Helmet debate... new twist
- Thread starter Beeping-Sleauty
- Start date
Moles, yes the French blow them up with a sort of firework, banned here of course but I am told they are very effective. Have a trip to Calais. Gassing them is the surest way but cyanide is restricted now though some farmers and pest control specialists still use it, whether legally I am not sure.
Pete
Pete
Running them over is cruel when it injures them or leaves them suffering a slow death, that's the difference.In post #26 of this thread, you told us how you "take great care not to get hurt, nor to hurt any other creature".
It must sting a bit when you shoot 'em though...
A close range pellet through the brain with instant death doesn't of course, and I wont take a shot unless it's an absolute certainty.
We have a huge out of control squirrel population problem where I am, since councils cut back on essentials like pest control in favour of central government directed things. In our case its the songbird population in particular that suffers, and with the squirrels in a large bird sanctuary, that's not on.
Whoever first brought grey squirrels in from North America should have included the dozen or more natural predators that keep them under control there. We don't have any in the UK.
.
Yes, we used to be able to get mole smokes, but not any more. My neighbour is licensed to use the pellets against them, but even that hasn't worked. They are slowly working their way over to his garden, so I expect he'll have another go soon.
Nick
Ah ha!. My first job when leaving school at fifteen was an apprentice greenkeeper on a golf course. Each morning, armed with wheelbarrow, brush, shovel and pick-axe handle, I would visit each green, tamp as much soil as possible back into the hole and pick the remainder up. The following morning I would go around and do it all again!.
No Moles were harmed in the making of this film
No Moles were harmed in the making of this film
Maybe they should start wearing helmets for their own safteyRunning them over is cruel when it injures them or leaves them suffering a slow death, that's the difference.
A close range pellet through the brain with instant death doesn't of course, and I wont take a shot unless it's an absolute certainty.
(taken from The Chainring Chronicles: January 2009)
I tried everything against moles when in France including sending car exhaust down their holes. But of course their modus operandi is simply to block off that section of their gallery. The explosives do work and were the only thing that did. But, as soon as you get one mole, another moves into its place.
You should be able to get the explosive device in Mr Bricolage. I found that it was necessary to leave an old pair of gloves in the garden for a couple of weeks and wear those when putting these traps down, otherwise, again, they close off the trapped area of the gallery due to the alien odour on the trip.
This pic demonstrates the efficacy of the sonic anti-mole devices. The mole hills appeared about a week after I planted the device. My feeling is that they liked the rhythm of the beeps and had opened a disco down there.
The squirrels, there's a plague of them round here and they are continually trying to get into the loft and landing area of my house. I started shooting them first when I found them ripping away some lead flashing on an inaccessible part of the house. If they would nest in the trees I'd be less bothered.
Oh yes - talking in other people's sleep was the informal job description.I guess as a lecturer, people paying attention must come as something of a novelty to you...
12mph ??
Quote from a mailing-list:
-----
No cycle helmet is certified beyond 12mph (12.5mph actually) (being the
speed you head would reach at ground level if you fell off a stationary
bike). Also the important factor, energy, goes as the speed squared so
by 15mph your are already exceeding the helmet's design limit by 50%
(and they barely pass the 12mph test as it is). By the time you get to
20mph its 260% of its design limit.
Curious then that public perception is helmets are most needed when
riding fast, which is way beyond what they are designed for, and least
needed when pootling along, which is exactly what they are designed for.
-----
Quote from a mailing-list:-----
No cycle helmet is certified beyond 12mph (12.5mph actually) (being the
speed you head would reach at ground level if you fell off a stationary
bike). Also the important factor, energy, goes as the speed squared so
by 15mph your are already exceeding the helmet's design limit by 50%
(and they barely pass the 12mph test as it is). By the time you get to
20mph its 260% of its design limit.
Curious then that public perception is helmets are most needed when
riding fast, which is way beyond what they are designed for, and least
needed when pootling along, which is exactly what they are designed for.
-----
There's a good reason for this although I think the statement "No cycle helmet is certified beyond 12mph" is misleading and bordering on rubbish.
-----
No cycle helmet is certified beyond 12mph (12.5mph actually) (being the
speed you head would reach at ground level if you fell off a stationary
bike). Also the important factor, energy, goes as the speed squared so
by 15mph your are already exceeding the helmet's design limit by 50%
(and they barely pass the 12mph test as it is). By the time you get to
20mph its 260% of its design limit.
Curious then that public perception is helmets are most needed when
riding fast, which is way beyond what they are designed for, and least
needed when pootling along, which is exactly what they are designed for.
-----
When designing a helmet you first need to decide want is more important, is it preserving life or preserving quality of life? Then you need to know the speed that most impacts will occur at and I'd guess that the 12mph figure is about right but that doesn't mean designers ignore what happens above that speed.
If your all out goal is to save lives then you put firmer padding in, more people will live but more will have brain damage. If your goal is quality of life you put just enough padding in for the 12mph crash, less people will have brain damage but more will die. I think in reality the padding is much firmer as a 12mph impact is unlikely to give you brain damage and designers know there's a fair risk of a higher speed impact.
Pro and anti helmet people usually quote shocking figures rather than relevent ones which is what leads to claims that they are useless or they are essential, I think they just help.
The American Snell standard is often touted as being the ultimate in helmet design but in motorbikes Snell goes for the highest survival rate, in designing a helmet to keep someone alive in a 100mph crash they have neglected people who don't ride that fast and end up brain damaged after a slower impact. Therefore if you ride a scooter a Snell certified helmet could well be a poor choice to go for.
There are other differences, for example the (motorbike helmet) BS certification includes a penetration test, the European one doesn't. People love to use standards to back up arguments when they don't know what the standard is.
I still think the most unsafe part of the helmet is the strap as many people don't adjust it properly, it will fly off in an accident and make wearing it pointless.
My feeling too, but I'm actually more concerned about strangulation (light or severe):
http://www.pedelecs.co.uk/forum/electric-bicycles/5103-grab-bargain-while-lasts-folding-helmet.html#post64720
Someone who recently fell from his bike and cracked his helmet (he's bruised everywhere and he has a bad case of whiplash, but the head/scalp/skull is fine):
Sometimes you need a nanny
I bought my mother (she's 65) a helmet for her birthday. She rarely rides her folding bike but two weeks after I bought her the helmet, she fell off her bike and banged her (helmeted) head on the concrete. She was fine. A few weeks earlier, and she wouldn't have been.
She was very pleased I'd made her wear a helmet.
I can understand why people don't want to be told what to do by the Government, but sometimes the resulting benefit is worth it.
I bought my mother (she's 65) a helmet for her birthday. She rarely rides her folding bike but two weeks after I bought her the helmet, she fell off her bike and banged her (helmeted) head on the concrete. She was fine. A few weeks earlier, and she wouldn't have been.
She was very pleased I'd made her wear a helmet.
I can understand why people don't want to be told what to do by the Government, but sometimes the resulting benefit is worth it.
Jesus. I wish I had a pic of my mate Dan's helmet from when he crashed into a wall in Wales. We were doing practice runs down the Cwmcarn DH course and he got a jump wrong whilst right next to me and slammed a concrete wall full on at about 35mph. It was absolutely devastating and his helmet literally shattered! It looked awful. He broke his hand and nose if I remember correctly, as well as multiple cuts/bruises. Doesn't sound too bad but it looked epic.
The idiot hasn't learned though, we are racing together again later this year
The idiot hasn't learned though, we are racing together again later this year
These discussion on helmets never lead anywhere since the arguments are fuelled by belief, not facts.
What is beyond me is the necessity some people have to persuade others. It smacks of religious fervour. It doesn't matter to me whether someone else wears a helmet or not. I really, deeply, don't care.
The only certainty seems to be that enforced helmet wearing drastically cuts the number of people using bicycles.
If you are a motorist and never use a bicycle, that is a good thing. If you are a cyclist and prepared to wear a helmet, it doesn't matter to you. If you are not prepared to wear a helmet, it's a bad thing. That's all you can say in the end.
The vast majority of head injuries are sustained by people in cars and on foot - why is there no discussion on the merits of of wearing helmets in these conditions? If the aim is to save life that is where to start for maximum life saving. But it isn't about that, is it? it's about imposing one's will on others.
What is beyond me is the necessity some people have to persuade others. It smacks of religious fervour. It doesn't matter to me whether someone else wears a helmet or not. I really, deeply, don't care.
The only certainty seems to be that enforced helmet wearing drastically cuts the number of people using bicycles.
If you are a motorist and never use a bicycle, that is a good thing. If you are a cyclist and prepared to wear a helmet, it doesn't matter to you. If you are not prepared to wear a helmet, it's a bad thing. That's all you can say in the end.
The vast majority of head injuries are sustained by people in cars and on foot - why is there no discussion on the merits of of wearing helmets in these conditions? If the aim is to save life that is where to start for maximum life saving. But it isn't about that, is it? it's about imposing one's will on others.
Related Articles
-
MTF Enterprises announces acquisition of EMU Electric Bikes- Started by: Pedelecs
-
Wisper 806T folding bike wins Which? ‘Best Buy’- Started by: Pedelecs
-
Sustrans calls for protected cycle lanes- Started by: Pedelecs
-
Amazon launch their first UK e-cargo micromobility hub- Started by: Pedelecs
