no helmet
AMuzi
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Tom Sherman °_°
> http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/08/bicyclist-killed-in-dan-ryan-express-lane.html
>
>
Lesson, if you are going to ride in a lane against traffic moving in
excess of 110 kph on a controlled access urban motorway, better wear a
couple of hundred grams of expanded polystyrene on your head.
</sarcasm> [1]
[1] For Michael Press and André Jute, this is NOT a quote of Andy Muzi.
--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.
landotter
> http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/08/bicyclist-killed-in-dan-ry...
Sensationalist. It doesn't mention a helmet. Good call on the editors,
as it would have been ridiculous.
Kid was probably high as hell.
Dan O
<twshermanREM...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote:
> On 8/31/2010 4:44 PM, A. Muzi wrote:>http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/08/bicyclist-killed-in-dan-ry...
>
> Lesson, if you are going to ride in a lane against traffic moving in
> excess of 110 kph on a controlled access urban motorway, better wear a
> couple of hundred grams of expanded polystyrene on your head.
>
> </sarcasm> [1]
>
<snip>
Well, I saw no mention of helmets, but did note "... bicycle riding is
prohibited... ".
I don't know about you, but if I got smacked by an SUV on the
expressway, I'd much rather be wearing a helmet, which isn't at all
the same as saying I would rely on it to save me.
Andre Jute
<twshermanREM...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote:
> On 8/31/2010 4:44 PM, A. Muzi wrote:>http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/08/bicyclist-killed-in-dan-ry...
>
> Lesson, if you are going to ride in a lane against traffic moving in
> excess of 110 kph on a controlled access urban motorway, better wear a
> couple of hundred grams of expanded polystyrene on your head.
>
> </sarcasm> [1]
In a thread about a dead cyclist it is difficult to imagine any
remarks in poorer taste than Sherman's.
> [1] For Michael Press and André Jute, this is NOT a quote of Andy Muzi.
A thread about a dead cyclist isn't the place to carry on your petty
flame wars, Sherman. Your behaviour is in the worst taste possible.
Andre Jute
Jeff Liebermann
>http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/08/bicyclist-killed-in-dan-ryan-express-lane.html
Same incident:
<http://wbbm.cbslocal.com/2010/08/30/bicyclist-struck-on-dan-ryan-dies/>
Hippchen was not wearing a helmet at the time of the crash,
sources said. He was struck by a black Jeep sport-utility
vehicle, which had to be towed from the scene.
No helmet. In order to make a Jeep SUV inoperable, there must have
been quite an impact with the bicycle, or maybe the wall. Nothing
useful in the photos.
The first URL says it's a black Lexus LX470. The others say a black
Jeep SUV. Well, they probably got the black part right.
--
Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
Nexus7
> http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/08/bicyclist-killed-in-dan-ry...
Please post for me a link where I can buy a helmet that will save my
life if I were to,
- ride the wrong way, and collide with a car,
- at a closing speed of over 60 mph.
Price no bar.
Andre Jute
You're going to be disappointed, pal, but then I guess you know that
already!
All the money in the world can't buy security against stupidity
(whether drug-induced, as Max speculated, or not). I don't reckon even
full body armour, or being strapped into a roll cage, woulda saved
that guy. Several of the reports mentioned that he was riding against
the traffic... At expressway closing speed the instantaneous
deceleration of the impact -- which Mike will calculate for us (pretty
please?) since I'm off on a ride -- will mush his innards; game over,
no penetration or skull-cracking required. We are also told he hit
that Lexus SUV (maybe a Jeep) hard enough to immobilize it. -- Andre
Jute
Jeff Liebermann
<fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Sep 1, 4:25 pm, Nexus7 <ac2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Aug 31, 4:44 pm, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>
>> >http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/08/bicyclist-killed-in-dan-ry...
>>
>> Please post for me a link where I can buy a helmet that will save my
>> life if I were to,
>> - ride the wrong way, and collide with a car,
>> - at a closing speed of over 60 mph.
>>
>> Price no bar.
>You're going to be disappointed, pal, but then I guess you know that
>already!
