The dutch don't wear helmets....- Mtbr.com
Results 1 to 68 of 68
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    3,161

    The dutch don't wear helmets....

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...googlenews_wsj

    "They'd rather go to school naked," says the father of four.

    But among Holland's millions of bikers, helmets are almost nonexistent—and resistance to them is fierce. Only 0.1% of Dutch bikers wear helmets, in contrast to 15% in nearby Sweden and 38% in the U.S., according to the British cycling organization CTC.

    "It's just not part of Dutch culture to use helmets," says Wim Bot, spokesman for the Dutch Cyclists Union. Advocating them for everyday use, he adds, "leads to very emotional debates."

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    12,083
    The Dutch have very hard heads.

  3. #3
    Rod
    Rod is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Rod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    5,424
    Safety is not their target.

  4. #4
    I4NI
    Reputation: S_Trek's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    1,222
    That explains it

    bing, post 666? Better wear one!
    There....Are... Four...Lights!

  5. #5
    AZ
    AZ is offline
    banned
    Reputation: AZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    19,198
    The Dutch have one of the lowest rates of injury from cycling , it may be as much as six times lower per capita than the U.S. . Responsibility and safety is part of the culture .

  6. #6
    Five is right out
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    3,174
    Dedicated cycling lanes, driver awareness, and the law siding with cyclists in accidents also helps.

  7. #7
    yeah, uh............bikes
    Reputation: FloridaFish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    2,712
    personal responsibility.......
    i realize that i am a clumsy **** and that I must be personally responsible for keeping my brains confined in my skull.

  8. #8
    DynoDon
    Reputation: manabiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    1,666
    I wonder if the Mountain Bikers there wear helmets? The Netherlands is flat so that would cut down on accidents too.
    To harass kids and adults that wear saftey gear by choice??? Kids would rather go to school naked!!! Those kids have to be learning to bully from the adults, thats a good thing to teach them.. Saftey is a bad thing???
    They probably have good reasoning, like one of them tried on a helmet, got too close to a windmill, the helmet got caught on the blade of the windmill, the Dutchman spun around and around, when others came to help, his wooden shoes hit them in the head. That explains it, good thing they have hard heads, or them wooden shoes might have kill them all..LOL

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    436
    Maybe theyre too stoned to go really fast.......

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    837

    Data?

    The assumption that wearing a bike helmet makes you safer is an assumption. I have never seen a single published article in a peer reviewed journal that indicates whether helmet use is a net positive, net negative, or net null.

    It is probably fairly safe to assume DH riders are better off with helmets, but commuters in a system designed bike commuting is different.
    I was gonna stop by and see you, but the Jehovas witnesses came by. When they left I started drinking. Voicemail from Paul

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Sarguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    808
    Do they nail cleats to their wooden shoes?
    2010 Trek Rumblefish
    2013 Trek Cobia

  12. #12
    Pedaler of dirt
    Reputation: marzjennings's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    903
    It's because helmets are useless with regards to improving safety for general commuting and around town use. Even the Australians are considering recanting their current helmet laws.

    They do wear them mountain biking and I did when living there, but while road riding it was only when I moved to the US did folks begin to question why I didn't wear a helmet. And I've yet to find any hard evidence to support the assumption that helmets, standard XC helmets, make any difference at all with regards to preventing death or brain injury.
    It's not enough that we do our best; sometimes we have to do what's required.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    12,083
    Quote Originally Posted by Sarguy
    Do they nail cleats to their wooden shoes?

    Ahhh that might be it...

    They can't find cleats hard enough to penetrate their heads....

    When they nail their helmets on.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    12,083
    Quote Originally Posted by marzjennings
    It's because helmets are useless with regards to improving safety for general commuting and around town use. Even the Australians are considering recanting their current helmet laws.

    They do wear them mountain biking and I did when living there, but while road riding it was only when I moved to the US did folks begin to question why I didn't wear a helmet. And I've yet to find any hard evidence to support the assumption that helmets, standard XC helmets, make any difference at all with regards to preventing death or brain injury.

    Really never??? I have seen guy crash on the sidewalk and split the helmet apart....and still be fairly woozy when he got up...

    Twice now actually , course the guy is a bit of a crasher.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    309
    Quote Originally Posted by debaucherous
    The assumption that wearing a bike helmet makes you safer is an assumption. I have never seen a single published article in a peer reviewed journal that indicates whether helmet use is a net positive, net negative, or net null.

