Yes, yes I would.

I like Ford trucks. I also like Simpson helmets.

When I was 17, I was on an old Yamaha V-max (OH THE POWER). I was doing about 50 MPH on a surface street, when some guy in an old Ford truck pulled out of a driveway right in front of me. He was trying to turn left, going across my lane to get to the next lane. I didn't have enough time to stop. I couldn't swerve left, as traffic was oncoming. Swerving right might have been an option, but I don't remember.

I don't recall exactly what I did, but I assume it was squeeze the front brake lever, slide my butt over and turn hard left, because I ended up sliding sideways (perpendicular to the road). I lifted my leg up over the gas tank as much as I could. I smashed into the truck, fell into the bed, then bounced out and tumbled onto the street. It was the scariest ****ing thing that I have ever experienced. I blacked out for about 15 seconds (I think). I thought "I'm dying" as I started losing sensation in my extremities and blacking out.

When I came to, the guy was climbing out of truck. I did a limb check, everything still attached and functional. I lay on the road for a moment, then took off my helmet. I discovered a hole in my old Simpson helmet almost 2 inches deep, and about two inches wide. Apparently, he had a few old railroad spikes in the bed of his truck, one of which nearly caved in my head. I was able to walk away with some scrapes from sliding on the road, a bruised rib, and a big ****ing headache. I had to go to the ER and all that, but they let me leave after only a couple of hours.

His Ford truck looked he had side-swiped a post. Only minor cosmetic damage. It was pretty tough.
Anyway, I always wear a helmet. Some people don't believe in it, but I will always wear one, no matter what. Same thing goes for seatbelts.

Not wearing a helmet on a bike is the height of suicidal idiocy.

I almost agree.

Here is what bothers me about DOT and Snell testing. They just bash a helmet's exterior until it breaks or they try to puncture it. The shell of a helmet is not what absorbs all of the force of an impact, it's the interior stuff between the shell and the liner. A helmet is really only good for one impact from one angle one time. It's junk after that. The other thing that bothers me is that these products are basically certified for "life." You should try to replace a helmet every other year, the materials do wear out.

A helmet will not save you if you're going fast enough and hit something hard enough. It does however, if it's fitted right, usually prevent your face from getting chewed off.

I still wear one though, it at least provides the idea of security, and it cuts down on wind fatigue.

doublepost

True, but at least you know that up to that point, the energy is likely going to be expended into breaking the helmet versus breaking your skull. To me, anything after that is gravy (as in anything after that will turn your brains into gravy anyway).

The shell doesn't absorb the impact energy, the stuff between the liner and the shell does. The shell protects against puncture. Such as getting a piece of rebar rammed through the side of your head.

Sure the shell does. Of course, so does the material between the liner and the shell, and of course the shell protects against puncture, but if energy of the impact is going into cracking the shell, then that's energy that ISN'T going into cracking your skull. Of course, I have no idea how much that works out into, it's totally possible that it's negligible compared to the contribution of the padding that spreads the impact out over more area and time, but I was being more colloquial anyway.

The shell transfers impact energy to the inside of the liner which is what absorbs the impact. This is what it is designed to do, which is why bashing the outside of a helmet until it breaks is a retarded way to test it.

You're right, it is not ideal. But, it's also not how they really test it. They measure the acceleration of a head inside of the helmet during impact after a drop.

By repeatedly smashing it until it breaks.

[quote=Snell Memorial Foundation]Both Snell and DOT measure the suddenness of the stop with an accelerometer, a device used to measure acceleration or in this case deceleration, that is mounted inside the headform. When the helmet smacks into the anvil, the accelerometer measures the headform deceleration throughout the duration of the impact event.[/quote](Snell Memorial Foundation)

I guess this could be inaccurate.

Yes. They do this.

Over and over again until it breaks.

This test doesn't exactly show how much force it absorbs and a sudden stop doesn't really fit in with the typical motorcycle accident which usually involves multiple impacts from several angles.

Unless you're riding head first into a brick wall.

