Nice quote.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
OP
OP
S

screenman

Legendary Member
User, a bit more research would show you that he is also the head doctor on the Giro along with other races.

He may possibly have more knowledge about the subject than many internet forum experts.
 

srw

It's a bit more complicated than that...
But if the anecdote he reports can be backed up by statistics, that would be an interesting fact.

You don't need to be a lawyer to be able to count legal cases...
 

Wobblers

Euthermic
Location
Minkowski Space
But if the anecdote he reports can be backed up by statistics, that would be an interesting fact.

You don't need to be a lawyer to be able to count legal cases...

It would be an interesting fact, if he were able to back it up with some proper statistics. But that still leaves the question of exactly how relevant is the prevalence of certain injuries of professional cyclists racing on closed roads to the majority of cyclists in cities (or elsewhere, for that matter)?
 

srw

It's a bit more complicated than that...
Of course - but it would still be an interesting fact. It would, for instance, weaken the oft-repeated argument that "helmets are only tested up to 12mph therefore they're only effective up to 12mph". It might also mean that the UCI's decision to force riders to wear helmets could be justified post hoc.

It would also be just about the only conceivable example possible of a controlled experiment on the impact on the frequency and severity of rider injuries of wearing helmets.
 

jonesy

Guru
Of course - but it would still be an interesting fact. It would, for instance, weaken the oft-repeated argument that "helmets are only tested up to 12mph therefore they're only effective up to 12mph". It might also mean that the UCI's decision to force riders to wear helmets could be justified post hoc.

It would also be just about the only conceivable example possible of a controlled experiment on the impact on the frequency and severity of rider injuries of wearing helmets.

That argument doesn't hold anyway. They still absord the same amount of energy to deform at higher speeds, and falls at higher speeds don't necessarily mean a single blow to the head at the maximum speed. Car impact tests, and the relevant standards, are usually done at much lower speeds than the maximum speed limit.
 

green1

Über Member
That argument doesn't hold anyway. They still absord the same amount of energy to deform at higher speeds
That's assuming they deform and don't just crack and break apart due to higher loadings, if they do that they absorb very little energy.
 

jonesy

Guru
That's assuming they deform and don't just crack and break apart due to higher loadings, if they do that they absorb very little energy.

Yes, fair point. I accept that that can happen, but we can't assume this will always be case either, especially given the point I also made that high speed fall does not automatically equal high speed impact. So the 'no benefit' argument doesn't hold as a general statement.
 

srw

It's a bit more complicated than that...
The problem that the UCI would face is that there hasn't been a significant decrease in the KSI rate for professional riders wearing helmets. The decrease is marginal and could be explained by a number of other reasons (e.g. better medical cover and faster response times).
Which is only relevant if you believe that KSI is the only appropriate measure. My best guess, without a full knowledge of the statistics, is that the KSI rate has changed from bugger-all to bugger-all (to use a technical term). There is now an anecdote which has been posted in about seventy-nine separate places suggesting that sub-KSI injuries have seriously declined.
 

jonesy

Guru
It's the yardstick used by many in the pro-helmet lobby - the only problem is the evidence doesn't support their contention.

Indeed. "helmets can reduce minor injuries" doesn 't quite have the same potential for an emotive shroud-waving PR campaign does it...
 

GrasB

Veteran
Location
Nr Cambridge
I'd like 'head trauma' to be defined in the context of this quote. I ask as I recently suffered 'minor head trauma' by scraping my scalp on a branch (non-cycling related injury)
 

Wobblers

Euthermic
Location
Minkowski Space
Of course - but it would still be an interesting fact. It would, for instance, weaken the oft-repeated argument that "helmets are only tested up to 12mph therefore they're only effective up to 12mph".

That argument doesn't hold anyway. They still absord the same amount of energy to deform at higher speeds, and falls at higher speeds don't necessarily mean a single blow to the head at the maximum speed. Car impact tests, and the relevant standards, are usually done at much lower speeds than the maximum speed limit.

That is an appealing argument but it does not stand up to scrutiny. A CE marked helmet is designed to withstand a single impact of 50 Joules energy. It is not expected to provide any protection in subsequent impacts. Indeed, the bulk of the helmet means that subsequent head impacts are more likely. A high speed crash will often result in such multiple head impacts. A helmet quite simply cannot be expected to provide meaningful protection in this case, and it is disingenious to suggest otherwise.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom