New Forest cyclist unscathed after crashing into tractor bucket on descent

fukawitribe wrote:

Citation please. I can think of a number of reasons for something being deemed a "wrongful conviction" without it being due to mere assumption, but i've not put the time in you must have to make a judgement about whether they're all unconnected to the vast number of wrongful convictions.

[/quote]

This one, but there are many others https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Rachel_Nickell

Colin Stagg was targetted by the police to the exclusion of all others because the policeman in charge thought he was guilty.  Birmingham six, etc.

[/quote]

All burt, all. I'm aware of cases where assumptions were pivotal, i'm waiting for your evidence that all wrongful convictions are due to it... or just say that was hyperbole, i'm easy.

[/quote]

Which bit of "...as far as I know,..." did you not understand?

[/quote]

All of it. However when you state "the vast number of wrongful convictions, all of which as far as I know, caused by police making assumptions" i'd expect a certain reasonable, high percentage, of that 'vast' number to be familar to you if what you say is true - or you're just making sweeping generalisations based on nothing much to try and make a point. I'm asking which , that's all

[/quote]

Sorry, if you don't understand English, I can't help.

burtthebike wrote:

Sorry, if you don't understand English, I can't help.

I understand just fine - I just wanted you to put up or shut up, got neither, hey ho. Of this vast amount you could point out one, which rather makes your 'as far as I can see' moot. All wind.

Edit : burt, to be clear, I think you may be trying to say that 'of the vast number of wrongful convictions, all of the ones I know about are due to assumptions' rather than 'all of the vast number of wrongful convictions, as far as I can see, are due to assumptions' - they're radically different statements and whichever way you read it, i'd like to see some evidence you're basing that on rather that just noise. As it stands, your constructions reads much more like the latter.

fukawitribe wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

Sorry, if you don't understand English, I can't help.

I understand just fine - I just wanted you to put up or shut up, got neither, hey ho. Of this vast amount you could point out one, which rather makes your 'as far as I can see' moot. All wind.

 

Edit : burt, to be clear, I think you may be trying to say that 'of the vast number of wrongful convictions, all of the ones I know about are due to assumptions' rather than 'all of the vast number of wrongful convictions, as far as I can see, are due to assumptions' - they're radically different statements and whichever way you read it, i'd like to see some evidence you're basing that on rather that just noise. As it stands, your constructions reads much more like the latter.

Congratulations!  Suddenly you understand the meaning of "....as far as I know..."  See, it wasn't that difficult was it.

burtthebike wrote:

fukawitribe wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

Sorry, if you don't understand English, I can't help.

I understand just fine - I just wanted you to put up or shut up, got neither, hey ho. Of this vast amount you could point out one, which rather makes your 'as far as I can see' moot. All wind.

 

Edit : burt, to be clear, I think you may be trying to say that 'of the vast number of wrongful convictions, all of the ones I know about are due to assumptions' rather than 'all of the vast number of wrongful convictions, as far as I can see, are due to assumptions' - they're radically different statements and whichever way you read it, i'd like to see some evidence you're basing that on rather that just noise. As it stands, your constructions reads much more like the latter.

Congratulations!  Suddenly you understand the meaning of "....as far as I know..."  See, it wasn't that difficult was it.

I'm just explaining you didn't write what you seem to mean and you're still missing the point - and you still don't actually substantiate what you claim.. or is the sum total of the 'vast number of wrongful convictions' due to assumptions you can see equal to one ?

fukawitribe wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

fukawitribe wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

Sorry, if you don't understand English, I can't help.

I understand just fine - I just wanted you to put up or shut up, got neither, hey ho. Of this vast amount you could point out one, which rather makes your 'as far as I can see' moot. All wind.

 

Edit : burt, to be clear, I think you may be trying to say that 'of the vast number of wrongful convictions, all of the ones I know about are due to assumptions' rather than 'all of the vast number of wrongful convictions, as far as I can see, are due to assumptions' - they're radically different statements and whichever way you read it, i'd like to see some evidence you're basing that on rather that just noise. As it stands, your constructions reads much more like the latter.

Congratulations!  Suddenly you understand the meaning of "....as far as I know..."  See, it wasn't that difficult was it.