    It is probably fairly safe to assume DH riders are better off with helmets, but commuters in a system designed bike commuting is different.
    http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056...98905253202101
    http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content...t/276/24/1968?
    http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content...t/266/21/3016?

    That is three within a 10 minute search on google, if I went to a good library it would be easy to find more.

  16. #16
    Pedaler of dirt
    Reputation: marzjennings's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    903
    Quote Originally Posted by jeffscott
    Really never??? I have seen guy crash on the sidewalk and split the helmet apart....and still be fairly woozy when he got up...

    Twice now actually , course the guy is a bit of a crasher.
    Your story tells me two things...

    1, The helmet broke...Helmets work by absorbing impact energy through the crushing of an expanded polystyrene liner. Once compressed the liner stays compressed. It does not bounce back to its original form like reusable helmets for some other activities. If a helmet splits before the liner has partially or fully compressed - and this is often the case - then it has simply failed. It will not have provided the designed protection and may in fact have absorbed very little energy at all. http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1019.html

    2, The guy may have still received a minor concussion regardless of his helmet.

    Nothing that says the helmet was of any use.

    I am not anti-helmet, but a helmet realist. I think XC helmet's can help to prevent injury, but that they don't save lives.

    If folks want to wear a helmet that may save their life they should wear a DOT certified lid.
    It's not enough that we do our best; sometimes we have to do what's required.

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    12,083
    Quote Originally Posted by marzjennings
    Your story tells me two things...

    1, The helmet broke...Helmets work by absorbing impact energy through the crushing of an expanded polystyrene liner. Once compressed the liner stays compressed. It does not bounce back to its original form like reusable helmets for some other activities. If a helmet splits before the liner has partially or fully compressed - and this is often the case - then it has simply failed. It will not have provided the designed protection and may in fact have absorbed very little energy at all. http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1019.html

    2, The guy may have still received a minor concussion regardless of his helmet.

    Nothing that says the helmet was of any use.

    I am not anti-helmet, but a helmet realist. I think XC helmet's can help to prevent injury, but that they don't save lives.

    If folks want to wear a helmet that may save their life they should wear a DOT certified lid.
    Nope he would have had a way worse concussion...go ahead think like a brick...

  18. #18
    Pedaler of dirt
    Reputation: marzjennings's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    903
    Quote Originally Posted by jeffscott
    Nope he would have had a way worse concussion...go ahead think like a brick...
    That's just pure conjecture with no evidence to support it.
    It's not enough that we do our best; sometimes we have to do what's required.

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    12,083
    Quote Originally Posted by marzjennings
    That's just pure conjecture with no evidence to support it.

    Well since you think like a brick....

    Get another brick, and put you bike helmet on...

    Lift the brick has high has you can with your right arm...

    Then let the brick fall on to your head with the bike helmet on...

    Then take the bike helmet off and lift a brick has high as you can with your left arm...

    And let it fall on to your head without the bike helmet on....

    Get back to me with pictures...or it didn't happen.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Vespasianus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,740
    Quote Originally Posted by space
    http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056...98905253202101
    http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content...t/276/24/1968?
    http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content...t/266/21/3016?

    That is three within a 10 minute search on google, if I went to a good library it would be easy to find more.
    It is funny that the only post that shows real data showing the benefits of helmet use is ignored.

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    12,083
    Quote Originally Posted by Vespasianus
    It is funny that the only post that shows real data showing the benefits of helmet use is ignored.

    Not ignored....still like my test better.

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    309
    Quote Originally Posted by marzjennings
    Your story tells me two things...

    1, The helmet broke...Helmets work by absorbing impact energy through the crushing of an expanded polystyrene liner. Once compressed the liner stays compressed. It does not bounce back to its original form like reusable helmets for some other activities. If a helmet splits before the liner has partially or fully compressed - and this is often the case - then it has simply failed. It will not have provided the designed protection and may in fact have absorbed very little energy at all. http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1019.html

    2, The guy may have still received a minor concussion regardless of his helmet.

    Nothing that says the helmet was of any use.

    I am not anti-helmet, but a helmet realist. I think XC helmet's can help to prevent injury, but that they don't save lives.

    If folks want to wear a helmet that may save their life they should wear a DOT certified lid.
    Your making an assumption that the entire helmet broke. This summer I broke my helmet and got a concussion, however I only broke the outer plastic shell, not the foam which acts as a compression layer. I hate to think what would have happened without my helmet, at the minimum it would have been quite a few more lacerations on my forehead and scalp. More likely I would have cracked my skull open on the rock I landed on.

    However, helmets while skiing and snowboarding are a bad idea, putting one on after skiing for 20 years without one gave me enough confidence to go break my ribs skiing in the trees

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    837

    Ok, OK, OK,

    Quote Originally Posted by space
    http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056...98905253202101
    http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content...t/276/24/1968?
    http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content...t/266/21/3016?

    That is three within a 10 minute search on google, if I went to a good library it would be easy to find more.
    Protecting the head will lead to less head injury - I agree with that fact. But, that alone does not mean wearing a helmet makes cycling safer. Again - net positive, net negative, net null. A helmet will reduce head injuries - but OVERALL does a helmet make a safer rider?

    I still have the question: Does wearing a helmet make one safer? Perhaps wearing a helmet gives commuters a false sense of security and actually leads to unwise risk taking.

    That said, I wear a helmet more often than not.
    I was gonna stop by and see you, but the Jehovas witnesses came by. When they left I started drinking. Voicemail from Paul

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    313
    Yes it makes one safer. Your more likely to fall when riding your bike whether mtbing commuting or road riding than you would if you were walking. If you fall from your bike whether it's your fault or not, there's a good chance you could hit your head. If you hit your head, you are much safer if you have a helmet than if you don't. Doesn't make you invincible, but it makes you safer.

  25. #25
    DynoDon
    Reputation: manabiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    1,666
    There was an old ad for Motorcycles helmets that read,

    "If you have a $10.00 head, wear a $10.00 helmet"

    I guess that would mean if you don't value your head, don't wear a helmet.

    You have insurance on your precious car/truck, a helmet on a bike is just that, insurance incase something happens, and its alot less expensive then what you pay for your car/truck.

  26. #26
    jfk
    jfk is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jfk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    77
    My wife lived in Utrecht for 10 years, we brought her heavy Dutch SS back to the US. She won't ride her mtb without a helmet, but feels silly riding her Dutch bike with one.

    Its interesting information, but I don't think the argument should be: "Well, the Dutch cycle more and don't wear helmets, therefore in the US we shouldn't wear helmets." As others have already indicated the conditions between the two are different.

    That being said, I don't wear a helmet on a bike commute unless I am riding more than 5 miles or so.

  27. #27
    Bike's hmmm nice
    Reputation: merijn101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    302
    A small word from a Dutche:
    Road and "mountain"biking, always helmet
    My 2 year old is not riding without one (I gave the example, now he is keeping me to it)

    Comute or going to the pub, never helmet. We are not used to using one. We have bikelanes all over the cities and even in the back country. Right of way for bikes, every body rides a bike, so drivers have a huge awareness. Everybody learns to ride a bike from an early age.

    Will a helmet help you in an accident? for sure, but only up to 30-40km/h impact. So it is hardly any protection agains cars. As in all safety maters, PPE (personal Protection Equipment) is of the lowest rank in the list of solutions. Keep away from danger, make clear rules, ride safe, driver and biker awareness. All these things work way better than going out on a crazy road and hoping your foam padding will keep you alive against a 1400kg car driving at 80-100 km/h.

    Outside Holland I do ware a helmet every time I'm on a bike, the surroundings are not up to other means of safety so my PPE is the last and only resort I have.

    And no, I don't have wooden shoe's, nor am I smoking a spliff while writing this up sitting in my windmill enjoying a peace of cheese looking at the tulips.. ;-)

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    4,608
    I always wear a helmet because my head isn't as
    hard as the ground. Plus I have fallen off my bike and
    hit my head. If I didn't have my helmet on I would have
    most likely been hurt. If people don't want to wear a
    helmet that is fine with me. However when they end up
    in a coma, and on life support because they didn't wear
    a helmet I don't think the rest of us should have to pay
    to keep them alive.So pull the plug and let them take
    there chances like they did when they decided not to
    wear a helmet. I feel this is more than a fare trade off.

    Best, John

  29. #29
    Pedaler of dirt
    Reputation: marzjennings's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    903
    Quote Originally Posted by jeffscott
    Well since you think like a brick....

    Get another brick, and put you bike helmet on...

    Lift the brick has high has you can with your right arm...

    Then let the brick fall on to your head with the bike helmet on...

    Then take the bike helmet off and lift a brick has high as you can with your left arm...

    And let it fall on to your head without the bike helmet on....

