The CycleChat Helmet Debate Thread

[MontyVeda]

A couple of points about "modern" helmets

Original cycle helmets (as opposed to "hair nets") were a fairly thick chunk of polystyrene with the ability to absorb energy.

As design has progressed, fashion and ventilation have become a greater priority in design,at the cost of effectiveness

When you put a vent in the helmet it removes the absorptive material and reduces the amount of energy that can be absorbed. Additionally the material that is left has to be denser and stiffer to support the helmet design.

Modern helmets really compromise the basics of helmet design.

Then you get to a stage where the little material that is left is unable to (even in the denser form) support the design and a stiff uncompressible carbon fibre or other sort of material is introduced to support the design shape.

.. and all that is before you get to the other design faults such as "snag points"

Isn't it rather ironic that we have such a vociferous pro-helmet who are advocating an inferior product and not questioning the decrease in effectiveness

Could this be the reason so many modern helmets "crack" - there simply isn't enough stiff material to support the structure in and impact and the frail bars snap

Note how these random examples from a Google search have all failed at a frail cross piece in the design

all in all, it's a manufacturers dream product. buy one break it buy another break it buy another break it buy another break it (or BOBIBABIBABIBA)

 

[glasgowcyclist]

Why couldn't it be - "bike helmets may help prevent cuts, bruises, road rash in the event of an accident, but be aware your head will be bigger with a helmet on and you may be subject to accidents you otherwise might not have been".

You'll need to convince the helmet industry to modify its fearmarketing then.

The accompanying blurb for the Las Victory Supreme 40th cycle helmet in Halfords reads:
"Don't take Jake or Jill`s example and break your crown, instead wear the Las Victory Supreme crown with pride and joy and ride in absolute safety."

I'll repeat that last bit: ".. absolute safety". This is the kind of brazen bullshit that is used to sell helmets.

GC

 

[Justinslow]

You'll need to convince the helmet industry to modify its fearmarketing then.

The accompanying blurb for the Las Victory Supreme 40th cycle helmet in Halfords reads:
"Don't take Jake or Jill`s example and break your crown, instead wear the Las Victory Supreme crown with pride and joy and ride in absolute safety."

I'll repeat that last bit: ".. absolute safety". This is the kind of brazen bullshit that is used to sell helmets.

GC

Is that not a "trading standards" issue then?

 

[Justinslow]

They should have on them in big red letters :NOT A SAFETY DEVICE.

Can't have that, however crappy you think the testing constraints of helmets are, they have passed them. My son had a toy builders helmet when he was younger, now that did have "not a safety device" stamped on it because it was a "toy" and could be confused for "a safety device".

 

[martint235]

Is that not a "trading standards" issue then?

This kind of advertising is endemic though. For example, Wiggle says this about a KASK helmet: "Performance cycle helmets offer unrivalled levels of protection with the absolute minimum of material." So how can this be true if the LAS Victory Supreme offers "absolute safety" unless "unrivalled" is used to mean "our helmet is so sh*te you won't see anything near as bad"

What needs to happen is for the hapless consumers to start saying "Go on then prove it" before handing over their hard earned cash.

 

[martint235]

Can't have that, however crappy you think the testing constraints of helmets are, they have passed them. My son had a toy builders helmet when he was younger, now that did have "not a safety device" stamped on it because it was a "toy" and could be confused for "a safety device".

We could put "Not tested in real world cycling" on them. There should be something to counter the manufacturers' bold but unsubstantiated claims.

 

[Mugshot]

You'll need to convince the helmet industry to modify its fearmarketing then.

The accompanying blurb for the Las Victory Supreme 40th cycle helmet in Halfords reads:
"Don't take Jake or Jill`s example and break your crown, instead wear the Las Victory Supreme crown with pride and joy and ride in absolute safety."

I'll repeat that last bit: ".. absolute safety". This is the kind of brazen bullshit that is used to sell helmets.

GC

Breath taking really. I checked out a couple of reviews for it, the person at Road CC said this

Tell us how the product performed overall when used for its designed purpose

Very well

Oddly they didn't mention in their review that they'd come off and banged their head, so maybe their defintion of designed purpose differs from mine.
Actually i've just noticed the review is for the standard Victory not the Supreme.

 

[benb]

Is this not a good enough reason to wear one then, why do we all seem to focus on "serious head injury"?
Why couldn't it be - "bike helmets may help prevent cuts, bruises, road rash in the event of an accident, but be aware your head will be bigger with a helmet on and you may be subject to accidents you otherwise might not have been".
That's good enough for me.

Funny, helmet proponents don't say "Wear a helmet, it might stop you getting a minor scrape, cut, bruise or road rash"
They always say "Wear a helmet, it could save your life" despite the evidence showing that such an outcome is so vanishingly rare we cannot detect it.

I don't care sufficiently about cuts, scrapes, bruises and road rash to go to the considerable bother and inconvenience of wearing a helmet to mitigate it. Such injuries are not serious enough for me to wear a helmet. If I genuinely found no difference in my cycling experience when I wore a helmet then I suppose I might wear on, on the off-chance, but I find cycling so much more pleasurable without a helmet on that I won't bother.

 

[shouldbeinbed]

Can't have that, however crappy you think the testing constraints of helmets are, they have passed them. My son had a toy builders helmet when he was younger, now that did have "not a safety device" stamped on it because it was a "toy" and could be confused for "a safety device".

ok then, how about: Protection offered is not comparable to other vehicle type or sports helmets, or better still TESTED ONLY TO..... and a clear description of the testing regimen it has passed and equivalence to cycling activity that staff must explain to customers, NOT TO BE CONSIDERED SAFE BEYOND..... informed purchasing and all that

Or would you rather the myth of protection continue to be peddled as is now, allowing manufacturers, retailers and victim blamers everywhere to not feel the need to move and improve significantly and there never be a genuine chance to innovate and improve cycling helmets to the point at which they might well win over the sceptics & prove more effective in more circumstances than a thick bobble hat

I bet it'd protect him from scratches and bumps in much the same way as a tenner lid from a supermarket or pile it high sell it cheap retail outlets would.

 

[SavageHoutkop]

Breath taking really. I checked out a couple of reviews for it, the person at Road CC said this

Tell us how the product performed overall when used for its designed purpose

Very well

Same logic applies to car seats for babies/children - I had some serious safety concerns about one type and bought a rear-facing seat after looking at the evidence; but was met with 'but my seat works fine' from other parents. By which they meant, probably, that it fitted nicely in the car and was easy to wash or something.

 

[MontyVeda]

Same logic applies to car seats for babies/children - I had some serious safety concerns about one type and bought a rear-facing seat after looking at the evidence; but was met with 'but my seat works fine' from other parents. By which they meant, probably, that it fitted nicely in the car and was easy to wash or something.

an excellent example of how people can assume "it's for sold as safety device so it must work as one".

As for rear facing baby seats.... isn't the cute gurgling baby facing them a bit of a distraction for the doting parent in the driver's seat?

 

[Justinslow]

On here, helmet proponents often say that a helmet will save you from a scrape, and that is a good enough reason always to wear one. They only do this once they reach the stage where they finally realise that their original argument, that a helmet will save your life, is wearing a bit thin. Justin is just treading a familiar path.

Could be, maybe you are wearing me down! I've still got my anecdotal evidence though from my mate to fall back on, however you view that. And I'm not sure I ever said it will save your life, other people said that regarding my mate, but nobody can prove that it won't save your life either.

What I do find strange is the "I won't wear a helmet under any circumstances" view. I know some - @GrumpyGregry and others have said they wear them off road, well that's wearing a helmet then.
Our local off road trail centre is Highlodge at Thetford Forest, I can't recall ever seeing a rider without a helmet, now we are all either sheep following along or we wear them because we know the riding (at speed, which is fun) through the forests has its hazards. It would be great if a "serious" MTB rider would give us their views?
I think what I'm getting at is - you can't really say helmets are cr#p if some sections of the biking community actually find them quite useful.

I will be honest, this is not something I've really thought about massively before, it's just a default setting nowadays for me to put one on, I am seeing a different side to it thanks to some of the informative posts on here and the evidence from other countries is interesting, but not enough to stop me wearing one, I don't feel it's a hindrance to my riding, I don't even think about it once I've started a ride.

 

[martint235]

Our local off road trail centre is Highlodge at Thetford Forest, I can't recall ever seeing a rider without a helmet, now we are all either sheep following along or we wear them because we know the riding (at speed, which is fun) through the forests has its hazards. It would be great if a "serious" MTB rider would give us their views?
I think what I'm getting at is - you can't really say helmets are cr#p if some sections of the biking community actually find them quite useful.

I'm not sure what you'd expect a "serious" MTB rider to add to the conversation. We could also have a member of the pro peloton on but they wouldn't really be able to add anything other than anecdotal information similar to other pro-helmet riders.
I think that one of the points being missed is that on many occasions patients given placebo pills "find them useful", it doesn't alter the fact that there is absolutely nothing to back up their "usefulness". By all means continue to wear a helmet, I'm just trying to save you some hard earned cash.

 

[Justinslow]

I'm not sure what you'd expect a "serious" MTB rider to add to the conversation. We could also have a member of the pro peloton on but they wouldn't really be able to add anything other than anecdotal information similar to other pro-helmet riders.
I think that one of the points being missed is that on many occasions patients given placebo pills "find them useful", it doesn't alter the fact that there is absolutely nothing to back up their "usefulness". By all means continue to wear a helmet, I'm just trying to save you some hard earned cash.

My cash is already spent, and I didn't get suckered in to the "most expensive is best" propaganda, £15 from Planet X will do just fine.

 

[Mugshot]

I will be honest, this is not something I've really thought about massively before, it's just a default setting nowadays for me to put one on, I am seeing a different side to it thanks to some of the informative posts on here and the evidence from other countries is interesting, but not enough to stop me wearing one, I don't feel it's a hindrance to my riding, I don't even think about it once I've started a ride.

This is quite often the case Justin, the "well it's obvious innit" argument. I think you are to be congratulated for saying what you have, far too often the default setting is to have a strop and then flounce off having told everyone how stupid they are (usually with a side order of when you die don't come running to me thrown in for good measure).