I'm just explaining you didn't write what you seem to mean and you're still missing the point - and you still don't actually substantiate what you claim.. or is the sum total of the 'vast number of wrongful convictions' due to assumptions you can see equal to one ?

Hole.  Digging.  Stop.

burtthebike wrote:

Hole.  Digging.  Stop.

I'll stop trying to discuss this - didn't think you had much to back up what you said, thought you might have had something beyond a single datum though. Hey ho. 

fukawitribe wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

Hole.  Digging.  Stop.

I'll stop trying to discuss this - didn't think you had much to back up what you said, thought you might have had something beyond a single datum though. Hey ho. 

Have you considered a Remedial English course for your comprehension problem?  https://study.com/academy/course/remedial-9th-grade-english.html

@HawkinsPeter; squirrel with dictionary, or dunce's cap perhaps?

burtthebike wrote:

fukawitribe wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

Hole.  Digging.  Stop.

I'll stop trying to discuss this - didn't think you had much to back up what you said, thought you might have had something beyond a single datum though. Hey ho. 

Have you considered a Remedial English course for your comprehension problem?  https://study.com/academy/course/remedial-9th-grade-english.html

@HawkinsPeter; squirrel with dictionary, or dunce's cap perhaps?

@Burtthebike - I have to ask why so many of your replies mangle the quoting tags and make it confusing?

Anyhow, here's a pic as requested

hawkinspeter wrote:

@Burtthebike - I have to ask why so many of your replies mangle the quoting tags and make it confusing?

Anyhow, here's a pic as requested

I don't like excessive verbiage, so I shorten quotes to remove irrelevancies, and that can make it confusing.

Thanks for the pic.

burtthebike wrote:

fukawitribe wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

Hole.  Digging.  Stop.

I'll stop trying to discuss this - didn't think you had much to back up what you said, thought you might have had something beyond a single datum though. Hey ho. 

Have you considered a Remedial English course for your comprehension problem?  https://study.com/academy/course/remedial-9th-grade-english.html

@HawkinsPeter; squirrel with dictionary, or dunce's cap perhaps?

I'll join you on the course then, hopefully improve ability to write what you mean...

" but just look at the vast number of wrongful convictions, all of which as far as I know, caused by police making assumptions rather than looking at the facts."

Edit : to clarify again, ambiguious so which ?

'wrongful convictions all of which, as far as I know, caused by..'
or
'wrongful convictions, all of which as far as I know caused by..'

The former is inline with the point you seemed to be making about the role assumptions make in the cases in general, but over generalised, the latter infers something from your knowledge about cases in general - to wit a reasonable analysis of them, enough to make an informed opinion. I was fishing for both - neither you've actually replied to.

That said, you'd be a brilliant politician burt.

"...but just look at the vast number of people who have died due to suffocation, all of which as far as I know, caused by inhaling cream from doughnuts"

"Minister ? Seriously ? How many cases did it take to figure that out ?"

"It happened to Mrs Bellingham in accounts, I believe that should satisfy the Right Honourable Gentleman."

fukawitribe wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

fukawitribe wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

Your opinion might differ, but just look at the vast number of wrongful convictions, all of which as far as I know, caused by police making assumptions rather than looking at the facts.

Citation please. I can think of a number of reasons for something being deemed a "wrongful conviction" without it being due to mere assumption, but i've not put the time in you must have to make a judgement about whether they're all unconnected to the vast number of wrongful convictions.

This one, but there are many others https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Rachel_Nickell

Colin Stagg was targetted by the police to the exclusion of all others because the policeman in charge thought he was guilty.  Birmingham six, etc.

All burt, all. I'm aware of cases where assumptions were pivotal, i'm waiting for your evidence that all wrongful convictions are due to it... or just say that was hyperbole, i'm easy.

It really sounds like you are just quibbling for the sake of it.

  What _else_ do you think is likely to lead to wrongful convictions?  The only other option I can think of is outright corruption or a deliberate diversion from someone the police wished to protect...but it seems likely that's rarer than the usual thing one hears in almost every case that makes the news - where the cops just 'knew' the suspect was a wrong 'un, and saw it as their job to find a way to convict them.