Maybe not. If you look at the leathers and plastic armor favored by
the motorcycle riders, it might be possible to adapt some of the
technology to bicycles. In automobiles, the trend is toward a cocoon
like enclosure surrounding the occupants. It may take some time to
get up to a 60mph rating, but it's a start. Maybe just gluing blocks
of stryrofoam, as in the helmets, to some manner of protective suit,
might be a start. Personally, I would favor a pressure suit, that
inflates when excessive G forces are detected. It would be much like
wearing and air bag. You would then bounce down the road, as in the
Mars landers. Anyway, don't give up quite so soon.
>All the money in the world can't buy security against stupidity
>(whether drug-induced, as Max speculated, or not).
Well, they're trying. Using public money for public transit is
occasionally partially justified in the reduction in traffic
accidents.
>I don't reckon even
>full body armour, or being strapped into a roll cage, woulda saved
>that guy.
Difficult to tell from the photos. The bicycle in the photo doesn't
look all that mangled. I've seen what's left of a bicycle that's been
in a much slower moving accident. The bicycle usually ends up looking
like a pretzel. At 70 mph, my guess is that there would be components
strewn all over the road. Yet, the bicycle in the photo looks largely
intact.
>Several of the reports mentioned that he was riding against
>the traffic... At expressway closing speed the instantaneous
>deceleration of the impact -- which Mike will calculate for us (pretty
>please?) since I'm off on a ride -- will mush his innards; game over,
>no penetration or skull-cracking required. We are also told he hit
>that Lexus SUV (maybe a Jeep) hard enough to immobilize it. -- Andre
>Jute
Yep. It's the sudden change in speed, both on impact and during the
process of landing, that kills.
MikeWhy
Well, I'm rather stunned to find that 5" of magic helmet foam, appropriately
sprinkled with the requisite fairy dust, encapsulating the rider is
sufficient to reduce the impact to 300 G, the presumed survivability limit
of skull contents. However, that deceleration is sustained for more than 9
milliseconds, much longer than the 1 or 2 ms I recall specified for those
g-loads. Reducing the survivability threshold to 200 G, by reducing the foam
stiffness to suit, the foam thickness becomes 7.3", with the impact event
lasting 14 ms. That's still a rather stunning result, considering 60 mph is
equivalent to free falling 120 feet (in vacuume), or from a 12th story
window. Double or treble the foam for a safety factor, and the "wearer"
could well survive, even if bruised all over and bleeding from every
orifice. Pedaling and other activities would be impossible when encased in
this crash suit, however. It may be more suitable for skydivers than
bicyclists.
Real foam doesn't behave this way, of course. Foam behaves more like an
overdamped spring than mooshing putty, getting more stiff as it compresses.
An airbag surrounding the bike and rider might work. An energy forcefield
would be the best solution of all, with its powersource available to drive
the seat tube motor to assist hauling the field generator's mass up hills.
Collisions of non-rigid bodies are very complex. Even collisions of rigid
bodies -- a baseball colliding with a swung bat, for example -- are
non-trivial to analyze. However, we can simplify the problem by stipulating
the collision is completely inelastic and assume the bodies are rigid,
without arms, legs, and head flapping every which way or the torso bending
and twisting. In the above, I treated the bicyclist as a putty cartoon
character flattened and stuck to the grill of the speeding Mack truck, and
the truck continuing on unmoved without deforming. This under estimates the
accelerations in a real impact which, like with the bat and ball, likely
sends the cyclist flying.
MikeWhy
> Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> considered Tue, 31 Aug 2010
> 18:21:01 -0700 the perfect time to write:
>
>> On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 16:44:02 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/08/bicyclist-killed-in-dan-ryan-express-lane.html
>>
>> Same incident:
>> <http://wbbm.cbslocal.com/2010/08/30/bicyclist-struck-on-dan-ryan-dies/>
>> Hippchen was not wearing a helmet at the time of the crash,
>> sources said. He was struck by a black Jeep sport-utility
>> vehicle, which had to be towed from the scene.
>>
>> No helmet. In order to make a Jeep SUV inoperable, there must have
>> been quite an impact with the bicycle, or maybe the wall. Nothing
>> useful in the photos.
>
> forensic evidence.
> There doesn't seem to be much reason in this case, but I know that in
> many places it is standard protocol for dealing with a road death.
Maybe. But it's certain that hitting the bike and rider was no picnic for
the SUV. A small deer is about the same size and weight. Also, you likely
won't be driving it after colliding with a stationary pedestrian at 60 mph.
