Research into helmet compulsion

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Crankarm

Crankarm

Guru
Location
Nr Cambridge
I think the helmet detractors are in denial. When you are dead or brain damaged and your family is grieving or reflecting on your vegatative state they will be saying....... if only he/she had been wearing a helmet. Whether they are BS or Tuv approved or have a CE mark I don't care ffs. If you don't wear one fine but don't start trying to justify why you don't to those who do. Justify why you don't wear one to your partners and families. Those who wear one do so because whatever protection they do offer has got to be a whole lot better than the protection offered by not wearing one. Wearing one might just save my life or reduce the likelihood of brain injury. If you don't wear a helmet great but you've got no right telling those who chose to they shouldn't or they are misguided. The first thing you will be asked if you're knocked down and you’re still conscious and hopefully you will be is "Have you hit your head?" The emergency services ask this as the brain is the most important muscle in your body and any impact to it can be potentially serious. That's what they asked me when I was knocked downin 1999. Fortunately I was wearing a helmet. They still did checks on my head to see if I was concussed having hit the road. Once satisfied I was not they attended to my other injuries. I was wearing a helmet. I have had 4 helmets since then and each being slightly better than the previous one. I would not cycle without a helmet. Unfortunately those cyclists who are in collisions with vehicles where wearing a helmet may have prevented their death can never enter the helmet debate as they are dead :sad:.
 
G

Greenbank

Über Member
The plural of anecdote is not data.
 
U

ufkacbln

Guest
Crankarm said:
I think the helmet detractors are in denial. When you are dead or brain damaged and your family is grieving or reflecting on your vegatative state they will be saying....... if only he/she had been wearing a helmet. Whether they are BS or Tuv approved or have a CE mark I don't care ffs. If you don't wear one fine but don't start trying to justify why you don't to those who do. Justify why you don't wear one to your partners and families. Those who wear one do so because whatever protection they do offer has got to be a whole lot better than the protection offered by not wearing one. Wearing one might just save my life or reduce the likelihood of brain injury. If you don't wear a helmet great but you've got no right telling those who chose to they shouldn't or they are misguided. The first thing you will be asked if you're knocked down and you’re still conscious and hopefully you will be is "Have you hit your head?" The emergency services ask this as the brain is the most important muscle in your body and any impact to it can be potentially serious. That's what they asked me when I was knocked downin 1999. Fortunately I was wearing a helmet. They still did checks on my head to see if I was concussed having hit the road. Once satisfied I was not they attended to my other injuries. I was wearing a helmet. I have had 4 helmets since then and each being slightly better than the previous one. I would not cycle without a helmet. Unfortunately those cyclists who are in collisions with vehicles where wearing a helmet may have prevented their death can never enter the helmet debate as they are dead :sad:.
Click to expand...

Now do you apply all that to pedestrians?

If not why not?
 
Bollo

Bollo

Failed Tech Bro
Location
Winch
Crank,

You've got yourself all worked up. Pedestrians suffer more head injuries than cyclists. Should we all wear a helmet when walking? Head injuries are a cause of death in a significant proportion of car accidents. Should we all wear helmets in cars?

There are two separate points here - the first is that cycling is safe. The second is that the case for helmets making cycling safer is debatable. How you feel and how strongly you feel it makes absolutely no difference.

Much of the problem with the helmet debate is that it's become so polarised. A lot of the research, both pro and anti, has shown to be flawed or partisan which makes it difficult for anyone to make an objective decision. Even the sound research can be manipulated to score points either way. But the decision about whether to wear a helmet should be objective and not based on emotional blackmail.
 
Bollo

Bollo

Failed Tech Bro
Location
Winch
I'll chuck another observation into the mix. Pick up a cycling magazine and look at the helmet adverts. What are they selling? More comfortable, more vents, more stylish, more professional, more colourful - these are the things that the adverts sell. Any mention of safety? Any claim that one particular brand of helmet is safer than the others? Any claims at all for safety? Remind me what helmets are for again?
 
Tynan

Tynan

Veteran
Location
e4
peds aren't likely to hit ther head as hard as cyclists and there's an awful lot more of them, cars have seat belts, crash cages, air bags, and there's an awful lot more of them

dismissing 'anecdotes' is well, dismissive, they're still facts

when products all all the same in function, ie to a standard, they have to compete on other factors like colour and style, look at car adverts,
 
V

very-near

Guest
Cunobelin said:
There is no interest....

Helmets have become less and less eficient over the last ten years, and the standards "dumbed down" to suit fashion.

As you increase the number of vents you decrease tha amount of material available to absorb energy and aslo have to "stiffen" the remainder. his increased density further compromises theit effectiveness.

The "Gold Standard" of (both cycle and motorcycle helmets) - Snell Foundation testing used to be the B95, and there are now NO helmets on the UK market that can pass this test and a few which will pass the lower B90

THe much inferior EN1078 allows these inefficient helmets to be marketed with an illusion of safety that many people simply accept.
Click to expand...

Whilst in the absence of real numbers, my last HJC carbon fibre m/cycle lid saved my friends life a few weeks ago. It received a 5 star rating from SHARP and he stated that took entirely the initial impact of a 12 stone man hitting the road head first at between 50 and 60 mph.
He had no spinal, no neck and no head injuries despite receiving a broken femur, hip, and 3 break each in his radius and ulna in the force of the impact as the car drove across his path, so you will appreciate he took one huge knock on unprotected areas.

