South West Bikers | Motorcycle Forum

Not really wasted is it, its just where the discussion has gone - bit of a wasted post though !

Personaly i think helets are a must, and i think that the law is right to enforce them. Just think of how many more deaths and very serious injuries we would have without them. I took a bike around a car par once (literally 20 feet), without a helmet, and i felt so naked an exposed ! Definatly wouldnt ever ride without one !

I imagine everyone who has been riding for more than a year has probably had a helmet save their life at some point. Or at the very least save a friends life. I like being alive, and i especially like being alive with the great group of friends i have around me.

When im back from uni i usually pick up some hours in a wood workshop near me doing machining. For ages i never bothered using the hand guard when i was working because i worked quicker and easier without it. One day my hand slipped onto the planer bed (this is also why i dont go to work hung over EVER) i was extremely lucky and only lost a bit off my little finger. The guy i was working for called me f*cking idiot, and i couldn't agree more. I learnt my lesson the hard way but it could have been alot harder

So basically my view is - everyone is entitled to do whatever they want. However you must also accept that by taking that choice you must be willing to put up with a lot of people calling you a f*cking idiot.

Tom L wrote:A couple months ago a kid on a 125 put himself and his bike under my dads car

HAHAHAHAHA
put himself under it =P
you make it sound like that was his overall objective.

Chaoscustoms wrote:Never wish anything nasty upon anyone, many years ago I used to attend RTA's and I can tell you once you've witnessed a couple you would'nt wish it on anyone.
Also, just remember this, you wear a helmet because the law says you HAVE to, some of us would like the CHOICE, and anyone who thinks that a helmet is a wonderfull piece of saftey equipment is seriously deluded. Go look at the government legal testing requirements for helmets and you would be shocked to discover that the manufacturers are only required to test a helmet to no more than 22 mph impact speed ! Which basically means, its about useless.

Utter b0ll0cks, it's also about protecting your noggin in a slide, not just an impact. How useless would it feel when your chin has been ground off?

JohnBob wrote:

Chaoscustoms wrote:Never wish anything nasty upon anyone, many years ago I used to attend RTA's and I can tell you once you've witnessed a couple you would'nt wish it on anyone.
Also, just remember this, you wear a helmet because the law says you HAVE to, some of us would like the CHOICE, and anyone who thinks that a helmet is a wonderfull piece of saftey equipment is seriously deluded. Go look at the government legal testing requirements for helmets and you would be shocked to discover that the manufacturers are only required to test a helmet to no more than 22 mph impact speed ! Which basically means, its about useless.

Utter b0ll0cks, it's also about protecting your noggin in a slide, not just an impact. How useless would it feel when your chin has been ground off?

Also most impacts to the head don't happen at a higher speed than that. It's not about what speed the bike was going at, it's about the speed your head was going when it hit the floor or whatever. Chances are impacts at higher speeds and the helmeted head would be least of a person's problems. Having attended RTA's I would have thought you'd appreciate the need for safety equipment. Previously Working with Brain injured patients I know I do...

Funky wrote:

JohnBob wrote:

Chaoscustoms wrote:Never wish anything nasty upon anyone, many years ago I used to attend RTA's and I can tell you once you've witnessed a couple you would'nt wish it on anyone.
Also, just remember this, you wear a helmet because the law says you HAVE to, some of us would like the CHOICE, and anyone who thinks that a helmet is a wonderfull piece of saftey equipment is seriously deluded. Go look at the government legal testing requirements for helmets and you would be shocked to discover that the manufacturers are only required to test a helmet to no more than 22 mph impact speed ! Which basically means, its about useless.

Utter b0ll0cks, it's also about protecting your noggin in a slide, not just an impact. How useless would it feel when your chin has been ground off?

Also most impacts to the head don't happen at a higher speed than that. It's not about what speed the bike was going at, it's about the speed your head was going when it hit the floor or whatever. Chances are impacts at higher speeds and the helmeted head would be least of a person's problems. Having attended RTA's I would have thought you'd appreciate the need for safety equipment. Previously Working with Brain injured patients I know I do...

3 weeks ago I had a major crash. The chin bar on my helmet took significant damage as I slid along the ground. Without my helmet my face would have slid along tarmac at 60 mph.

If I had survived that I would have at the very least been hideously disfigured (cue piss taking), personally I totally agree with JohnBob & Funky, I am absolutely certain that my helmet has saved my life on more than 1 occasion.

Chaoscustoms wrote:Interesting to see that no one actually reads things correctly do they....... I didnt say that a helmet was useless just that some of us would like the choice instead of constantly being nannied by the state unlike the other sheep.
If, as you say, without a helmet your chin would be ground off, then I respectfully suggest that you run along to your local MP and ask him to ban the use of open face helmets, which, correct me if I am wrong, have no chin guard, oooops looks like you missed that.
If you have an impact head on or other, think about mass, momentum and inertia, that is if you recall your physics lessons. Know consider the weight of your head, are we getting the picture now ?
The trouble with saftey equipment is, we are lead to believe that its the ultimate solution, it isnt, in point of fact Funky me old mucker, I have attended two RTA's where the use of seatbelts was the contributing factor to the deaths of the occupants, they were jammed in their vehicles and burnt alive. I have also witnessed the loss of a hand where the wearing of a glove was the cause.
Winston Churchill was asked once, what measures would dramatically reduce road deaths from driving to fast, his reply " put a 6" spike on the steering wheel, that'll slow em down" !
We are all entitled to an opinion about this, and I would ask you to read carefully what someone takes the time to type before you jump down their throat.

Chaos i agree with you freedom of choice is the thing ,in this nanny state we are being told what to do too much the powers that are after making biking just about illegal i reckon, Fred Hill died in jail fighting for the right to choose whether too wear a helmet himself, M.A.G or motorcycle action group was formed out of this event, all bikers that want to keep their freedom and fight stupid laws can do no better than to join MAG
merv

think about mass, momentum and inertia, that is if you recall your physics lessons. Know consider the weight of your head, are we getting the picture now ?

I hate to poke the bear, but here goes anyway.

your pre-accident momentum and inertia (i'll call it forward speed, just for brevity in this instance) don't really have much to do with this, as most impacts (including the 22mph test you spoke of earlier) are caused from hitting the ground due to the cruel mistress we call gravity. Now, the reason forward speed has nothing to do with this is because you are travelling perpendicular to the forces subjected upon your mass as you fall, gravity will accelerate you toward the ground at 9.8 meters per second per second, so to reach a downward velocity of 9.8 m/s you'd have to fall for one second, which (rather handily) is 22mph. So taking into account gravity's rate of acceleration upon a body, the 22mph impact speed and your initial downward velocity of 0 m/s, you'd have to start your fall from a height of 4.9 meters before the impact test performed on helmets becomes invalid, which is one hell of a high-side.

Of course none of this takes into account the rather remarkable shock absorbing capabilities of the human body, and also the fact that you will be travelling forward (here's where momentum and inertia come into play) so the helmet and your body will turn and dissipate energy as the friction between your good self and the road takes hold.

so to sum up:

helmets = good idea
test = perfectly adequate
you = talking out of bum hole

and that children, is the end of the lesson, good day

Unless you hit a wall head on. or a truck trailer.

Chaoscustoms wrote:If, as you say, without a helmet your chin would be ground off, then I respectfully suggest that you run along to your local MP and ask him to ban the use of open face helmets, which, correct me if I am wrong, have no chin guard, oooops looks like you missed that.

Missed what? That by either wearing an openface or no helmet you'll be disfigured in a faceplant/slide? Well-done you just argued against your own point.

If you're wondering what point i'm refering to i'll show you that quote again;

Chaoscustoms wrote:Also, just remember this, you wear a helmet because the law says you HAVE to, some of us would like the CHOICE, and anyone who thinks that a helmet is a wonderfull piece of saftey equipment is seriously deluded. Go look at the government legal testing requirements for helmets and you would be shocked to discover that the manufacturers are only required to test a helmet to no more than 22 mph impact speed ! Which basically means, its about useless.

I don't preach to anyone what they should/shouldn't wear, go ahead & ride with no helmet it makes no odds me. But i object to being called deluded, as it has been proven time and again that you ARE better off wearing a helmet than not.

& suggesting that safety measures make us 'lax (I can understand that up until--), will i become a better rider wearing shorts, t-shirt, and flip-flops simply because i'll be riding carefully to where-ever in full fear of coming off? You missed factoring in other road users, will they drive carefully around you because you are minus your helmet?

Not deluded - clued up.

unfortuneately you let yourself down by resorting to insults.

yeah i know, sorry about that, it was way past my bed time and my brain had just gotten quite a workout.

Anyway, i the main point i'm getting at is i object to you saying the standard by which our safety equipment is tested to is useless, as we do get 16-17 year olds on this site and i just think it's the wrong message to be giving them. i do believe, and numerous studies have shown, your helmet will save your life one day, i'm sure mine has and i've only been riding since May.

As for taking into account impacts with kerbs, lorrys etc., i know, but the vast majority of impacts are with the road surface so this is the area i decided to focus on, and i believe (although i'm not certain) the new SHARP ratings test for kerb impacts and the like.

Chaoscustoms wrote:If, as you say, without a helmet your chin would be ground off, then I respectfully suggest that you run along to your local MP and ask him to ban the use of open face helmets, which, correct me if I am wrong, have no chin guard, oooops looks like you missed that.

No need to patronise me chap, I didn't miss that at all, the fact is I wouldn't even consider wearing an open face helmet for exactly that reason. But that of course is my choice, and I know it's one that has served me well.

webster wrote:As for taking into account impacts with kerbs, lorrys etc., i know, but the vast majority of impacts are with the road surface so this is the area i decided to focus on, and i believe (although i'm not certain) the new SHARP ratings test for kerb impacts and the like.

Having visited helmet factories all over the world as far afield as Korea I can tell you that the ECE 22.05 testing has always included impact tests on kurb anvils. I know this as I have watched the tests being carried out. Obviously truck impacts aren't quite so simple.....

At the end of the day I understand the arguments for choice etc, and I appreciate that in certain circumstances safety equipment such as a helmet may indeed worsen the effect of an injury, but I'm willing to bet that they save more injures than they cause.

beome a sikh, they have the choice.


personally i wil always choose to wear a crash helmet having seen the aftermath of my friends dad going thru the passengers window and out the rear window or a car wearing an open face lid.

it would be nice if we were allowed a few more choices these days, but apparently the government still deems everyone to be mindless idiots - no offence intended to anyone.


nanny state is definately here, sucks !

Would you say that you should be allowed to choose to drink drive? Or that 12 year olds should have the choice to buy knives, cigarettes, alcohol and ordnance class explosives. In some situations people shouldn't have a choice because some times. Some people. Make pretty [Censored] dumb choices.

Everyone whinges on about the "nanny state" but the reality is (for me) that the state doesn't impair my lifestyle at all. I think its very important that we keep them in check because they can get carried away very very easily. Has anyone found that the nanny state has changed their lives? Be quite interesting to see.