ComedyPilot
Secret Lemonade Drinker
- Location
- The Kingdom of Yorkshire
People shouldn't take the OP subject to heart. It's only when one is open minded enough to step outside oneself and look in that one can see what is wrong.
Helmets stop people cycling
- Thread starter Mr Haematocrit
- Start date
- Status
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Ern1e
Über Member
- Location
- ROSSENDALE LANCS.
They made motorcycle helmets compulsary don't seem to have stopped to many of them lol must admit though it is good to be able to not wear it for quite short trips.
I wear a helmet on a motor bike. I buckle up in a car. That's because I believe both make substantive difference in an impact and are worth the trouble. They are heavy enough duty to do so and protect the parts most at risk in a collision.
I wear gloves when cycling for the same reason. I do not wear a helmet because its a relatively minor risk and the protection offered is minimal. Overall the stats suggest you might be better off spending the dosh on better brake pads. Oh when shopping where would you put a helmet with a Brompton in one hand and a basket in the other?
YMMV but do concede there is a consistency in my choices ...
I wear gloves when cycling for the same reason. I do not wear a helmet because its a relatively minor risk and the protection offered is minimal. Overall the stats suggest you might be better off spending the dosh on better brake pads. Oh when shopping where would you put a helmet with a Brompton in one hand and a basket in the other?
YMMV but do concede there is a consistency in my choices ...
Joey7415963
Guest
I don't see why you wouldn't, it's simple physics!
Force = change in momentum / time
Increasing time of impact (cushioning the blow), reduces the force.
For the sake of £6 Aldi helmet that's passed all the same British standards I don't see why you would take the risk.
Force = change in momentum / time
Increasing time of impact (cushioning the blow), reduces the force.
For the sake of £6 Aldi helmet that's passed all the same British standards I don't see why you would take the risk.
Yes the skull is pretty good at that. A british standard helmet is not (afair by a factor of ten). If you really think a £6 helmet is going to do much if anything in a serious impact - think again - and do the physics. It isn't quite as simple as you suggest.
But returning to the question. I don't go down to the shops on my motor bike. Getting dolled up/down is inconvenient and time wasting. That's why I cycle. Do the same for cycling and it makes it easier to take the car. Is that better or worse for me or the community?
But returning to the question. I don't go down to the shops on my motor bike. Getting dolled up/down is inconvenient and time wasting. That's why I cycle. Do the same for cycling and it makes it easier to take the car. Is that better or worse for me or the community?
...... I do!
Why wear a helmet that has passed the pathetic EN1078, a standard that is banned from use in the US as "offering inadequate protection" when you can purchase a full face helmet with Snell B95 certification.
I don't see why you would take the risk with an inferior helmet?
Joey7415963
Guest
I have done the physics, read my post again, where's your proof? At the moment without any formulaic evidence it's just conjecture.
In a serious impact bubble wrap will not protect a parcel, but it goes a long way to preventing as much damage.
The other question is whether these laws of physics also apply to other groups such as pedestrians?
I don't see why pedestrians wouldn't benefit........... it's simple physics, and the "proof "was provided above!
Force = change in momentum / time
Increasing time of impact (cushioning the blow), reduces the force.
For the sake of £6 Aldi helmet that's passed all the same British standards as required for cyclists, I don't see why any pedestrian would take the risk
Joey7415963
Guest
Greater risk of a heavier impact whilst cycling
Bit like when that snowboarder died from slipping on the snow, the report said it would have been prevented had she of been wearing a helmet
Bit like when that snowboarder died from slipping on the snow, the report said it would have been prevented had she of been wearing a helmet
No. For a start you have no conception how a cycle helmet works which makes your 'formula' wrong. To even get a handle on it is too deep to go on here. It requires a decent knowledge of material science, structures and some deep maths. Instead I will give you just an inadequate analogy to hopefully get you to start to think about it.
An eggshell is extremely strong if the breaking pressure is not exceeded. Its useless if it is - the chick doesn't even get the benefit of that protection if the shell breaks catastrophically. It will in a major impact. The skull is much more likely to hold. And even a fracture of the skull is not necessarily catastrophic or I wouldn't be writing this now.
FYI I've had three major head injuries in my life. All when on foot. A bit unlucky but statistically not out of line in the time I spend on pavements and roads. Should I wear a helmet there? Do you?
Helmets can be useful. I don't doubt they can be useful in preventing low impact abrasions and, being the head, the consequent usually spectacular blooding of one's garments. However your knees and elbows are more likely to be grazed. I don't protect those when going to the shops. Well I wouldn't use that method of transport if I had to don stuff to protect every body projection. Except gloves which are worthwhile.