Really, one would _hope_ that naked corruption was rarer than unthinking assumptions as a cause.

Every case I've heard of involved such assumptions - do you have any counter-examples?

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

It really sounds like you are just quibbling for the sake of it.

Yes, to an extent I am. Sometimes though, the shouty over generalisations just rile me and I like to actually try and get people to thing about what they're saying.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

  What _else_ do you think is likely to lead to wrongful convictions?  The only other option I can think of is outright corruption or a deliberate diversion from someone the police wished to protect...

Off the top of my head, apart from deliberate interference (which will account for quite a number i'd have guessed) - poor defense, issues with forensics, false confessions (either with or without misconduct), wrong application of law -  i'm not going digging for more, it's trivially searchable though.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Every case I've heard of involved such assumptions - do you have any counter-examples?

Nope, not because there aren't (use the first few reasons i've listed as a search qualifier for wrongful convictions for that) but because I don't have an grandiose point to prove.

burtthebike wrote:

The officer who said it was a fact should be dismissed or sent for re-training if they can't tell the difference between assumption and fact.  The evidence shows that the helmet was not very damaged, but it definitely saved a life?  Don't these people think before they speak.

... Really!? You think a highly trained Police Officer should be dismissed for saying what he sees? The lack of Police Officers is a much bigger problem I would have thought.

burtthebike wrote:

The rider says that it is cracked, but that shows that it failed.  Helmets are supposed to work by absorbing energy by compression, not by cracking.  Take a piece of expanded polystyrene, from which helmets are made, and try to compress it, then try to snap it, and tell me which one required almost no effort.

Once again, you daon't understand physics. Polystyrene is a brittle plastic. Expanded polystyrene is made up of balls that when heated by steam expand and fuse together. Because of the stiff/brittle properties of PS, as a foam it becomes a very good shock absorber in compression where all the thin walls can collapse and crumple microscopically. In tension however it's rubbish, usually propagating cracks along the fused lines between balls. So what tends to happen in an impact is the PS will collapse in the area where it's been crushed, making it pull  away and crack from the still intact PS material around it... The squashed material though tends to partly spring back making it hard to see the underlying damage, meaning that - the cracks are usually the visable evidence that the helmet has absorbed an impact. This is entirely contrary to your dangerous misinformation that cracks mean the helmet hasn't absorbed an impact properly.

By the way, as an aside, the collapsing of all the microscopic bubbles and walls inside the PS, which makes it so good at absorbing impact, also massively and permanently degrades it's ability to absorb a second impact, which is a bigger problem, as it can be so difficult to see (whihc is why cracks in some ways are a good thing as it does show people that there is some damage.

As the designer of a helmet using a totally new multi-impact material, I do understand the downsides of PS, but you're barking up the wrong tree, so please get this right in future.

burtthebike wrote:

This is another cyclist going too fast for their own abilities, and they would have gone much slower if they weren't convinced that the helmet would save their life, so a self-fulfilling prophecy really.

This I do agree with. My personal view is we should provide rider education with much clearer messaging around the limitations of helmets, so they don't mistakenly think it makes them invisable and therefore take stupid risks, but then leave it up to people to decide for themselves either way.

And I don't think we should insult paramedics saying they are not worthy of vote. Let's just get back to discussing the evidence (accurately) shall we.

AndyRed3d wrote:

... Really!? You think a highly trained Police Officer should be dismissed for saying what he sees? The lack of Police Officers is a much bigger problem I would have thought.

...
And I don't think we should insult paramedics saying they are not worthy of vote. Let's just get back to discussing the evidence (accurately) shall we.

Seems to me the cop said what he _thought_ he saw, not what he saw.  He was putting an interpretation on it.  Cops do that, and it can often be a problem.  You are being disengenous in taking the suggestion of sacking as if it's a serious possibility, rather than just an expression of annoyance at yet more propaganda and someone being treated as an authority on things outside their field.

Same goes for paramedics and voting.  In fact in general its a constant dilemma in life when people who do important work and may in many ways be good people, say stupid things or appear to be idiots in relation to things outside their work.  Medics in particular seem to be prone to it.  Met a good few of them who had appalling, even crazy, opinions about a lot of topics.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

AndyRed3d wrote:

... Really!? You think a highly trained Police Officer should be dismissed for saying what he sees? The lack of Police Officers is a much bigger problem I would have thought.