    Get back to me with pictures...or it didn't happen.
    I already said I wear a helmet to prevent injury. I don't see the point of this test.

    Now if we extend the drop to a point where a falling brick could kill, it's at this point I don't think a helmet will be of any use.
    It's not enough that we do our best; sometimes we have to do what's required.

  30. #30
    Five is right out
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    3,174
    Quote Originally Posted by merijn101
    A small word from a Dutche:
    Road and "mountain"biking, always helmet
    My 2 year old is not riding without one (I gave the example, now he is keeping me to it)

    Comute or going to the pub, never helmet. We are not used to using one. We have bikelanes all over the cities and even in the back country. Right of way for bikes, every body rides a bike, so drivers have a huge awareness. Everybody learns to ride a bike from an early age.
    Hey merijn, I have a couple of friends that lived in Amsterdam for several years and the told me that if there is a bike/car accident, the driver is presumed at fault unless proved otherwise. Is this correct?

  31. #31
    Doesntplaywellwithmorons!
    Reputation: DeeEight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    10,868
    Quote Originally Posted by bing!
    But among Holland's millions of bikers, helmets are almost nonexistent—and resistance to them is fierce.
    If only they'd resisted the germans that fiercely...
    I don't post to generate business for myself or make like I'm better than sliced bread

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    6,542
    Quote Originally Posted by bing!
    "It's just not part of Dutch culture to use helmets," says Wim Bot, spokesman for the Dutch Cyclists Union. Advocating them for everyday use, he adds, "leads to very emotional debates."
    I was talking to a client about considering purchasing additional life insurance. We did a detailed analysis and found out that what he needed would cost $40/month. It would protect his house and provide income for his stay-at-home wife and children if something were to happen to him. He makes an easy six figures a year. This policy would be underwritten and backed by a A++ and AAA rated company.

    His response was, "in my culture, we don't believe in life insurance..."

    Some cultural ideals, although silly, overturn good decisions. Sad.

  33. #33
    AZ
    AZ is offline
    banned
    Reputation: AZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    19,198
    Quote Originally Posted by DeeEight
    If only they'd resisted the germans that fiercely...



    Dude , completely uncalled for .

  34. #34
    the catalan connection
    Reputation: What&son's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,266
    I lived in Amsterdam for some time and the respect for cyclist is in their blood. A totally different world. I never felt myself the need for a helmet, bike lines are the best I´ve seen in my life, really isolated from other traffic, and dutch bikers are so skilled its hard to see one crash. If ever seen one crashing was probably some foreign-stoned-pedestrian crossing the bike line without seeing where he was.
    "Blessed is the man who, having nothing to say, abstains from giving us wordly evidence of the fact." George Elliot

  35. #35
    since 4/10/2009
    Reputation: Harold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    27,118
    The dutch don't wear helmets....
    And the Dutch also don't ride the streets that Americans have to deal with.

    I wouldn't wear a helmet commuting over there, either.

  36. #36
    DynoDon
    Reputation: manabiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    1,666
    Quote Originally Posted by DeeEight
    If only they'd resisted the germans that fiercely...
    WTF ???????

    Moron
    –noun
    1. a person who is notably stupid or lacking in good judgment.

    ig·no·rant (gnr-nt)
    adj.
    1. Lacking education or knowledge.
    2. Showing or arising from a lack of education or knowledge: an ignorant mistake.
    3. Unaware or uninformed.

  37. #37
    banned
    Reputation: Spinning Lizard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    1,435
    Quote Originally Posted by manabiker
    WTF ???????

    Moron
    –noun
    1. a person who is notably stupid or lacking in good judgment.

    ig·no·rant (gnr-nt)
    adj.
    1. Lacking education or knowledge.
    2. Showing or arising from a lack of education or knowledge: an ignorant mistake.
    3. Unaware or uninformed.
    Dude
    -noun
    1. Someone who needs to chill out or relax.

    It was sarcasm, you are not French are you?

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    135
    Quote Originally Posted by jfk
    My wife lived in Utrecht for 10 years, we brought her heavy Dutch SS back to the US. She won't ride her mtb without a helmet, but feels silly riding her Dutch bike with one.

    Its interesting information, but I don't think the argument should be: "Well, the Dutch cycle more and don't wear helmets, therefore in the US we shouldn't wear helmets." As others have already indicated the conditions between the two are different.

