you still cannot figure out exactly what I mean, I believe you need to have a bit of a gander at some GCSE Physics books.

Helmets are for kids, mtbs, and cyclists concerned with visibility, Oh lets add one more... slightly misguided physics students.

Thats exactly your problem, GCSE logic

Youre making the classic mistake, using an incomplete toolkit to try to analyse a problem.  You only know about elastic deformation and freely pinjointed beams, so you dont consider the more important mechanisms; conservation of linear momentum, conservation of angular momentum, etc etc.  If you applied these principles correctly then you would notice that the effects of elastic deformation of your shoulder is somewhat insignificant when compared to the effects that stopping your body whilst leaving your head unsupported.

GCSE knowledge lets you solve GCSE problems.  Theyre the ones without momentum, deformation, mechanical resistances and anything involving rotation.  Sadly that means that with GCSE knowledge you cant successfully even begin to analyse the mechanism of a person falling over.  I reckon A level maths would give some insight, but still not enough.  Simple as that really  

the way some of the nutters round here drive your likely to have skull to windscreen action a little too often

Quote from: funkychicken9000

Quote from: M3ta7h3adFor a guy who appears to proclaim himself "ENGINEERING PHYSICS DOODAD" You appear to try and "forget" what you need in order to try and make others appear stupid.

Can you tell me, what happens during elastic deformation?

Your head hitting the floor 0.01 seconds before your shoulders have fully compressed is the same difference between your head hitting a deflated airbag, or a full one.

Your body specifically your hips, spine, neck and head can be simulated by a hinged beam.

If using the elastic deformation hint, and the hinged beam concept you still cannot figure out exactly what I mean, I believe you need to have a bit of a gander at some GCSE Physics books.

Helmets are for kids, mtbs, and cyclists concerned with visibility, Oh lets add one more... slightly misguided physics students.

Thats exactly your problem, GCSE logic

Youre making the classic mistake, using an incomplete toolkit to try to analyse a problem.  You only know about elastic deformation and freely pinjointed beams, so you dont consider the more important mechanisms; conservation of linear momentum, conservation of angular momentum, etc etc.  If you applied these principles correctly then you would notice that the effects of elastic deformation of your shoulder is somewhat insignificant when compared to the effects that stopping your body whilst leaving your head unsupported.

GCSE knowledge lets you solve GCSE problems.  Theyre the ones without momentum, deformation, mechanical resistances and anything involving rotation.  Sadly that means that with GCSE knowledge you cant successfully even begin to analyse the mechanism of a person falling over.  I reckon A level maths would give some insight, but still not enough.  Simple as that really  

Really? Consider this... all of those topics that you seem to think I havent covered are in the WJEC A level syllabus for Physics, that strangely enough I do have. Along with the years foundation in Engineering I did at university, granted this covered maths/mechanics/physics and some chemistry strangely enough, but im pretty sure I have enough grounding to understand all of the above that you mention.

What you say doesnt make sense either scientifically or otherwise! But this is going around in circles so lets change the topic slightly.

Ni: With regards to "my head is larger", would you or would you not say a head covering of say an inch or so, would indeed increase the dimensions of said head.

With regards to "more likely to hit things", would you or would you not say, a larger "target area" as it were, increases the likelyhood in which said target area will be involved in an impact.

Max is coming at it from the viewpoint of, providing you arent a complete idiot on the road you arent going to need one. Where as im having to explain to a guy that is into engineering as far as im aware some basic concepts in physics, I havent actually needed to prove anything im having to bloody type stuff to help FC9K "get" what I mean. (Perhaps its my way of explaining, I will freely admit some of my descriptions could be vague and unclear, if I had something other than MSPaint on here Id come up with some nice drawings).

Youve never had to cycle down a busy trail thats overgrown so bad in places that many letters have gone to the council in order for them to sort it out. Its certainly not cycling like a spaz, its keeping left when a shedload of people are passing on the right, and having to keep going as a shedload of people are behind you. Trees get in the way theres nothing I can do about them, and I duck as far as im comfortable ducking.

As for proof: http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html?1052 I suggest you start there, if you have athens access you can read some of the references it mentions, some however are printed journals only (unfortunately the one that describes what im trying to explain to FC9K, that wearing a helmet increases the chances that your head will be involved in a collision, is one of those).

Just to prove im not going completely bonkers, the website actually mentions some stuff from the journal I mention for FC9K.

QuoteThere is a good deal of circumstantial evidence that helmeted cyclists are more likely to crash, and data from one study [4] suggests that those wearing a helmet are more than 7 times likely to hit their heads if they do.

Many falls result in arm and shoulder impacts that keep an unhelmeted head just clear of the ground. A helmeted head, being twice as big and a little heavier, is more likely to hit something.