...
And I don't think we should insult paramedics saying they are not worthy of vote. Let's just get back to discussing the evidence (accurately) shall we.

 

Seems to me the cop said what he _thought_ he saw, not what he saw.  He was putting an interpretation on it.  Cops do that, and it can often be a problem.  You are being disengenous in taking the suggestion of sacking as if it's a serious possibility, rather than just an expression of annoyance at yet more propaganda and someone being treated as an authority on things outside their field.

 

Same goes for paramedics and voting.  In fact in general its a constant dilemma in life when people who do important work and may in many ways be good people, say stupid things or appear to be idiots in relation to things outside their work.  Medics in particular seem to be prone to it.  Met a good few of them who had appalling, even crazy, opinions about a lot of topics.

I agree, a lot of this crazy debate is based on misinformation and confusion on both sides, including the emergency services, who probably most of the time are just going about their (often horrible) jobs, and then getting asked dumb questions by journalists. Do we even know that they've not been misquoted (or judicioulsy edited) for example?

My point being, just being angry and insulting people undermines credibility. I don't agree with Burtthebike, but I do respect that he's generally trying to point us all to 'the facts'.  So for example, I preferred your pithy evaluation of medics, which doesn't decend into "sack them, they don't deserve the vote!".

Joeinpoole wrote:

This is just another example of someone donning a 'magic foam hat' and assuming it somehow makes them immortal, however ridiculously they ride their bike. Mr Goddard's helmet did not "save his life". It was pure luck that he was not killed or seriously injured.

Absolutely.  If it had been a rather more lethal bit of farm kit, with large spikes, he'd be dead, and his helmet wouldn't have saved him, and we wouldn't be reading tweets about the helmet not saving his life.

Is there no-one who lives in the Hants area who could make an official complaint about the sheer ignorance of their officers and their complete failure to analyse the facts and not make assumptions?

Joeinpoole wrote:

I've never worn a cycling helmet. I find what "saves my life" is not riding like an idiot, judicious use of the brakes and choosing a speed appropriate to the view I have of the road ahead.

Descending at a speed at which you cannot avoid colliding with a (virtually) static piece of farm machinery is both insane and a recipe for disaster.

This is just another example of someone donning a 'magic foam hat' and assuming it somehow makes them immortal, however ridiculously they ride their bike. Mr Goddard's helmet did not "save his life". It was pure luck that he was not killed or seriously injured.

Never ride faster than you can stop within the clear view you have of the road ahead. If you do that then you don't need to rely on a magic foam hat to "save your life".

Diesel oil on a corner on crash one. A car on the wrong side of the road on crash two. Magic foam hat helped in both and was a write off on both occasions, my crystal ball didn’t help. The only “lucky” thing about it was that I took responsibility for my own safety to the extent that I could and protected the most fragile part of my body to what small degree I could. Each to his own, I just happen to prefer my life with a slightly lower risk of brain damage.

maldin wrote:

Joeinpoole wrote:

I've never worn a cycling helmet. I find what "saves my life" is not riding like an idiot, judicious use of the brakes and choosing a speed appropriate to the view I have of the road ahead.

Descending at a speed at which you cannot avoid colliding with a (virtually) static piece of farm machinery is both insane and a recipe for disaster.

This is just another example of someone donning a 'magic foam hat' and assuming it somehow makes them immortal, however ridiculously they ride their bike. Mr Goddard's helmet did not "save his life". It was pure luck that he was not killed or seriously injured.

Never ride faster than you can stop within the clear view you have of the road ahead. If you do that then you don't need to rely on a magic foam hat to "save your life".

Diesel oil on a corner on crash one. A car on the wrong side of the road on crash two. Magic foam hat helped in both and was a write off on both occasions, my crystal ball didn’t help. The only “lucky” thing about it was that I took responsibility for my own safety to the extent that I could and protected the most fragile part of my body to what small degree I could. Each to his own, I just happen to prefer my life with a slightly lower risk of brain damage.