    That being said, I don't wear a helmet on a bike commute unless I am riding more than 5 miles or so.

    just for the sake of argument, you're no less likely to have a need for a helmet in mile number 4 than you are in mile number 6. Statistically speaking, you're in no extra danger after the 5-mile mark (some would argue quite the opposite, because of the whole "more accidents happen closer to home" argument). There's just as much of a chance to get creamed at the end of the street as there is during a 10-mile commute to poker night at a friend's house.
    I live with Fear everyday. If I ask nicely, she lets me ride.

  39. #39
    DynoDon
    Reputation: manabiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    1,666
    The Netherlands lost over 250,000 people in WWII, thats over a quarter of a million people, thats no joke, or anything to get sarcastic about, I am half French Canadian, thats the half I sit on, EH !!!
    I also know people from the Netherlands that adore your Canadian Veterans for their efforts in WWII, they have more parades, and celibrations for the Canadians, and Americans, then our two counties have combined, every year to thank the Americans, and Canadians for liberating them. Your sarcasim is not justifiable in anyway!!!!!

  40. #40
    Doesntplaywellwithmorons!
    Reputation: DeeEight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    10,868
    My great uncle was one of those veterans as it happens, but i love the hypocricy on mtbr... its fine to make fun of the french getting beaten by the germans, but nobody else...fine i'll put it another way. I won't ride with any morons who refuse to wear a helmet.
    I don't post to generate business for myself or make like I'm better than sliced bread

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    12,083
    Quote Originally Posted by marzjennings
    I already said I wear a helmet to prevent injury. I don't see the point of this test.

    Now if we extend the drop to a point where a falling brick could kill, it's at this point I don't think a helmet will be of any use.
    You are back to thinking like a brick....which essentially is not thinking.

  42. #42
    Doesntplaywellwithmorons!
    Reputation: DeeEight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    10,868
    Yeah, and hardhats being a requirement in the construction industry... specifically because of things like "bricks" falling on construction sites.... no protection at all apparently according to this guy's thought process.
    I don't post to generate business for myself or make like I'm better than sliced bread

  43. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,130
    Quote Originally Posted by John Kuhl
    I always wear a helmet because my head isn't as
    hard as the ground. Plus I have fallen off my bike and
    hit my head. If I didn't have my helmet on I would have
    most likely been hurt. If people don't want to wear a
    helmet that is fine with me. However when they end up
    in a coma, and on life support because they didn't wear
    a helmet I don't think the rest of us should have to pay
    to keep them alive.So pull the plug and let them take
    there chances like they did when they decided not to
    wear a helmet. I feel this is more than a fare trade off.

    Best, John
    Okay, so if you crash your bike with a helmet on and still end up in a coma, we'll pull the plug on you because you chose to ride a bike in the first place.

    Where exactly does this line of reasoning end? Maybe the ambulance drivers should try to figure out if an accident victim was hurt by someone else's decision or his own. If it was his own fault, then they should just leave him there to die. When someone suffers a heart attack and is brought to the emergency room, they should inquire about their diet. Too many cheeseburgers? Well, John doesn't want to have to pay for your bad diet decisions so we're gonna drag you out to the curb.

  44. #44
    Big Gulps, Alright!
    Reputation: Berkley's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    3,223
    <object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/QJ882QYzr-M?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/QJ882QYzr-M?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>
    Axle Standards Explained

    Founder at North Atlantic Dirt, riding & writing about trails in the northeast.

  45. #45
    Pedaler of dirt
    Reputation: marzjennings's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    903
    Quote Originally Posted by DeeEight
    Yeah, and hardhats being a requirement in the construction industry... specifically because of things like "bricks" falling on construction sites.... no protection at all apparently according to this guy's thought process.
    Construction hardhats are built to do a different job than cycle helmets. But I guessed you missed that.
    It's not enough that we do our best; sometimes we have to do what's required.

  46. #46
    Pedaler of dirt
    Reputation: marzjennings's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    903
    Quote Originally Posted by jeffscott
    You are back to thinking like a brick....which essentially is not thinking.
    You seem to believe cycle helmets have magical powers. There's this Nigerian Prince looking to move some money, should I forward your contact details to him.

    Talking of thinking, do you think you can provide the link that shows helmets are designed and tested to anything over than prevent minor injury.
    It's not enough that we do our best; sometimes we have to do what's required.

  47. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    309
    Quote Originally Posted by Thor29
    Okay, so if you crash your bike with a helmet on and still end up in a coma, we'll pull the plug on you because you chose to ride a bike in the first place.

