The CycleChat Helmet Debate Thread

[matticus]

While I'm here, I'll have a grumble; 2nd year in a row that a new local club has tried to sneak helmet rules into their time trials. As we're in England, this ain't allowed. (there is a national rule for U18s) Assuming your event is run under the national body, of course, but it's hard work to go it alone legally on the public highway.
I politely emailed one lot last spring - got no reply, but their web-site got changed👍
This week the youngest local TT club - full of hip fresh ideas - has announced the same thing.

Almost everyone at modern time-trials wears a helmet anyway - that's fine, if they want! But please don't try to force people to wear what you wear - thx. x

 

[Milkfloat]

In the great debate of whether or not to wear a bike helmet whilst cycling, it should be painfully obvious that some protection is better than none at all. Having experience with wearing a motorcycle helmet whilst having a hard object impact your head, should convince anyone to wear a helmet. I wasn't aware that their is no standard for bike helmets as there are for motorcycle helmets.

I suggest you read the many, many posts with evidence that may or may not change your mind. Cycle helmets are nothing like motorbike helmets.

 

[mjr]

In the great debate of whether or not to wear a bike helmet whilst cycling, it should be painfully obvious that some protection is better than none at all. Having experience with wearing a motorcycle helmet whilst having a hard object impact your head, should convince anyone to wear a helmet. I wasn't aware that their is no standard for bike helmets as there are for motorcycle helmets.

"obvious that some protection is better than none at all" seems dangerously similar to "something must be done and this is something, so this must be done". It's that sort of dodgy principle that can lead people to ignore the drawbacks and do such dangerous acts as installing plastic UK electrical socket covers in nurseries, wearing big knife-proof gauntlets while cutting shrubs or installing screw-in window-opening limiters.

Motorcycle helmets are not comparable, made to entirely tougher standards and used by people exerting themselves less at risk of crashing at far higher speeds.

There are standards for bike helmets, but even the tougher Snell B95A is far weaker than any motorcycle one — and they account for a tiny % of them. In the UK, the vast majority of helmets sold only comply with the basic EN1078 standard. Basically, it tests for a standing fall onto the top of the head onto a flat surface or straight kerb edge. No rough surfaces, no stones, no oblique impacts, no multiple impacts, not at cycling speeds, no real-world simulations... and so on. The protection appears to be at least counterbalanced by the drawbacks of risk compensation (by users and other road users), diminished visibility and hearing, impaired decision-making from overheating and possibly other drawbacks not yet studied much.

 

[Cycling_Samurai]

"obvious that some protection is better than none at all" seems dangerously similar to "something must be done and this is something, so this must be done". It's that sort of dodgy principle that can lead people to ignore the drawbacks and do such dangerous acts as installing plastic UK electrical socket covers in nurseries, wearing big knife-proof gauntlets while cutting shrubs or installing screw-in window-opening limiters.

Motorcycle helmets are not comparable, made to entirely tougher standards and used by people exerting themselves less at risk of crashing at far higher speeds.

There are standards for bike helmets, but even the tougher Snell B95A is far weaker than any motorcycle one — and they account for a tiny % of them. In the UK, the vast majority of helmets sold only comply with the basic EN1078 standard. Basically, it tests for a standing fall onto the top of the head onto a flat surface or straight kerb edge. No rough surfaces, no stones, no oblique impacts, no multiple impacts, not at cycling speeds, no real-world simulations... and so on. The protection appears to be at least counterbalanced by the drawbacks of risk compensation (by users and other road users), diminished visibility and hearing, impaired decision-making from overheating and possibly other drawbacks not yet studied much.

Fair points you make there. Shall we go for a spill down Winnats Pass or the Tumble in Govilon Monmouthshire? You without a helmet and me with. Let's see who fairs better shall we? My only point was that some protection is better than none. Yes there does need to be standards but telling folk not to wear a helmet is asinine. Press parliament to enforce higher standards but first someone has to identify what those standards are. I've had several accidents whilst riding motorcycles and not once did I hit my head. Well I did scrap my face. Minor scrape. But without the helmet it probably wouldn't be pretty. Anyway, yes there need to be standards and the lack of leaves over confidence in the inadequacies that exist.

 

[matticus]

Oh dear.

 

[Dave Davenport]

Oh dear.