Hardly. The centralization of production - i.e. 'industrialization' - began a long time before the invention of the automobile. Rail, and modern materials handling technologies (such as the forklift) have contributed far more.

It's not progress. It's regress.

North America's dependence on the automobile is artificial. A lot of it comes from anticompetitive behaviors on the parts of the automotive companies: buying up mass transit systems in American cities, for example.
A lot more of it is due to short-sighted civil planning. Los Angeles is a great case study: no mass transit system, uncontrolled urban sprawl, ridiculous superhighway system. Los Angeles was - literally! - an experiment to if a city designed around the automobile would work.
Let me know if it ever does.

Many countries have very effective mass transit systems. By comparison, we're tooling around in a slightly modernized version of the horse-drawn carriage - right down to the greenhouse gases from the rear.

Something like the majority of mass transit users in America live in New York City.

I would use mass transit if it was convenient, reliable, or worth a damn.

I suppose it'd be great to have a "mass" transit system that could take me precisely where I need to go precisely when I need to go there. I'm not saying the automobile is the ideal method of transportation, I'm saying that it is progress over the horse drawn carriage. And it's sure a lot more convenient and appropriate for travel around here. There are far too many towns spread across far too large an area for public transit to be as effective as a car.

I suppose it'd be super easy to have a bus route that runs out past every single house out in the country, though, so people could walk to their bus stop, then take a bus into town, then buy a train ticket and ride the train out to Tulsa, then switch trains to the one that's going to OKC, then get on a bus to the nearest stop to where you're going, then walk from there. Oh **** I made it to tulsa and forgot my file...I guess I'd better wait for the next train back to town, and then wait for the next bus out to my house (out of the hundreds of other houses it would need to go near).

But you're right, everything that works elsewhere will work here. Maybe we should just all abandon our towns, pick a couple big cities, and all live in giant urban environments. That WOULD be progress, and it WOULD allow for better and more efficient transit systems.


Edit: Rob, how would you propose they measure a helmet's effectiveness if not by measuring the acceleration of a headform inside of it during an impact?

NYC also has one of the craziest mass transit histories in the world. Grand Central goes, like, 2 miles deep. The new subway system is pretty much layered on top of the old pneumatic rail system. Crazy.

That's not what I said.

However, this is what you said: "If it won't work for some people, it won't work for anybody."

By not bashing a helmet over and over again until it breaks from one fixed angle at a time.

I've read about it. Seems like it would be neat to explore.

Nowhere does it say that they do it until it breaks, or that breaking is in any way related to the criteria. It refers to whether or not the helmet "withstood" the impact based on certain criteria. The criteria are:


They also explicitly state that they do this in at least 4 different locations on the helmet. I'm not sure where the confusion is here.

I never said anything about "everybody" or "anybody". I only discussed "some people". I think public transit is great in some situations, but i think calling the automobile a "regression" is inaccurate. How can having a new tool for a specific job be a regression? I'd say any tool is progress over a world without that tool. like I said, it's all in how you use it. The fact is, mass transit isn't always the right tool for a situation, and in those situations, automobiles may be the more effective solution.

...like switching from a power drill to a Yankee driver?

Like switching from a belt sander to an orbital sander, more like. Different tools for different jobs. Why does it have to be all or nothing? Why does mass transit have to be the answer to EVERYTHING, and automobiles have to be an old, outdated answer to nothing? If I want to go up to my friend's land to hunt, should I get a train ticket? Hop on a bus? Or would a truck not be far more appropriate?

Like I already explained, most American cities already had - or were actively developing - extensive mass transit systems prior to widespread adoption of automobiles. These systems were bought up and shut down to pave the way for the personal car.

(Side note: GM, Firestone, Mack, Standard Oil and a few other major corporations were convicted under the antitrust act of conspiracy to monopolize.)

You asked why it is a regression. This is why: 81% of Americans live in an urban center. In cities, mass transit systems work better than cars. Period. I'm not making an "all or nothing" attack on your H2, Bob. I just don't believe 19% of the population should be exclusively catered to by city planners.