Im going to echo Niges sentiments, truly a classic Tekforums thread. Lovin the banter

Back when I used to cycle as a nipper I never once wore a helmet. Despite many nasty falls borne of my own stupidity and fearlessness, I never once received any serious head wounds (even at a time when only front braking was available on my bike). From what I can also remember it wasnt really that hard to keep my head away from the ground when falling off either; I have a feeling that unless the initial blow to yourself or your bike is enough to cause you to fall fast enough or to have taken enough of a concussive blow to not be able to fall relatively safely, then you are not going to knock your noggin either as it is not difficult to react. You rbody and brain have automatic mechanisms for this kind of thing, the same way tripping over in the street is not going to guarantee you a trip to A&E - your body takes over and assists you in  an inelegant recovery. Sure there are bound to be exceptions, but Im with max & MH on this. Id take no helmet on comfort vs risk.

Quote from: M3ta7h3adReally? Consider this... all of those topics that you seem to think I havent covered are in the WJEC A level syllabus for Physics, that strangely enough I do have. Along with the years foundation in Engineering I did at university, granted this covered maths/mechanics/physics and some chemistry strangely enough, but im pretty sure I have enough grounding to understand all of the above that you mention.

What you say doesnt make sense either scientifically or otherwise! But this is going around in circles so lets change the topic slightly.

 

Ok mate, I can see this is getting to you and Im sorry you evidently feel so strongly about it.  Id walk you through the maths behind this and explain it all to you, but Im afraid Im a lazy guy and so Im not going to spend the next 30 minutes doing all the gubbins necessary to leave you with your foot in your mouth.  In the nicest possible way of course  

From perpetual motion cycling by "shifting your weight around" to the notion that sitting in a bath somehow lets you accelerate to the speed of light without injury, this forum has more than its fair share of zany physics.  Keep em coming, gives me a smile now and then  

It doesnt really matter though does it? I came 1st in NI in physics at A-level and I averaged 92.5% throughout my degree - and you know what? It doesnt matter a damn because its a 100% made up science!

I could just as easily say wearing a cycling helmet causes cornflakes to be eaten by some people - its true, and it isnt!

There are three things that matter - (i) being happy (ii) being ignorant of things that make you unhappy and most importantly (iii) football is sh*te.

Anyway back to the point - my take on it would be - why NOT wear a helmet - knowing the protection is there is better than knowing it isnt?

Certainly motorcyclists who ride without protective gear are pushing their luck. It isnt up to YOUR skill or how YOU ride 100% of the time, there are other people to think about too. Any accident I have ever had hasnt been my fault. I was glad the protective gear was there - I could easily have not worn it to keep cooler or whatever, or because i thought the way i was riding wouldnt get me into trouble and i would be sans hands and most of my skin now!

At the end of the day whats getting to me is your attitude on these forums, always has and always will.

Perpetual motion? if thats what you think my thoughts on pedalling were then your sorely mistaken  :shock:  (I would have thought better of such a physics whizkid as yourself). As by its own definition "shifting" means to move, to move you are required to input energy at least in my tiny ape like brain it appears to be that way. Perpetual motion seems to me to suggest the notion of motion continued regardless of energy input, which isnt what "shifting your weight" is.

     

What you have said in this thread is complete bollocks. As others have mentioned, they very rarely hit their heads, or have yet to do so in a fall. I believe this is down to the bodys reactions, and the actual nature of the human body. If A is attached via a hinge to B, and A hits the ground, then a damping effect occurs (as we are in a gravitational field here, and the fat,muscle and bone ultimately... will compress on impact, and expand after impact) (oh.. and damping.. laymans terms.. BOUNCES!), B in some cases will not necessarily have to impact the ground as well as A, and if B does impact, it will not be as vicious an impact as it would without the damping effect of A.

Its a damping effect.. it dampens things.  

Now substitute A with Shoulder, hinge with Neck, and B with head. Simple enough to understand now? Angular velocities, and other such wonderful words do not even need to come into it, as we arent dealing with exact figures, its a simple description of what happens when a collision occurs involving a body seperated by a hinge.

Im not talking bollocks, considering its been documented in medical journals as far back as 1988. So that leaves only one option left here, Your wrong mate. k..thx..and bai. (or game, set and match however you like it).

Quote from: BXGTi16VIt doesnt really matter though does it? I came 1st in NI in physics at A-level and I averaged 92.5% throughout my degree - and you know what? It doesnt matter a damn because its a 100% made up science!

I could just as easily say wearing a cycling helmet causes cornflakes to be eaten by some people - its true, and it isnt!

There are three things that matter - (i) being happy (ii) being ignorant of things that make you unhappy and most importantly (iii) football is sh*te.

Anyway back to the point - my take on it would be - why NOT wear a helmet - knowing the protection is there is better than knowing it isnt?

Certainly motorcyclists who ride without protective gear are pushing their luck. It isnt up to YOUR skill or how YOU ride 100% of the time, there are other people to think about too. Any accident I have ever had hasnt been my fault. I was glad the protective gear was there - I could easily have not worn it to keep cooler or whatever, or because i thought the way i was riding wouldnt get me into trouble and i would be sans hands and most of my skin now!

True, but then you look at injury statistics.

Car Drivers have more head injuries than cyclists (should they then wear helmets??)

Pedestrians also, suffer more head injuries than cyclists (Again... should they wear helmets??)

Using an escalator causes more head injuries than riding a bike.

So effectively the entire world is relying on a piece of polystyrene thats been proven to cause risk compensation (you ride a little wilder... because you feel safer), to protect their heads against an injury that will happen once in a blue moon.

Also the margin that which a polystyrene hat will protect you, and a skull wont is so narrow that chances are if your going to end up a vegetable after a crash, you would end up one wearing a helmet, or not wearing one.

A cycle helmet protects against grazes and cuts, and minor injuries, and thats it. Cycle fatalities between helmeted and non-helmeted people are the same in various countries, only difference is in "admissions for head injuries" i.e. an A&E visit for some butterfly stitches, or a concussion.

Quote from: M3ta7h3adAt the end of the day whats getting to me is your attitude on these forums, always has and always will.

Perpetual motion? if thats what you think my thoughts on pedalling were then your sorely mistaken  :shock:  (I would have thought better of such a physics whizkid as yourself). As by its own definition "shifting" means to move, to move you are required to input energy at least in my tiny ape like brain it appears to be that way. Perpetual motion seems to me to suggest the notion of motion continued regardless of energy input, which isnt what "shifting your weight" is.

     

What you have said in this thread is complete bollocks. As others have mentioned, they very rarely hit their heads, or have yet to do so in a fall. I believe this is down to the bodys reactions, and the actual nature of the human body. If A is attached via a hinge to B, and A hits the ground, then a damping effect occurs (as we are in a gravitational field here, and the fat,muscle and bone ultimately... will compress on impact, and expand after impact) (oh.. and damping.. laymans terms.. BOUNCES!), B in some cases will not necessarily have to impact the ground as well as A, and if B does impact, it will not be as vicious an impact as it would without the damping effect of A.

Its a damping effect.. it dampens things.  

Now substitute A with Shoulder, hinge with Neck, and B with head. Simple enough to understand now? Angular velocities, and other such wonderful words do not even need to come into it, as we arent dealing with exact figures, its a simple description of what happens when a collision occurs involving a body seperated by a hinge.

Im not talking bollocks, considering its been documented in medical journals as far back as 1988. So that leaves only one option left here, Your wrong mate. k..thx..and bai. (or game, set and match however you like it).

You proposed that it was possible to move the bike merely by using your weight as a power source and putting force on alternate pedals.  As I explained in great detail (and as you eventually admitted), this is bollocks.  You proposed a perpetual motion machine, it was impossible.  Simple as.

You continue to make very little sense about the rest of this though.  Youre saying the impact is worse when you wear a helmet, Im saying thats complete bollocks and explaining why.  I couldnt care less whether you agree or not; your argument is flawed but you cant see why because youve only been taught basic principles, it aint your fault.  Three years ago I would have possibly agreed with you, but since doing half a degree in the subject I know better.  These concepts arent obvious, you dont question them unless you know what youre looking for.  Take a falling chimney, for example.  Any idea why it will *always* break roughly 1/3 of the way from the top as it rotates?  Its this kinda thing Im talking about.  Unless youve been taught the principles, youd call me a liar every time.  

Im not saying "You should wear a helmet because of physics and stuff", Im merely saying that Id rather be wearing a helmet if I fell like I described.

But you know what, who cares.  Ill wear one, you dont have to, Im sure you dont mind little old me deluding myself that its safer now do you

actually all ive really said is "you are more likely to hit your head", and wearing a helmet can actually cause more head injuries because of that.

Thats all.

At the end of the day your right I couldnt give two hoots if you wore a helmet. Nor could I if anyone else does, but I do not appreciate being treated like an idiot. When its clear what I am saying is true. Your shoulders compress less before impact with the floor wearing a helmet than not. This "0.01" seconds makes no difference, does make a difference, an extra few ms-1 knocked off of the velocity at which your head hits the floor makes all the difference. And less not forget about the increased mass as well (helmets do weigh something

And the pedal thing, yes Ill admit I was seeing the wrong end of the stick at that point, but my theory was coming from "well if walking forward is achieved by actually forcing ones self to become unbalanced in a certain direction. Surely the same would apply to cycling". Same theory that allows robots to walk by the use of a heavy pendulum. Fair enough it may be wrong but you can at least understand why I thought that.

max states the right reasons for not wearing a helmet, ive just been having an argument with you really.  

Ive had loads of injuries where wearing a helmet would have shifted the injurys further down.

Ive got a monster scar on my shoulder and under my eye.  With the force I hit the floor, Id have bust my jaw.

Ill take the scar

Ive ridden like a real ass before now, through the city center and on the normal roads.  Ive been in countless collisions with cars, Not always my fault though.  Ive never hit my head through road riding.  If bike helmets are anything like motorbike helmets, then they are designed to stop you scuffing the skin and lessening the blow.  Wont do jack if you hit a kerb.  wont stop something impaling it.

Off road riding should really warrent helmet use, as there are rocks and tree roots and all sorts.  Its quite dangerous out there.  Still I dont wear one.  I have one but I dont wear it.  And I cant see my self wearing it any time soon,