If the physics is beyond you then look at global statistics. Seat belts and air bags do show a significant decrease is car occupant casulities without even accounting for the higher risks a driver may take. You don't see the equivalent KSI reductions for cycle helmets. Well I don't but feel free to point to the evidence that does. I do try to follow the evidence ...
Joey7415963
Guest
"Helmets designed to handle major crash energy generally contain a layer of crushable foam. When you crash and hit a hard surface, the foam part of a helmet crushes, controlling the crash energy and extending your head's stopping time by about six thousandths of a second (6 ms) to reduce the peak impact to the brain. Rotational forces and internal strains are likely to be reduced by the crushing."
Taken from http://www.helmets.org/generalists (inevitably biased but still agrees with the formula I put across).
The helmet increases impact time, thus reducing force. The physics is not beyond me, but if it's beyond you then here's a simple analogy followed by some evidence from well established scientific journals:
A car's bumper is known as a crumple zone, which reduces the force of the impact.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022346800151656
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457505001491
http://snell-helmets.org/docs/articles/hic/King_IRCOBI_2003.pdf
The last one explains that it's angular acceleration that causes the greater injury but that linear acceleration is still a contributing factor to head injuries, of which helmets protect against.
Finally your argument: pedestrians don't wear helmets so why should we, is floored since you fail to grasp the concept that road users are more likely to meet cars than pedestrians (I don't feel that statement needs citation), also, pedestrians falling over are likely to experience less force than bicyclists traveling at 30/40km/h.
I'm sorry for voicing my opinion, but I'd rather know I was doing everything I can to protect myself from head injury (even if unproven in your majestic eyes) than nothing at all. I see no problem with this.
If you have any further arguments I suggest you take it up with the BMA and WHO.
Joey7415963
Guest
Honestly? I get called a wacko for wanting to wear a helmet.Oh Lord... we have a live one...
Nice one!
I am sorry I failed to make myself clear. Your theory only makes sense if the outer shell is not compromised. That would hold the foam and produce the result you predict. That's why they can be useful in low impact collisions. However, as the skull is much stronger (by about a factor of ten) this is pretty much irrelevant in preventing skull damage.
If the helmets outer skin is breached which it will in any dangerous impact then the foam is not contained. Think about it - the foam will move in the path of least resistance. Away from the point of impact. Ooops!
As for evidence I note you mention WHO and BMA. But what about the RSS or the CSO?
That's naughty because they haven't published any comprehansive stats or come to any conclusions on the lifesaving capabilities of helmets. That's because the stats is incredibly hard to do and the results so far are inconclusive. Ask our chief statistician his professional opinion on the issue and you will be deafened by shuffling feet. The stats just do not underpin the claims made for helmets but its politically difficult to say boo.
I regularary read doctor's papers on helmet use (and other stuff). Bung in a students t-test and job done. Yes I exaggerate but there is good reason that their stats is no better than my brain surgery. There have been some published studies that are so inept as to really worry that medical peer review is working. If you are going to rely on expertise - do choose the right expert in the right field.
If the helmets outer skin is breached which it will in any dangerous impact then the foam is not contained. Think about it - the foam will move in the path of least resistance. Away from the point of impact. Ooops!
As for evidence I note you mention WHO and BMA. But what about the RSS or the CSO?
That's naughty because they haven't published any comprehansive stats or come to any conclusions on the lifesaving capabilities of helmets. That's because the stats is incredibly hard to do and the results so far are inconclusive. Ask our chief statistician his professional opinion on the issue and you will be deafened by shuffling feet. The stats just do not underpin the claims made for helmets but its politically difficult to say boo.
I regularary read doctor's papers on helmet use (and other stuff). Bung in a students t-test and job done. Yes I exaggerate but there is good reason that their stats is no better than my brain surgery. There have been some published studies that are so inept as to really worry that medical peer review is working. If you are going to rely on expertise - do choose the right expert in the right field.
Joey7415963
Guest
Do you have any evidence to back up those two claims? No? Then your statement is about as useful as a chocolate fireguard.
I have already read that article, but felt it better to stock with scientific journals, perhaps you should do the same rather than posting the first weblink you find staying it's an in depth look.
Anyhow I'm done here, if you want to advise your kids not to wear a helmet then go ahead, I'll see you on the Darwin awards, but I don't believe you should be calling people wackos for wanting to wear a helmet or even discouraging, at the end of the day, even if they don't help, they are not doing any harm.
- Status