Clearly you didn't take _enough_ responsibility for your own safety, or you wouldn't have cycled.  You'd have used a motorised vehicle, or walked, or not made the journey at all.

Also you woudln't confine your helmet-wearing to when on a bike.

I _hate_ that sanctimonious 'responsibility for my own safety' rubbish.  _Nobody_ takes complete responsibility for their own safety, because we don't live in a state-of-nature.  We all draw a line somewhere.  You are implicitly claiming to have moral superiority over anyone less lucky than you.  That's what I find so irritating about the pro-helmet side.  It's both illogical and self-regarding.  Wear a helmet, fine, but shut up about how it makes you morally superior.  It doesn't.

maldin wrote:

Joeinpoole wrote:

I've never worn a cycling helmet. I find what "saves my life" is not riding like an idiot, judicious use of the brakes and choosing a speed appropriate to the view I have of the road ahead.

Descending at a speed at which you cannot avoid colliding with a (virtually) static piece of farm machinery is both insane and a recipe for disaster.

This is just another example of someone donning a 'magic foam hat' and assuming it somehow makes them immortal, however ridiculously they ride their bike. Mr Goddard's helmet did not "save his life". It was pure luck that he was not killed or seriously injured.

Never ride faster than you can stop within the clear view you have of the road ahead. If you do that then you don't need to rely on a magic foam hat to "save your life".

Diesel oil on a corner on crash one. A car on the wrong side of the road on crash two. Magic foam hat helped in both and was a write off on both occasions, my crystal ball didn’t help. The only “lucky” thing about it was that I took responsibility for my own safety to the extent that I could and protected the most fragile part of my body to what small degree I could. Each to his own, I just happen to prefer my life with a slightly lower risk of brain damage.

you do realise your cycle helmet cannot prevent the deacceleration and inertia of your brain hitting the inside of your skull on impact, and its that impact which causes concussion or brain damage, it might slightly reduce the impact G force by lessening the abruptness of the stop, as the energy goes into deformation of the polystyrene and cracking the helmet, but fundamentally even wearing a cycle helmet, if you hit your head on the ground or a digger bucket, your brain will impact your skull.

Awavey]</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>[quote=Joeinpoole

wrote:

you do realise your cycle helmet cannot prevent the deacceleration and inertia of your brain hitting the inside of your skull on impact, and its that impact which causes concussion or brain damage, it might slightly reduce the impact G force by lessening the abruptness of the stop, as the energy goes into deformation of the polystyrene and cracking the helmet, but fundamentally even wearing a cycle helmet, if you hit your head on the ground or a digger bucket, your brain will impact your skull.

Please stop confusing people with facts.  In the face of true belief, facts are irrelevant, that's why so many people still believe that helmets save lives; they refuse to accept facts.  Faith will always beat science, data and facts.  cyclehelmets.org

Awavey wrote:

<

you do realise your cycle helmet cannot prevent the deacceleration and inertia of your brain hitting the inside of your skull on impact, and its that impact which causes concussion or brain damage, it might slightly reduce the impact G force by lessening the abruptness of the stop, as the energy goes into deformation of the polystyrene and cracking the helmet, but fundamentally even wearing a cycle helmet, if you hit your head on the ground or a digger bucket, your brain will impact your skull.

Deceleration is not the only thing that causes brain injury.

Skull fractures also cause brain injuries.

There is quite a bit of evidence that helmets can prevent skill fractures.

A lot of people seem to ignore this.

Awavey wrote:

maldin wrote:

Joeinpoole wrote:

I've never worn a cycling helmet. I find what "saves my life" is not riding like an idiot, judicious use of the brakes and choosing a speed appropriate to the view I have of the road ahead.

Descending at a speed at which you cannot avoid colliding with a (virtually) static piece of farm machinery is both insane and a recipe for disaster.

This is just another example of someone donning a 'magic foam hat' and assuming it somehow makes them immortal, however ridiculously they ride their bike. Mr Goddard's helmet did not "save his life". It was pure luck that he was not killed or seriously injured.

Never ride faster than you can stop within the clear view you have of the road ahead. If you do that then you don't need to rely on a magic foam hat to "save your life".

Diesel oil on a corner on crash one. A car on the wrong side of the road on crash two. Magic foam hat helped in both and was a write off on both occasions, my crystal ball didn’t help. The only “lucky” thing about it was that I took responsibility for my own safety to the extent that I could and protected the most fragile part of my body to what small degree I could. Each to his own, I just happen to prefer my life with a slightly lower risk of brain damage.

you do realise your cycle helmet cannot prevent the deacceleration and inertia of your brain hitting the inside of your skull on impact, and its that impact which causes concussion or brain damage, it might slightly reduce the impact G force by lessening the abruptness of the stop, as the energy goes into deformation of the polystyrene and cracking the helmet, but fundamentally even wearing a cycle helmet, if you hit your head on the ground or a digger bucket, your brain will impact your skull.

... To be precise (heaven forbid!), drop test rigs with accelerometers inside the headform will measure:
With a helmet in place = around 150g (survivable with mild concussion)
Direct imapct with no helmet = around 1200g.

Now I could go into a very boring discussion about the effect of time on this as well. Automative impact testing includes time in an equation called the Head Injury Criterion, as if you experience the same decelleration for a longer time, it will cause more damage. This is largely related to the input speed of course, as if you're going a lot faster, then even with a bigger crash helmet, you might experience the same maximum decelleration, but it could last double the milliseconds, causing a lot more brain damage.

But this quickly gets into tricky science, as all sorts of other variables come into play as well, such as your age or how dehydrated you are, or the location / direction, rotational component or multiple aspect of any impact. This is extremely complex bio physics that we could write books and books on...

But basically as a crude measure at a typical falling off and hitting the ground speed - 150g with a helmet, 1200g without.
 

AndyRed3d wrote:

... To be precise (heaven forbid!), drop test rigs with accelerometers inside the headform will measure:
With a helmet in place = around 150g (survivable with mild concussion)
Direct imapct with no helmet = around 1200g.

I'm not sure what that means or how to translate that into layman's terms.

hirsute wrote:

AndyRed3d wrote:

... To be precise (heaven forbid!), drop test rigs with accelerometers inside the headform will measure:
With a helmet in place = around 150g (survivable with mild concussion)
Direct imapct with no helmet = around 1200g.

I'm not sure what that means or how to translate that into layman's terms.

'g' is the amount of acceleration that you (don't) feel standing on the earth's surface. Around 10g is the force that fighter pilots may feel when executing tight maneouvres, but will cause them to blackout temporarily (or permanently depending on their altitude at the time).

It's tricky to get a feel for what the numbers mean as they are very short-lived accelerations rather than the two examples I just used. To offset that, here's a handy graph on typical human limits. Additonally,  jerk is the rate of change of acceleration. In SI units, jerk is expressed as m/s3; it can also be expressed in standard gravity per second (g/s; 1 g/s ≈ 9.81 m/s3).

hawkinspeter wrote:

It's tricky to get a feel for what the numbers mean as they are very short-lived accelerations rather than the two examples I just used. To offset that, here's a handy graph on typical human limits:

Thanks but I think I'm more confused now !

What do the red, yellow, blue, red lines refer to ?
Also the Y scale goes up to 40, but the lines mention 1500, 500, 300, 200 - should there be another scale on the right hand side ?

hirsute wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

It's tricky to get a feel for what the numbers mean as they are very short-lived accelerations rather than the two examples I just used. To offset that, here's a handy graph on typical human limits:

Thanks but I think I'm more confused now ! What do the red, yellow, blue, red lines refer to ? Also the Y scale goes up to 40, but the lines mention 1500, 500, 300, 200 - should there be another scale on the right hand side ?

The lines refer to different axes of impact/G force - there's a pic of a man with different coloured arrows coming out of him.

The graph is onset of G forces for a total impact, so the 1500 will refer to the area under the line. At least, that's how I'm interpreting it - I just copied it from the Wikipedia article on g force.

hawkinspeter wrote:

'g' is the amount of acceleration that you (don't) feel standing on the earth's surface. Around 10g is the force that fighter pilots may feel when executing tight maneouvres, but will cause them to blackout temporarily (or permanently depending on their altitude at the time).