Hitting a bicyclist head on will have at least that same effect.
MikeWhy
> On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 10:15:53 -0700 (PDT), Andre Jute
> <fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sep 1, 4:25 pm, Nexus7 <ac2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Aug 31, 4:44 pm, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/08/bicyclist-killed-in-dan-ry...
>>>
>>> Please post for me a link where I can buy a helmet that will save my
>>> life if I were to,
>>> - ride the wrong way, and collide with a car,
>>> - at a closing speed of over 60 mph.
>>>
>>> Price no bar.
>
>> You're going to be disappointed, pal, but then I guess you know that
>> already!
>
> Maybe not. If you look at the leathers and plastic armor favored by
> the motorcycle riders, it might be possible to adapt some of the
> technology to bicycles.
No, that doesn't work with the SUV. The leathers and padding protect the
rider from the impact with the ground, which can be quite severe, and also
from road rash as he dissipates forward momentum the old fashioned way by
sliding along the ground. They don't help much with impacts.
Motorcycles can launch their riders 20' and more skyward in a high-side.
Rather than simply falling to the inside of the curve as in a low-side,
suddenly regaining traction on a sliding tire flings the bike back upright
and beyond, sometimes launching the rider spectacularly. That's a high side.
The biggest concerns for a racer are, usually in this order: lap time, high
siding, and roadside obstructions. Lose lap time and you might lose the
race. High siding can end the season. A tree or unpadded barrier can end
your career or take your life. The best strategy is still to keep the rubber
going around the track, yielding the fastest laptime and precluding the
other concerns. Just so you won't mistake the laptime concern as a matter of
bravado.
Andre Jute
> On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 10:15:53 -0700 (PDT), Andre Jute
>
> >On Sep 1, 4:25 pm, Nexus7 <ac2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Aug 31, 4:44 pm, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
> >> >http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/08/bicyclist-killed-in-dan-ry...
>
> >> Please post for me a link where I can buy a helmet that will save my
> >> life if I were to,
> >> - ride the wrong way, and collide with a car,
> >> - at a closing speed of over 60 mph.
>
> >> Price no bar.
> >You're going to be disappointed, pal, but then I guess you know that
> >already!
>
> Maybe not. If you look at the leathers and plastic armor favored by
> the motorcycle riders, it might be possible to adapt some of the
> technology to bicycles. In automobiles, the trend is toward a cocoon
> like enclosure surrounding the occupants. It may take some time to
> get up to a 60mph rating, but it's a start. Maybe just gluing blocks
> of stryrofoam, as in the helmets, to some manner of protective suit,
> might be a start.
Won't sell. The roadies down at Le Kef Poshure will laugh you off the
road.
>Personally, I would favor a pressure suit, that
> inflates when excessive G forces are detected.
That one I like. It could me made of some really expensive variant of
Goretex in unsuitably bright colours and be sold as the high-fashion
thing to have. Also, It needn't be very good breathable material, then
the advertising can claim that it slims you down by the weight of your
perspiration inside it.
> It would be much like
> wearing and air bag.
Quite. Ladies used to run in plastic trousers halfway up the chest to
sweat off a little around the hips. Good idea.
--AJ
> Santa Cruz CA 95060http://802.11junk.com
> Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
Andre Jute
surrounding someone's head. In my youth I knew lots of very trendy
people with bigger Afros than that, some of them even in Africa. -- AJ
MikeWhy
> I don't see any problem with 5" or for that matter 7.3" inches of foam
> surrounding someone's head. In my youth I knew lots of very trendy
> people with bigger Afros than that, some of them even in Africa. -- AJ
That's actually a pretty convenient size and possibly wearable if we leave
the limbs out of the enclosure. It's about the width of the shoulders, and
can be faired to improve aerodynamics in the individual time trials. Since
I'm not at all a slave to fashion, it won't bother me to appear in public
dressed like a literal egghead, or painted to resemeble Tweedledee and
Tweedledum. Just call me Humpty.
Jeff Liebermann
<boat042...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Andre Jute wrote:
>> I don't see any problem with 5" or for that matter 7.3" inches of foam
>> surrounding someone's head. In my youth I knew lots of very trendy
>> people with bigger Afros than that, some of them even in Africa. -- AJ
>
>That's actually a pretty convenient size and possibly wearable if we leave
>the limbs out of the enclosure. It's about the width of the shoulders, and
>can be faired to improve aerodynamics in the individual time trials. Since
>I'm not at all a slave to fashion, it won't bother me to appear in public
>dressed like a literal egghead, or painted to resemeble Tweedledee and
>Tweedledum. Just call me Humpty.
