Is there a stigma to only wear a cap?

[mjr]

So you are seriously suggesting that the company spent a massive amount of investment on testing including purchase of a hybrid III crash test dummy, modelling and submitted for multiple third party tests all of whom are independent, and magically passed all of those tests, without actually improving safety, the whole exercise being solely to sell more helmets, even though the helmets are considerably more expensive?

Seems a long way round to make a small amount of money to me.

Are you seriously suggesting they did all that to make less money?

 

[classic33]

Be clean cappy happy y’all....

View attachment 530741

 

[Fab Foodie]

Happy Clappy!

 

[classic33]

Happy Clappy!

Not novelty caps then.

 

[Fab Foodie]

Not novelty caps then.

...errrr.....

 

[Milkfloat]

I saw this today and wondered if anyone had more up to date figures?

 

[Milkfloat]

"Cycle helmets must adhere to standard EN1078, which states that a helmet must be designed to withstand an impact similar to an average rider travelling at 12mph falling onto a stationary kerb-shaped object from a height of one metre"

It clearly says a rider travelling at 12mph, so no, it's not that. As such, the aggregate of the 12mph travelling component along with the downwards acceleration of the fall would mean that the riders head would be hitting the kerb at a speed in excess of 12mph. I can't be bothered to calculate it accurately, but if you are correct with your guess about bonces achieving 12mph when falling from that height, simple Pythagoras theorem tells us that it would hit the kerb at just under 17mph.

I just want to check where you get your ”travelling at 12mph“ from. I have never seen that, I only see drop tests mentioned. https://www.satra.com/spotlight/article.php?id=291

 

[Milkfloat]

One last thought.

”92 per cent of all reported cyclist casualties and 75 per cent of fatalities involved a collision between a pedal cycle and one motor vehicle.”

A helmet will withstand about 80 joules of energy, a medium sized car at 20mph will create 120,000 joules.

As Chris Boardman often states - are we arguing about the wrong thing?

 

[matticus]

Not novelty caps then.

DO NOT ask to see his "novelty caps". I beg you.

 

[icowden]

Are you seriously suggesting they did all that to make less money?

I'm suggesting that the technology was not developed for financial interest:

MIPS History
In 1997 Swedish neurosurgeon Hans von Holst began to study helmet construction. He partnered with Peter Halldin, researcher at the Royal Institute of Technology, with a goal to contribute to the evolution of helmet technology. As a result, the company, MIPS AB was founded in 2001 by Hans, Peter and 3 other specialists in the biomechanical field from the Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) in Stockholm, Sweden.

The company has extensive technological and medical expertise focused on head injuries. They also conduct studies involving injury prediction and the simulation of head and neck injuries using advanced data methods. MIPS AB has extensive and profound knowledge concerning head and neck injuries, a result of 30 years’ experience in the area.

 

[matticus]

One last thought.

”92 per cent of all reported cyclist casualties and 75 per cent of fatalities involved a collision between a pedal cycle and one motor vehicle.”

A helmet will withstand about 80 joules of energy, a medium sized car at 20mph will create 120,000 joules.

As Chris Boardman often states - are we arguing about the wrong thing?

If only it could be the last thought!

Sadly, helmet evangelists will keep dragging up the issue (even though no-one is stopping them wearing any chosen headgear), and politicians will keep proposing legislation. It's like fecking Whack-a-mole.

 

[mjr]

I'm suggesting that the technology was not developed for financial interest:

That's moving the goalposts. We were discussing why helmet designers adopt the tech, not development of the tech.

And no matter why it was developed, it's now in the hands of a commercial trademark licensing company, not a charity. It's MIPS Aktiebolag, not MIPS Ideell förening.

 

[icowden]

To be honest I think we just wildly digressed into a helmet debate when the thread is about cap wearing...

The point of "why it was developed" illustrates "why it might actually be beneficial". You argue that no-one cares if it works so long as it sells. The designers of the system designed this technology to reduce head injury, therefore "it actually working" would seem to be important, and illustrates why this isn't just snake oil.

 

[mjr]

To be honest I think we just wildly digressed into a helmet debate when the thread is about cap wearing...

Oh I think I would disagree with the "just"!

The point of "why it was developed" illustrates "why it might actually be beneficial". You argue that no-one cares if it works so long as it sells. The designers of the system designed this technology to reduce head injury,

The section you quoted said they developed it "with a goal to contribute to the evolution of helmet technology." Interpreting that as reducing head injury (rather than, say, lighter or fewer materials) seems like your assumption and may not be true. I expect their text went past both lawyers (so it would not be withdrawn) and marketers (so it would encourage that interpretation) before publication.

therefore "it actually working" would seem to be important, and illustrates why this isn't just snake oil.

Way back when, plenty of snake oil was initially developed with the best intentions, then flogged by less scrupulous salespeople. As there is no real-world significant effect for helmets in general with many times more examples, it seems unlikely that they can demonstrate one due to the small number of MIPS helmets yet - and I suspect they are not even trying because theoretical tests sell well enough.

 

[faster]

The authors simply cannot have it both ways. One cannot declare a narrow scope for a review and then make conclusions beyond that scope and expect not to be called out for it - that is underhand.


I'm claiming it should not have been published in that form because it did include something which is quite clearly out of scope, as well as including earlier discredited studies. If it was edited to stick to its scope and the included studies checked for later rejection, it might be publishable.

The conclusions drawn are absolutely textbook and very deliberately worded, as these things always are, to avoid these sorts of accusations.

The conclusion merely suggests that the results 'support the use of strategies to increase the uptake of bicycle helmets'. Difficult to argue with this really - that's exactly what the results do. The way you are talking about it sounds like its saying that the results prove beyond doubt that nobody should even think about going near a bike again without a helmet.

Support in this context (as opposed to physically in buildings etc) leaves room for other arguments - some of which might be for the increased uptake of bicycle helmets and some of which might be against. If you can find reviews which support bicycle helmet use to be discouraged because the make the riders (like you) crash more - that's fine. The reviews can happily co-exist. One does not invalidate the other.

If you said that you supported your local football team (I couldn't think of another badger analogy), I wouldn't take it to mean that only you supported your local football team and your support was so good that no other support was necessary. You could single handedly pay the club's wages, do all of the shouting at the games and render any other support from opposing teams to be in vain because your support meant that you'd already won everything anyway.

Support suggests that there are other facets to a wider argument. The conclusion isn't out of scope - it's a given that anyone reading the review would consider it in the context of the abstract.

Anyway - this is just diversionary from the important stuff - your support for helmet user crashing more often. After all, I'm not the only one who is interested.

Incidents 1, 2, 5 and 6 are outside the design spec of helmets. Incident 3 is only inside the spec of some Snell-approved helmets. And there still remains the elephant in the room of why helmet users crash more often. I'm certainly not rushing to use helmets again and start crashing more again. But it's your head.

Do we, and where is that information available from?

Incidents 1, 2, 5 and 6 are outside the design spec of helmets. Incident 3 is only inside the spec of some Snell-approved helmets. And there still remains the elephant in the room of why helmet users crash more often. I'm certainly not rushing to use helmets again and start crashing more again. But it's your head.

That's an interesting claim. Where did that come from?