It's tricky to get a feel for what the numbers mean as they are very short-lived accelerations rather than the two examples I just used. To offset that, here's a handy graph on typical human limits. Additonally,  jerk is the rate of change of acceleration. In SI units, jerk is expressed as m/s3; it can also be expressed in standard gravity per second (g/s; 1 g/s ≈ 9.81 m/s3).

Cracking graph, thanks, I like that.

Someone said earlier that it's OK to not wear a seatbelt as if it's somehow equivalent to wearing a cycle helmet... it's really not OK and is law for damn good reasons. As an example, my cousin has brain damage from a collision where a passenger wasn't wearing seatbelt which caused his head to be crushed into the A-pillar. We nearly lost my cousin a few times and the brilliant staff in the ICU said, based on their experience, they didn't think he would make it.

While there clearly is a pro-cycle-helmet brigade, I've never really seen any evidence that an "anti-helmet" brigade exists. The helmet debate isn't really about helmets, it's actually mostly about the stupidity of some of the assertions that come from those who are pro-helmet when it's rather more important to be looking at the causes of injury.

hirsute wrote:

AndyRed3d wrote:

... To be precise (heaven forbid!), drop test rigs with accelerometers inside the headform will measure:
With a helmet in place = around 150g (hopefully survivable with some concussion)
Direct imapct with no helmet = around 1200g.

I'm not sure what that means or how to translate that into layman's terms.

Well, ok here goes... During an impact, your head has to go from moving to stopped. The faster it stops (in a shorter distance) then the higher the decelleration experienced.

It is the decelleration of your head that causes your brain to slump against the inside of your skull to also slow down. Bit like if you crash a car, the occupants all go flying forwards and then bounce around off things. If your head stops very suddenly, the brain's going to whosh around inside and get mushed up like a jelly in a bowl. In fact the worse damage is often at the opposite side where the brain has torn away from the inside of the skull. It's this kind of diffuse damage that's much more dangerous than a skull fracture, which can be very localised.

So back to 'g's... Accelleration is measured in m/s2, but heck, no one likes a measure with more than one letter, so as a shortcut we also use 'g', which stands for gravity (on Earth) - which is 9.81m/s2. So if you accelerate on your bike at 9.81m/s2 i.e. every second you go 9.81m/s faster, then you'll experience the same force on you in that direction, that you feel vertically just standing on Earth. 

In normal life we don't experience much above this, in fact an emergency stop in a normal car is around -1g in the direction of travel... some of us know what that feels like and how much you fly forwards against the seatbelts. Hitting a wall in a car driving at 100mph, you'd probabkly experience around 60g. Fighter pilots can sustain a maximum of about 9g (vertically) for a few seconds before the blood drains out of their heads and they pass out. This is just to give you some context.

So as I said, smacking you head on the ground at 12.3mph, with a helmet your head will experience a peak of around 150g (which makes a sort of 'douf' noise and is clearly very unpleasant), whilst without a helmet it will experience a peak of around 1200g (which makes nasty sharp bang noise and is pretty deadly).

Caveat: this is obviously a very simplified test - an accident is never as straightforward as the impact on a drop test rig, as you'll always try to protect yourself. But still, this is the reliably measurable difference that a 'plastic hat' makes. Arguably drunk people fighting outside pubs are more in need of helmets, as they tend to get pushed over backward and fall straight onto hard paving, with fatal consequences. But a 'drinking helmet' would be a much harder thing to market than a cycling helmet.

AndyRed3d wrote:

 Arguably drunk people fighting outside pubs are more in need of helmets, as they tend to get pushed over backward and fall straight onto hard paving, with fatal consequences. But a 'drinking helmet' would be a much harder thing to market than a cycling helmet.

Maybe this is exactly what we need.

Anyone who's drinking to get 'legless', would be wearing a drinking helmet and thus you can see at a distance which people to avoid if you don't want to get into a fight or become their best friend ever.

I'd also recommend putting the owner's home address onto the helmet and maybe incorporate some kind of finder's fee (£50?) if the owner is found too far from home after hours - the taxi drivers could just round them up and deliver them home and collect the fee. Probably some kind of GPS locator would be useful as well, so it's easier for taxis to find them.