There's a better way. Instead of foam, use a rheopectic fluid, such
as corn starch or Silly Putty. The purpose of the foam is only partly
to absorb the energy of the impact. It's also to redirect the energy
sideways which expends it over a larger area of the body, which is
presumably more survivable. An overall type of suit, with pockets for
bags of some non-Newtonian fluid, might be a suitable defense against
impact damage. The choice of fluid might vary depending on body
location, where Silly Putty might make the wearer bounce down the
road, and corn starch might make a huge pancake-like splatter.
Something in between might also be necessary in some locations. One
nice feature is that the corn starch is edible, which should be useful
for long rides.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Newtonian_fluid>
--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558
# http://802.11junk.com je...@cruzio.com
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS
Jeff Liebermann
That makes sense except for one minor detail. Some SUV's are slanting
the front bumper and grill for better aerodynamics. Assuming it was a
Lexus LX470, the grill appears to be somewhat slanted:
<http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d8/Lexus-LX-470.jpg>
No clue if this is the correct year, model, or style, but the slant
seems to be there on most new cars. Hitting this grill head on at 70
mph should send the rider and bicycle airborn or at least sliding over
the hood, up the windshield, and over the top.
Unfortunately, I have a personal experience with how this works. In
about 1976, I was going the wrong way on a quiet street, in a rush to
get an ice cream. A dentist in his Pontiac and I met when we both
turned the corner in opposite directions. Impact speed was only about
10-15 mph. I slid up the hood on my back, slid half way up the
windshield, slid back down the hood, and landed uncerimoniously on my
back on the ground. Thud. No lasting damage expect to one seat stay.
My back muscles were on strike for about 2 months but nothing else.
The CHP gave me a ticket for riding on the wrong side of the road
while I was strapped to a backboard in the hospital awaiting an x-ray.
I was in no position or condition to argue. Anyway, the slide across
the hood and up the windshield greatly reduced the energy of the
impact. Scale my stupidity up to 70 mph and there's far more energy
to dissipate (which is proportional to the square of the velocity).
Still, I would expect the rider to ride up the grill, across the hood,
and then go flying over the vehicle as it slows to a stop. The damage
would be done mostly by hitting the ground, not by hitting the
vehicle.
MikeWhy
Sure. Some motorcycle armor is made like that. It's a bendy pad until it
impacts something, and then becomes more like armor than padding.
Motorcross'ers also have hard armor. I'm pretty sure none are designed for
straight on 60 mph impacts. Sure, I can see non-Newtonians being useful for
the torso area.
The concern in a helmet is a little different. The real injury is from
stopping too suddenly, allowing the brain to slosh catastrophically against
the inside of the skull. The foam is more akin to a crush zone than padding.
It yields at a controlled rate to allow the skull just enough give to help
its contents get slowed. We're saying it needs that 7.3" of crush to get
slow from 60 mph without catastrophic injury. My taking it off topic and
trying to make a joke of it above certainly didn't help make this clear.
Frank Krygowski
>
> The concern in a helmet is a little different. The real injury is from
> stopping too suddenly, allowing the brain to slosh catastrophically against
> the inside of the skull. The foam is more akin to a crush zone than padding.
> It yields at a controlled rate to allow the skull just enough give to help
> its contents get slowed.
The more common real injury is not from the linear accelerations
("sloshing catastrophically against the inside of the skull" sounds
linear) but from the angular accelerations (perhaps "lagging behind as
the skull spins"). It's been known for years that angular
acceleration is much more likely to cause serious brain trauma due to
internal shear stresses in the brain. In fact, boxers routinely
attempt to take advantage of that effect, trying to spin the heads of
their opponents with crosses or uppercuts.
Adding inches of thickness to a bike helmet could decrease the linear
acceleration, but it would likely increase the tendency toward angular
acceleration.
Some are proposing helmet designs hoping to address angular
acceleration. Prognosis is not good, and AFAIK, none have been
brought to market - or at least, certainly not in a widely available
way.
- Frank Krygowski