Impact Speed

[david k]

Adrian said: ↑

Except the bit which I say we do know. A helmet that has cracked with minimal compression has not delivered that which it promised.​

promised? so they promise they will work in any situation?

still no reply

 

[david k]

Adrian said: ↑

Both. A split helmet has failed to absorb the amount of energy that it is designed to. A split helmet in the hands of someone who has just come off their bike wearing it looks like it saved them from a broken skull for sure, unless they know better.​

how do you know what people presume? the post was in reference to a study conducted using google images?

still not answered

 

[david k]

Again, the promises are made on behalf of the manufacturers by those with an agenda on the subject.

you said the helmets on google images did not live up to the promises, since you dont know in which situation the damage came to be, you cannot say they did not live up to what was promised, yet to try to claim this is evidence that helmets dont work

complete and utter rubbish in a bid to discredit helmets

 

[david k]

You are getting rude now.

i apologise if this seems rude, i dont ever like to be rude, however i needed to get to the point

its easier for me since you told me to f**k off some time ago

 

[david k]

You can do it again now

eh?

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

do seat belt manufactures or airbag manufactures ? they only state they are made to comply to a standard. which means they comply to certain tests.
how could they, there are so many variables in an accident any claim would be misleading.

I agree it annoys me they talk about helmets as fashion accessories more than safety devices,
but they are made to cover such a narrow band of impact force and accident type and such a small area of the body it has to leave the safety as axiomatic and so to sell them talk about irrelevant's as I see it.

Audi had Procon10 and sold it

View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzaBJkpdoa8&feature=endscreen
. Seat belt pretnsioners

are sold as " a good thing" , and I can remember cars being advertised as having them as standard or options, until they were made a compulory fit, Volvo made a whole market from safety, cars are sold by crowing about their crash test scores.

Cycle helmets ( note never cycle ,Safety, helmets) are sold on price , image, colour , weight and "coolness" ( it always amazes me that one, how is a helmet cooler than not wearing one?) what does that tell you about their safety credentials? There are people who are quite willing to come here and say " My helmet saved... etc..." yet the manufacturers never, ever, use any of these glowing endorsements ,but continue to sell on colour , style, weight etc, I wonder why that is ? If there are sooooo many people who have been saved, it should be easy enough for say Bell or Specialised to find someone to tell their story? Bell are quick enough to sell the safety element of their motorsport helmets "More than any other helmet, Bell keeps the contents of your lid safe with the best tech in protection, fit and comfort." http://www.bellracing.com/helmets/dirt/stock-car "For safety that also transcends into an art form, Bell's legacy of innovative technology includes superior protection, fit and comfort." http://www.bellracing.com/helmets/pavement/karting Yet as soon as we get to cycle helmets http://www.bellhelmets.com/cycling/ there only criteria are "style" and "Cost" no mention of "superior protection" or " the contents of your lid safe" why do you think they don't mention safety as a selling point for cycle helmets , but do for their motorpsort helmets, is it possible that they know something that you don't want to admit, that they can't prove their helmets make any difference and don't want to be slammed for false advertsing?

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

I agree it annoys me they talk about helmets as fashion accessories more than safety devices,
.

Maybe they know something you don't?

 

[srw]

So we dont know if they offered a lot of protection or a small amount of protection, so in summary in all cases they offered some protection according to SRW and Adrian.

I have made no such claim, and I'll thank you not to put words into my mouth. The only claim I've made is that the Snell Foundation's data suggests that when completely destroyed there is an association with significantly higher levels of injury.

You may not be interested in establishing facts. I am.

 

[srw]

Its good that you have clarified this so we are all understanding of the results that srw published from his survey

You clearly don't.

I have shown that in a relatively small sample, the overwhelming majority of people who post pictures of damaged bike helments to the internet do so of helmets which have been completely destroyed.

I have pointed out that a destroyed bike helmet has not performed according to its design - which is to reduce impact on its contents by crushing.

I have further pointed out data from a pro-helmet NGO illustrating that there is a strong positive association between a destroyed helmet and greater levels of head injury.

 

[srw]

Point 3: I was summarising srw's and Adrians replies, these are not my findings, therefore i was pass on your comments that they are both talking nonsense.

No you weren't. You were reading into them what you fancied.

 

[theclaud]

Point 1: "So we are in the same position" was in reference to a head not be damaged whether you wore a helmet or not when referring to your scenario, so your reply is out of context
Point 2: Then your replies have no credibility
Point 3: I was summarising srw's and Adrians replies, these are not my findings, therefore i was pass on your comments that they are both talking nonsense.

What a load of old bollocks. You are merely confirming my impression that helmet evangelists are ill-informed, boring and patronizing. Even if I thought there was an objective benefit to wearing a helmet, I'd have decided against it after you had banged on about it for hours...

 

[david k]

What a load of old bollocks. You are merely confirming my impression that helmet evangelists are ill-informed, boring and patronizing. Even if I thought there was an objective benefit to wearing a helmet, I'd have decided against it after you had banged on about it for hours...

The post didnt talk about helmet evangelists, so why bring that up, oh yes once again its to try to justify your responses which are out of context.

Any post that goes close to suggesting a helmet may bring the smallest amount of benefit is jumped on quickly. I merely summarised somebody elses point and your fear makes you jump on it and become personal, very poor form.

The notion that somebody who wears a helmet is boring shows everyone your own ignorance

 

[david k]

No you weren't. You were reading into them what you fancied.

No I wasnt, they were your findings, I just tried to clarify them, I see you havn't tried to explain your findings further

 

[david k]

You clearly don't.
I have further pointed out data from a pro-helmet NGO illustrating that there is a strong positive association between a destroyed helmet and greater levels of head injury.

So a helmet that has been destroyed leads to more damage to a head than it would have done if the person had not worn any helmet?

 

[Licramite]

srw is right in that a smashed helmet shows it failed at some point, I don't see why it's assumed the body/foam didn't compress as it should do first, - before breaking. - all the photos prove is if you hit a helmet hard enough it will break. - I'm more interested in the force the helmet absorbed before breaking.- and how much was left after breaking. - the very act of breaking may well have absorbed a lot of force, (like falling through a roof , the roof material brakes but breaks your fall in the process as an example).

The two important factors are the impact force on the skull bone andf the G force on the brain. - now a helmet that fails may not help with the G force (assuming the bodyfoam didn,t compress - but even 1mm compression = 0.1332 reduction in G - doesn't sound allot but as a multiplyer it can be) but it will help with the impact force on the skull - but to what degree?

I think the snell report had some interesting data, like impacts over 15mph increased likelyhood of injury by 40%
that most damage happened around the front rim which gives a good indication of the commenest impact area, the band just above your eyebrow around your head is the most likely to cop it - which re-inforces correct helmet position, you do see riders with helmets perched on top of wooly hats.
(its the same with seatbelts, wear it wrong and it will be worse than useless)