Quite.

 

[Ian H]

I see lots of photos of mangled h*lm*ts with accompanying comments on the lines of "I would have died but for...".

I was cycling a long time before magic hats were a thing, and the weird things is that there were no serious head injuries. Plenty of road-rash, broken collar-bones, and the occasional broken wrist or arm, but head injuries were scarcely a thing.

One thing that has been said (by those who test helmets) is that they do not protect against concussion. My concern (& others have mentioned this) is that by effectively making your head larger, it is likely to contact the ground sooner and harder & thus cause or worsen concussion injuries.

Finally, skulls are actually remarkably tough. They are designed to withstand some pretty hard blows.

 

[Poacher]

Fair points you make there. Shall we go for a spill down Winnats Pass or the Tumble in Govilon Monmouthshire? You without a helmet and me with. Let's see who fairs better shall we? My only point was that some protection is better than none. Yes there does need to be standards but telling folk not to wear a helmet is asinine. Press parliament to enforce higher standards but first someone has to identify what those standards are. I've had several accidents whilst riding motorcycles and not once did I hit my head. Well I did scrap my face. Minor scrape. But without the helmet it probably wouldn't be pretty. Anyway, yes there need to be standards and the lack of leaves over confidence in the inadequacies that exist.

Please provide a link to any post in this thread, or indeed the entire forum, where anyone has told others not to wear a helmet.
On the other hand, I have been told many times that I'm an idiot for not wearing one, usually by people who have clearly not followed any of the science, but simply believed (and shouted in my face on occasion) "It's common sense, innit!"

 

[classic33]

"obvious that some protection is better than none at all" seems dangerously similar to "something must be done and this is something, so this must be done". It's that sort of dodgy principle that can lead people to ignore the drawbacks and do such dangerous acts as installing plastic UK electrical socket covers in nurseries, wearing big knife-proof gauntlets while cutting shrubs or installing screw-in window-opening limiters.

Motorcycle helmets are not comparable, made to entirely tougher standards and used by people exerting themselves less at risk of crashing at far higher speeds.

There are standards for bike helmets, but even the tougher Snell B95A is far weaker than any motorcycle one — and they account for a tiny % of them. In the UK, the vast majority of helmets sold only comply with the basic EN1078 standard. Basically, it tests for a standing fall onto the top of the head onto a flat surface or straight kerb edge. No rough surfaces, no stones, no oblique impacts, no multiple impacts, not at cycling speeds, no real-world simulations... and so on. The protection appears to be at least counterbalanced by the drawbacks of risk compensation (by users and other road users), diminished visibility and hearing, impaired decision-making from overheating and possibly other drawbacks not yet studied much.

Source of that claim please.

 

[Milkfloat]

Fair points you make there. Shall we go for a spill down Winnats Pass or the Tumble in Govilon Monmouthshire? You without a helmet and me with. Let's see who fairs better shall we? My only point was that some protection is better than none. Yes there does need to be standards but telling folk not to wear a helmet is asinine. Press parliament to enforce higher standards but first someone has to identify what those standards are. I've had several accidents whilst riding motorcycles and not once did I hit my head. Well I did scrap my face. Minor scrape. But without the helmet it probably wouldn't be pretty. Anyway, yes there need to be standards and the lack of leaves over confidence in the inadequacies that exist.

Honestly, read the thread.

 

[Cycling_Samurai]

Honestly, read the thread.

Honestly this thread should be closed.

 

[Rickshaw Phil]

Honestly this thread should be closed.

May I refer you here where the site owner explains why this thread is necessary.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

Honestly this thread should be closed.

Have you read it?

 

[Milkfloat]

Honestly this thread should be closed.

If it closed people would remain ignorant.

 

[mjr]

Fair points you make there. Shall we go for a spill down Winnats Pass or the Tumble in Govilon Monmouthshire? You without a helmet and me with. Let's see who fairs better shall we? My only point was that some protection is better than none.

And one of my many points in reply was that helmet use often leads to stupid decisions, such as offering to crash voluntarily down a steep hill!

No thanks: I'm going to concentrate on doing things likely to avoid crashing, rather than wasting time on stuff that is marketed to mitigate crashes but is unproven in real populations with no negative correlation between helmet use rates and head injury rates.