    Where exactly does this line of reasoning end? Maybe the ambulance drivers should try to figure out if an accident victim was hurt by someone else's decision or his own. If it was his own fault, then they should just leave him there to die. When someone suffers a heart attack and is brought to the emergency room, they should inquire about their diet. Too many cheeseburgers? Well, John doesn't want to have to pay for your bad diet decisions so we're gonna drag you out to the curb.

    Ahhh...the old slippery slope...can't have an discussion about safety without someone using it.

    So to just speed this up, we should all be wearing project grizzly suits at all times.

  48. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    309
    Quote Originally Posted by marzjennings
    You seem to believe cycle helmets have magical powers. There's this Nigerian Prince looking to move some money, should I forward your contact details to him.

    Talking of thinking, do you think you can provide the link that shows helmets are designed and tested to anything over than prevent minor injury.
    I did the math last night, if a helmet meets the CPSC standards it will protect you from a standard red brick dropped from about 35ft. Are you willing to risk having a brick dropped on you, sans helmet, from that height?

  49. #49
    Pedaler of dirt
    Reputation: marzjennings's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    903
    Quote Originally Posted by space
    I did the math last night, if a helmet meets the CPSC standards it will protect you from a standard red brick dropped from about 35ft. Are you willing to risk having a brick dropped on you, sans helmet, from that height?
    I'd be interested to see the maths that can equate the CPSC results which average around 58J of potential energy to a brick falling 35ft which could lead to 340J of potential energy.

    And to honest the CPSC is a joke brought in because helmet companies didn't want to spend the cash to design and build helmets that meet the SNELL standard.

    Oh, and I'd wear a helmet as I wouldn't want a bump to the head.
    It's not enough that we do our best; sometimes we have to do what's required.

  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    309
    Quote Originally Posted by marzjennings
    I'd be interested to see the maths that can equate the CPSC results which average around 58J of potential energy to a brick falling 35ft which could lead to 340J of potential energy.

    And to honest the CPSC is a joke brought in because helmet companies didn't want to spend the cash to design and build helmets that meet the SNELL standard.

    Oh, and I'd wear a helmet as I wouldn't want a bump to the head.
    I looked at my numbers again, they where wrong...but so are yours. Lets look at the kinetic energy equation.

    K = 0.5 * m * v^2

    We know the CPSC standard dictates the head analog must weight 5kg (plus the weight of the helmet which I'm ignoring) and must collide with the anvil at 6.2 m/s. So the kinetic energy is:

    K = 0.5 * 5 * 6.2 ^ 2 = 2.5 * 38.44 = 96.1J

    Now for the sake of argument lets say the weight of a standard red brick is 2.5kg, searching online finds weights between 2kg and 3kg.

    96.1 = 0.5 * 2.5 * v ^ 2
    96.1 = 1.25 * v ^2
    76.88 = v ^ 2
    v = 8.76 m/s

    Now we know acceleration is the change in velocity divided by the change in time, we also know that acceleration is fixed at 9.8 m/s.

    9.8 = 8.76 / t
    t = 8.76 / 9.8 = 0.89s

    So the brick has to fall 0.89s to reach the speed needed to produce 96.1J.

    We also know the equation for average speed.

    0.5 * t * g = s

    And of course average speed * time equals distance so...

    d = (0.5 * t * g) * t

    d = 0.5 * 9.8 * t ^ 2 = 4.9 * 0.792 = 3.88m = 12.7ft

    So do you really believe you'll only get a bump on your head when a brick hits your head from 13ft up?

    Personal experience says you end up with more then just a bump, but we all have our own experiences...

    P.S. Damn euros and your maths, it's math!!!

    Edit: Much simpler way to calculate the height needed is the equation for potential energy...so instead of multiple steps you have one...

    P = m * g * h
    96.1 = 2.5 * 9.8 * h
    96.1 = 24.1 * h
    h = 3.98m = 13.07ft

    The difference between this and my earlier number is simply rounding error since I truncated most numbers to two significant digits.
    Last edited by space; 11-03-2010 at 11:56 PM.

  51. #51
    Five is right out
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    3,174
    Quote Originally Posted by DeeEight
    My great uncle was one of those veterans as it happens, but i love the hypocricy on mtbr... its fine to make fun of the french getting beaten by the germans, but nobody else...fine i'll put it another way. I won't ride with any morons who refuse to wear a helmet.
    That comment about WW2 was completely uncalled for and an exceptionally cheap shot. The Netherlands is pretty much indefensible with a flat georgraphy and had a population of around 8M people at the start of the war. Versus a fully militarised country with a population of over 80M. It would be somewhat akin to Kansas trying to defend itself from being invaded by the entire state of Texas.

    There's no hypocracy here. The Dutch don't seem to be particularly arrogant about their role in WW2. On the other hand, the French have (starting from at least de Gaulle) revised their history to insist that they liberated themselves with minimal Allied assistance. Whilst they have forgiven Germany for invading them, they have never forgiven the US for saving them, so to a large extent they are asking to be mocked.

    I wouldn't worry about helmets too much in Amsterdam, having ridden around the Netherlands a fair bit. Although I did wear a helmet when riding between cities as I'd brought one over with me from the UK anyway.

  52. #52
    Doesntplaywellwithmorons!
    Reputation: DeeEight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    10,868
    It took FIVE days from the start of the german invasion to the capitulation of the dutch government and it largely happened because the Luftwaffe bombed one city on the 4th day. It took 8 months to liberate it by first the americans, then the british, and finally the canadians. The germans sure wanted to hold onto it more than the dutch did, and in fact the dutch didn't even bother to flood large sections of the country as they could have (and which would have held up the german invasion for quite some time, as it did the allies when the germans went and did exactly that four years later).
    I don't post to generate business for myself or make like I'm better than sliced bread

  53. #53
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    37
    risk vs reward...

    the risk is your mental health (see vegetable) and possibly your life

    the reward is you don't have helmet hair....

  54. #54
    Pedaler of dirt
    Reputation: marzjennings's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    903
    Quote Originally Posted by space
    So do you really believe you'll only get a bump on your head when a brick hits your head from 13ft up?

    Personal experience says you end up with more then just a bump, but we all have our own experiences...

    P.S. Damn euros and your maths, it's math!!!

    Edit: Much simpler way to calculate the height needed is the equation for potential energy...so instead of multiple steps you have one...

    P = m * g * h
    96.1 = 2.5 * 9.8 * h
    96.1 = 24.1 * h
    h = 3.98m = 13.07ft

    The difference between this and my earlier number is simply rounding error since I truncated most numbers to two significant digits.
    Yea, can't see a problem with your math(s). And to your question, I believe I could get a bump, a cut, a concussion or even a fatal blow from a brick falling 13ft, all with diminishing possibilities and all good reasons to wear the correct helmet.
    You math(s) also highlights the limitations of a XC helmet, basically that they are designed and tested to protect your head (5kg) traveling at about 13mph hitting a flat surface. (The anvil test is done from a lower height). Throw in a car and additional mass and speed or your average rock garden at 20mph and you're already beyong the helmet's capabilities. That's why DH riders wear DH lids. If XC riders and commuters want a helmet that can provide the same protection and life saving capabilities as a full face lid then they need to wear a full face lid. Not pretend that these capabilities magically transfer to a lesser helmet.

    What I'd like to see is an improved standard for XC helmets and tests that reflect mtbers terrain and riding environments. All in a helmet that is light and cool to wear and still less than $100.
    It's not enough that we do our best; sometimes we have to do what's required.

  55. #55
    TRANCER
    Reputation: Biohazard74's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    2,618
    In these arguements there is never a side that wins. I gave up argueing about this subject because to everyone that posts, they are the ones that are right. LOL it's like religion. Everyone you talk to about their religion tell you they are right and every other religion is BS. I say do what you want. For the record. I dont wear a helmet when i commute. But i definately wont hit trails without one. Thats "MY" way of thinking. IMO im not wrong. And i dont think anyone posting here is wrong.
    Last edited by Biohazard74; 11-04-2010 at 09:29 AM.
    Ride

  56. #56
    Doesntplaywellwithmorons!
    Reputation: DeeEight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    10,868
    I don't know whether I should laugh or cry at someone in a helmet wearing thread who cannot spell the word religion correctly. Taken a few blows to the head there Biohazard?!
    I don't post to generate business for myself or make like I'm better than sliced bread

  57. #57
    TRANCER
    Reputation: Biohazard74's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    2,618
    I don't know what the hell you are talking about ??? I guess its just not a word I use enough. But there I fixed it for you No need to cry. Unless of course you like too then by all means , go ahead.
    Ride

  58. #58
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    37
    this argument seems like a NO BRAINER!