The lid was obviously junk afterwards, but its performance in real life convinced me to replace it with another very similar carbon fibre lid from the same manufacturer.

SHARP state there is a 70% difference between the best and worst performing m/cycle lids they have tested to date. Some of the cheaper chinese £70 lids performed better in the tests than the £600 Arais on offer so I'd always welcome this info to make a better informed choice when getting the cheque book out.

I've got a MET cycle hat and would be keen to know how it would rate (bit pointless wearing one otherwise)

At the end of the day though, the best quality lid is the world is useless if it doesn't fit the rider properly.
 
Bollo

Bollo

Failed Tech Bro
Location
Winch
Tynan said:
peds aren't likely to hit ther head as hard as cyclists and there's an awful lot more of them, cars have seat belts, crash cages, air bags, and there's an awful lot more of them

dismissing 'anecdotes' is well, dismissive, they're still facts

when products all all the same in function, ie to a standard, they have to compete on other factors like colour and style, look at car adverts,
Click to expand...

If peds don't hit their heads so hard, why are there so many head injuries? If airbags and roll cages work so well, why are drivers and passengers still dying of head injuries. Isn't the point that we could reduce head injuries by wearing helmets all the time, whether walking, cycling or driving? Why pick on cycling?

Here's an anecdote from the lady who cuts my hair - her brother is a lunatic driver. Recently he rolled his car but, as he wasn't wearing a seatbelt, he was thrown from the driver's seat across to the passenger's side. Good job, because the driver's side of the car was crushed. If he'd have been wearing a seatbelt, he'd have been held in the driver's seat and crushed to death. So - SEATBELTS KILL! Although its an anecdote, its also true.

Like C said, the EN standard for helmets is minimal, but there's no law that stops a manufacturer making a better helmet. Wouldn't a manufacturer wishing to gain competitive advantage develop a helmet that exceeds the minimum standard by X amount? Look at the car manufacturers that regularly advertise their ENCAP rating - Volvo's entire brand is based on safety. It's perfectly legal to buy a car with a one star rating, but why would you want to? So, the question is still valid. Why has no helmet maker ever tried to gain competitive advantage based on the helmet's only meaningful purpose?
 
Bollo

Bollo

Failed Tech Bro
Location
Winch
very-near said:
Whilst in the absence of real numbers, my last HJC carbon fibre m/cycle lid saved my friends life a few weeks ago. It received a 5 star rating from SHARP and he stated that took entirely the initial impact of a 12 stone man hitting the road head first at between 50 and 60 mph.
He had no spinal, no neck and no head injuries despite receiving a broken femur, hip, and 3 break each in his radius and ulna in the force of the impact as the car drove across his path, so you will appreciate he took one huge knock on unprotected areas.

The lid was obviously junk afterwards, but its performance in real life convinced me to replace it with another very similar carbon fibre lid from the same manufacturer.

SHARP state there is a 70% difference between the best and worst performing m/cycle lids they have tested to date. Some of the cheaper chinese £70 lids performed better in the tests than the £600 Arais on offer so I'd always welcome this info to make a better informed choice when getting the cheque book out.

I've got a MET cycle hat and would be keen to know how it would rate (bit pointless wearing one otherwise)

At the end of the day though, the best quality lid is the world is useless if it doesn't fit the rider properly.
Click to expand...

That's a lot of the problem - people see the word helmet and imagine that a cycle helmet and a motorcycle or motorsport helmet are roughly the same thing. They're not - the protection offered by a motorcycle helmet is orders of magnitude higher than that for a cycle helmet. If you called cycle helmets something like "polystyrene hats", do you think people would have the same belief in their abilities to protect? But that's all they are.

For all my bids in this pissing contest, I still wear a helmet when I'm out on my road bike, because I think it can offer some limited protection if I slide off on a corner or have a clipless moment. When I'm commuting, I don't bother.
 
V

very-near

Guest
Bollo said:
That's a lot of the problem - people see the word helmet and imagine that a cycle helmet and a motorcycle or motorsport helmet are roughly the same thing. They're not - the protection offered by a motorcycle helmet is orders of magnitude higher than that for a cycle helmet. If you called cycle helmets something like "polystyrene hats", do you think people would have the same belief in their abilities to protect? But that's all they are.

For all my bids in this pissing contest, I still wear a helmet when I'm out on my road bike, because I think it can offer some limited protection if I slide off on a corner or have a clipless moment. When I'm commuting, I don't bother.
Click to expand...

A consideration is this. The initial impact is going to be the greatest one.

The lid my friend was wearing has visual deformation on the shell where it appears to have bent and popped back into place again as the painted design has peeled off and there is a massive graze just above the ear

Now if my mates head was against this shell with no styrene liner, his skull would have been crushed. If the energy was transfered directly to his brain, he would be eating his dinner through a tube now (or dead)

Whilst a cycle hat has a very thin plastic shell on it, it is the styrene in it which is doing all the work, and it matter not one bit if the shell does split as long as the lid doesn't break up in impact.

The loads are obviously lower for a cycling hat but the fundamental way in which they work are one an the same - the liner soaks up the energy not the shell.

I chose carbon fibre as it is just as strong but lighter and so would offer less mass to snap my head off with in the event I have to test it out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom