The CycleChat Helmet Debate Thread

[classic33]

Retention system effectiveness: Helmets are subjected to a shock load, applied to the rear or front of the helmet in an attempt to pull the helmet off the headform. This is intended to consider the risk of the helmet catching on an obstacle and being unintentionally pulled off the user's head. The test load (applied using a 10 kg falling mass) is applied, via a system of pulleys, to the rear of the helmet when mounted on a suitable headform, with the direction of loading following a direction approximately 45° from the horizontal towards the front of the headform (this is occasionally repeated on the front of the helmet). In order to meet the requirements of most protective helmet standards, the helmet must remain on the headform.
http://www.satrappeguide.com/EN12492.php

 

[redfalo]

Before anyone gets excited, time again for my favourite internet piece.
http://www.gicentre.net/blog/2013/11/24/risk-cycling-and-denominator-neglect

Blimey! I was aware of the theory, but the visualisation is really just mind-blowing.

 

[ufkacbln]

There was an interesting email form (the wonderfully named) Professor Hugh Hurt to the US helmet testing authority that states:

Actually, everybody who has tested these streamlined helmets over the past years has encountered the problem of these helmets being displaced during impact testing at the rear wedge. Usually additional tape was required to maintain the helmet in place during rear impact tests; usually the basic retention system alone could not keep the helmet in place during impact testing on the rear of the helmet.

 

[benb]

Before anyone gets excited, time again for my favourite internet piece.
http://www.gicentre.net/blog/2013/11/24/risk-cycling-and-denominator-neglect

That is completely fascinating. Thanks for sharing.

 

[GuyBoden]

The Highway Code

Rules for cyclists (59 to 82)

59
Clothing. You should wear

• a cycle helmet which conforms to current regulations, is the correct size and securely fastened
• appropriate clothes for cycling. Avoid clothes which may get tangled in the chain, or in a wheel or may obscure your lights
• light-coloured or fluorescent clothing which helps other road users to see you in daylight and poor light
• reflective clothing and/or accessories (belt, arm or ankle bands) in the dark.

Link: https://www.gov.uk/rules-for-cyclists-59-to-82/overview-59-to-71

Sorry, I'm just brushing up on the latest Highway code, so thought this might be useful.

 

[martint235]

The Highway Code

Rules for cyclists (59 to 82)

59
Clothing. You should wear

• a cycle helmet which conforms to current regulations, is the correct size and securely fastened
• appropriate clothes for cycling. Avoid clothes which may get tangled in the chain, or in a wheel or may obscure your lights
• light-coloured or fluorescent clothing which helps other road users to see you in daylight and poor light
• reflective clothing and/or accessories (belt, arm or ankle bands) in the dark.

Link: https://www.gov.uk/rules-for-cyclists-59-to-82/overview-59-to-71

Sorry, I'm just brushing up on the latest Highway code, so thought this might be useful.

That just contradicts itself: "Rules for cyclists" plus "You should". If it was a rule the HC would say "must".

Still no evidence of whether or not the helmet will help me or do anything other than make Kask, Bell etc some more money.

 

[benb]

The Highway Code

Rules for cyclists (59 to 82)

59
Clothing. You should wear

• a cycle helmet which conforms to current regulations, is the correct size and securely fastened
• appropriate clothes for cycling. Avoid clothes which may get tangled in the chain, or in a wheel or may obscure your lights
• light-coloured or fluorescent clothing which helps other road users to see you in daylight and poor light
• reflective clothing and/or accessories (belt, arm or ankle bands) in the dark.

Link: https://www.gov.uk/rules-for-cyclists-59-to-82/overview-59-to-71

Sorry, I'm just brushing up on the latest Highway code, so thought this might be useful.

You're right, the Highway Code is in some areas badly in need of updating.

 

[GuyBoden]

That just contradicts itself: "Rules for cyclists" plus "You should". If it was a rule the HC would say "must".

Still no evidence of whether or not the helmet will help me or do anything other than make Kask, Bell etc some more money.

Yes, very true, but I thought I should give the latest HC a read again.

 

[classic33]

Light clothing against a light background would be lost.

It seems they have acknowledged that Hi-Vis doesn't work at night. Which might explain "reflective clothing" being used for cycling at night.

Which standard for helmets though?

 

[blackgoff]

My 2 penneth is a lid is better than not as ive hit the ground w/out a h.met and it really hurt but now ive grown up and realise that protection helps when i have hit the ground - this is purely my pov not insisting it on anyone else yet feel they're advisable...

I come to this discussion via pic. i seen today from twitter -

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CQOjgEvUEAEJGE3.jpg:small

The blokes fine too having worn this...

 

[martint235]

Ah just what's needed. Another well evidenced contribution

 

[blackgoff]

You do realise that helmet failed, don't you?

Yeh, because IT absorbed the impact not his bone

 

[martint235]

Yeh, because IT absorbed the impact not his bone

No it didn't absorb the impact. If it had it would have compressed rather than break. By breaking it hasn't absorbed the impact, it has just added broken bits of plastic to an already iffy situation

 

[Markymark]

Can something compress and also break offering some sort of mitigation?

 

[martint235]

Can something compress and also break offering some sort of mitigation?

All depends on design. Some things are designed to break rather than compress (although I can't think of anything off hand typically)