Why are you still talking about cities? No one here is talking about cities, specifically. I think mass transit is a great idea in urban areas. I'm talking about the fact that cars are far more appropriate for many circumstances, including areas OUTSIDE of cities. Your argument seems to assume that cities are all that matter, well, by your own numbers: what about the 19% of the american population that DON'T live in a large urban center? What about people IN the urban centers who may on certain occasion, have reason to LEAVE that urban center? What about people who work within that urban center and need a way to carry equipment or products for their business AROUND that urban center?


P.S. I hate the H2, and other huge vehicles that people drive even when they don't need them.

Thank you for admitting that you have not actually read any of my posts on this subject.

I have read them. In them, you argue against a point that no one else is making regarding cities. You said that cars were a regression. I said that they had their applications and that I don't consider them a regression despite the fact that they aren't always the most appropriate tool. You then went on and on about cities like they were the only thing that mattered.

You are arguing that mass transit is the best and that cars are backwards ancient tools. I am arguing that cars are not a regression, that they have their applications just like mass transit does. Well, I'm talking about everywhere, and you're only supporting your point with city-related arguments (which I agree with) and not addressing the contentious issues.

To summarize:






(perhaps the confusion is with this phrase? By "around here" I mean "in rural Oklahoma")

They take 4 of the same helmet and bash it until it breaks.

You can watch the tests, they aren't nearly as sophisticated as you think.

I mean, if they aren't doing it that way, then that's one thing, but according to this standard, the way they are SUPPOSED to do it makes sense. If they aren't doing it the way the standard says, then that's an entirely different issue. Like, a fraud kind of issue.

Do they smash the same car over and over again to see if it's safe?

No, they smash a lot of the same car.

Jon'C isn't arguing against the existance of cars. He's arguing against the American dependance on cars, which is unreasonable for a huge majority of the population. It's a regressino because the superior tool for the job was in many cases in place before the personal car was popularized, but was torn down by powers that wanted to sell automobiles.

That's fine, but you keep saying "until it breaks" which is not part of the standard at all. They measure the acceleration of a head in the helmet, and also make sure that it isn't penetrated by some standard single impact (in any of a few locations). If you think they should make sure multiple consecutive impacts ALSO don't penetrate, then that makes sense.

Edit: And CarpKing, I know he's saying it's unreasonable for a large majority of the population to DEPEND on cars, and I have already agreed that the superior tool for certain jobs (like large urban areas) was already in place before the personal car was popularized. I never even came close to arguing against that. All I've been saying is that the automobile in and of itself represents PROGRESS because in certain situations it is superior to the alternatives which existed before it. The only PROBLEM is with how people use it, for example, when they use it in a situation where other mass transit would be better suited, a situation which apparently is created by the industry stifling mass transit development.

"American dependence on cars" is a little bit abstract to be arguing against, don't you think? A lot of americans depend on cars because that is the best tool for the job....unless you expect a painter to take his tools out to a rural job site on a train or a bus. A little hard to fit a ladder in a backpack, right?

^^ Not really. Next time on the freeway, count the number of commercial trucks compared to the number of passenger cars with only one occupant in it. You'll find the ratio quite high. ^^


It will take decades possibly into centuries to turn Southern California around.
It's not just Los Angeles; it's San Diego, and Orange County (The OC). Suburban sprawl, spacious land, and a culture so centered around their car will mean 32 lane highways, gridlock at all hours, and haze so thick that the sky is brown not blue.

I think what really ****ed over California was the fact that in a decade, our population grew like some 200%. Everyone came here with sunny weather, jobs, and cheap housing. Now all the natives are all "**** this ****. Too many people here, going to Washington."

To return to the original topic, that video makes me want to install seatbelts on all my furniture.

Of course. I didn't mean to argue that there wasn't a higher use than there needed to be. I just meant that attacking the "american dependence on cars" is not so simple, because a lot of (not a majority of, just a lot of) americans' dependence on cars is completely legitimate.

I might end up living near Seattle. Stay the **** out of my future state.

hello hoping to live near seattle in the future buddy