  59. #59
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jollybeggar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    1,353
    Helmets are like condoms, you can still get injured but your odds of cashing maybe be reduced. It's better to practice safe riding techniques than to rely on your helmet saving you skull. MTBing is like sex, it's fun but it can be dangerous so I better be prepared.
    Happy Trails
    Jolly

  60. #60
    Tulsa
    Reputation: rojogonzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    1,085


    https://www.toxel.com/tech/2010/10/2...icycle-helmet/


    we'll all be wearing scarves, soon. It will be all the rage
    wherever you go, there you are

  61. #61
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    837

    My prediction:

    This thread will be binned in:
    3....
    2....
    1....
    I was gonna stop by and see you, but the Jehovas witnesses came by. When they left I started drinking. Voicemail from Paul

  62. #62
    Up up and away!
    Reputation: mrbb008's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by debaucherous
    The assumption that wearing a bike helmet makes you safer is an assumption. I have never seen a single published article in a peer reviewed journal that indicates whether helmet use is a net positive, net negative, or net null.

    It is probably fairly safe to assume DH riders are better off with helmets, but commuters in a system designed bike commuting is different.
    I never seen a published peer reviewed article that indicates use of DH helmet makes it safer.

    However, it is probably safe to assume road riders commuters are better off with helmets.

  63. #63
    is buachail foighneach me
    Reputation: sean salach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    6,589
    Quote Originally Posted by merijn101
    A small word from a Dutche:
    ...............
    ...............
    ...............

    And no, I don't have wooden shoe's, nor am I smoking a spliff while writing this up sitting in my windmill enjoying a peace of cheese looking at the tulips.. ;-)

    LIAR!!!

  64. #64
    Bike's hmmm nice
    Reputation: merijn101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    302
    Whohahhaaaaa OK, maybe the spliff..... not.

    Shzz that's been a long time. Since I have kids I just don't do that anymore. Feels kind of lame. I'd rather go biking with a clear head, with or without a helmet.

    I'm currently enjoying some french "eau de vie" of Meribelle plumbs, luckely we have some choice up here today and we are not only drinking Weissen ;-)

  65. #65
    is buachail foighneach me
    Reputation: sean salach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    6,589
    Funny, I'm actually drinking a weissen right now...

  66. #66
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    3,161
    Quote Originally Posted by DeeEight
    It took FIVE days from the start of the german invasion to the capitulation of the dutch government and it largely happened because the Luftwaffe bombed one city on the 4th day. It took 8 months to liberate it by first the americans, then the british, and finally the canadians. The germans sure wanted to hold onto it more than the dutch did, and in fact the dutch didn't even bother to flood large sections of the country as they could have (and which would have held up the german invasion for quite some time, as it did the allies when the germans went and did exactly that four years later).
    That is an over simplification of the matter. First, the Dutch were not prepared to defend itself for an invasion of such magnitude. It was no contest. They were beat, so what. So was most of Europe. The bombing of Rotterdam was similar to the bombing of Nagasaki. It was a portent of what was to come should the Dutch government resist and not surrender to the Germans. The invasion was done in the early parts of the war, when Germany was at its strongest.

    You twist history and facts to defend a slip of the keystroke in an earlier post. And yet you hold your ground and add more injury. It is an insult that you should demean the Dutch in such a manner. Do you have an axe to grind with them? Or is it your hobby to open old wounds? I don't even see why it is relevant to the issue of helmets?
    Last edited by bing!; 11-05-2010 at 02:25 PM.

  67. #67
    Bike's hmmm nice
    Reputation: merijn101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    302
    Dudes, my grandparents were in Rotterdam during the bombing. Granny told me stories of dead people in the streets. We had an army of guys on bikes (how ironic in this forum), so not much defends against German bombers and tanks.

    That said: humor is the best way to deal with these things. The remarks actually made me laugh. We are a nation of down to earth people, we can handle that. Lets just hope we all learned a bit from all that happened in those dark days. Yet, looking at the world today, I'm not sure.....

  68. #68
    mtbr member
    Reputation: asphaltdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    643
    Quote Originally Posted by womble
    Dedicated cycling lanes, driver awareness, and the law siding with cyclists in accidents also helps.


    Quote Originally Posted by manabiker
    I wonder if the Mountain Bikers there wear helmets?
    Yes we do.

    Bikes in Amsterdam
    Ride more!

Members who have read this thread: 0

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2019 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.