The CycleChat Helmet Debate Thread

[Mugshot]

you don't regard 60ton artics on your elbow dangerous.

Well that's convinced me to wear a bit of polystyrene.

 

[mjr]

I can only suggest you duck under low beams. - but how about try walking under a low beam - say one ay eye level - then try it with a helmet on and see which you prefer.

That should also work, but it would take more repetitions to show the increased probability of impact when wearing a helmet.

So your the bugger that suddenly puts his brakes on, on a straight bit of road for no apparent reason

No, that's not what I wrote.

True the argument works both ways , if you believe you will believe despite the evidence , if you don't you won't despite the evidence.

No, that's not quite what I wrote. Can I suggest replying to what's actually written, please?

Wasn't there a recent group test (was it Which?) that found that the majority of the cycle helmets tested didn't actually meet the standards they claimed to?

I think it wasn't "Which?" - they have given "Don't Buy" awards to some helmets (Met Camaleonte Executive was one - I always want to call it the Met Cantaloupe Executive since that), but I think that's usually one or two in a group test, never a majority of those tested AFAIK.

I was told of such a widespread-failure group test last year, by someone who I believe to be honest and truthful, but the results seem still unpublished and that doesn't really surprise me: annoying lots of manufacturers simultaneously must make the lawyers nervous, eh? And it lets people start pointing the finger at the testing organisation and suggest that they've botched the test somehow. And even then, that's assuming that the current bog-standard EN test is sufficient indication of real-world protection, which I do doubt.

 

[martint235]

You haven't noticed the traffic on your average road? - you don't regard 60ton artics on your elbow dangerous.
I think 110 people last year may not agree if they were alive to consider it.

If they were inherently, and that's the key word here, dangerous then I would be a mere statistic too wouldn't I?
I've managed to commute for over 20 years in London with only one altercation with a larger vehicle so where is the, and I repeat, inherent danger?

 

[Mugshot]

I think it wasn't "Which?" - they have given "Don't Buy" awards to some helmets (Met Camaleonte Executive was one - I always want to call it the Met Cantaloupe Executive since that), but I think that's usually one or two in a group test, never a majority of those tested AFAIK.

I was told of such a widespread-failure group test last year, by someone who I believe to be honest and truthful, but the results seem still unpublished and that doesn't really surprise me: annoying lots of manufacturers simultaneously must make the lawyers nervous, eh? And it lets people start pointing the finger at the testing organisation and suggest that they've botched the test somehow. And even then, that's assuming that the current bog-standard EN test is sufficient indication of real-world protection, which I do doubt.

Thanks, sure I've seen something somewhere, although I could be mistaken of course.

 

[mjr]

You haven't noticed the traffic on your average road? - you don't regard 60ton artics on your elbow dangerous.
I think 110 people last year may not agree if they were alive to consider it.

Leaving aside that helmets do bugger all if you're hit by a 60ton artic, simply waving one's hand at all 110 deaths is not convincing. I think you really really should go read through the 108 of them on https://beyondthekerbcasebook.wordpress.com/ and consider what proportion would probably have been helped by a cycle helmet, what proportion wore helmets and yet still died, how that compares to the 30%ish estimated wearing rate and so on. Don't cherry-pick anecdotes.

For example, I think there's one that might have been helped by a helmet because they did not wear one and their crash was within the parameters tested by EN - but equally would have been helped by another more obvious safety measure. I'd be interested how many of them you think might have survived if helmetted. It's harder to know if any of the helmetted deceased riders crashed because of their helmet, though, and even if there were none harmed by helmets, 1 in 108 wouldn't often be considered a significant enough improvement to approve an expensive mass health intervention IIRC.

 

[Justinslow]

Intrigued, what aspects?

There are many- cycling at speed, cycling too close to traffic whilst filtering, cycling too close to parked vehicles, cycling too close to the edge of the road, cycling in slippery conditions etc.
Whatever the stats show, certain aspects of cycling whether the fault of the rider or not are dangerous.
You only have to see the many "cyclist looking for advice after accident" threads on this forum to see that it can not be termed "safe" or "not dangerous" jeez only the other day there was a thread regarding the death of a lady hit by a vehicle when she hit a pot hole and fell into its path!

 

[mjr]

Thanks, sure I've seen something somewhere, although I could be mistaken of course.

Please, anyone, find this study where a majority of helmets failed, if you can. It would be fascinating reading.

One concern I have with helmets is that buyers can't easily tell at purchase-time whether a particular instance of a helmet will work as designed or if someone dropped it in the warehouse and cracked it in a subtle-yet-fatal way.

 

[Justinslow]

Please, anyone, find this study where a majority of helmets failed, if you can. It would be fascinating reading.

One concern I have with helmets is that buyers can't easily tell at purchase-time whether a particular instance of a helmet will work as designed or if someone dropped it in the warehouse and cracked it in a subtle-yet-fatal way.

Or if your car brakes have been put together correctly or your kettle has been wired correctly or any other number of everyday things........

 

[ufkacbln]

Wasn't there a recent group test (was it Which?) that found that the majority of the cycle helmets tested didn't actually meet the standards they claimed to?

In the US a consumer test resulted in the recall of a whole model... The Trek Anthem

 

[ufkacbln]

It's melon time, again.

I have done some research on melons and am worried about their efficiency

Normally the test is simple ...

Bang your head against a wall without a melon
Then bang your head against the wall whilst wearing a melon

As it hurts less and there is less blood it proves that melons should be worn by all cyclists


I was naive in that I had not factored in the ripeness of the melon

An over ripe melon is softer and may compress too easily absorbing less energy than a ripe or under ripe one

Equally well the outer shell degrades and is less likely to prevent penetration of debris

We need more research on melons before introducing compulsory melons for cyclists

 

[ufkacbln]

..... And we need research on the effect of ripening on the energy absorption of bananas as well now!

 

[Justinslow]

My, how we all had a good chuckle at that one........zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[Mugshot]

cycling at speed, cycling too close to traffic whilst filtering, cycling too close to parked vehicles, cycling too close to the edge of the road, cycling in slippery conditions

Is wearing a helmet the only thing you can think of which would make these aspects safer in your opinion?

 

[MontyVeda]

You haven't noticed the traffic on your average road? - you don't regard 60ton artics on your elbow dangerous.
I think 110 people last year may not agree if they were alive to consider it.

Who are these 110 people? Average road users?? Were all 110 wearing protective headwear???

 

[MontyVeda]

There are many- cycling at speed, cycling too close to traffic whilst filtering, cycling too close to parked vehicles, cycling too close to the edge of the road, cycling in slippery conditions etc.
Whatever the stats show, certain aspects of cycling whether the fault of the rider or not are dangerous.
You only have to see the many "cyclist looking for advice after accident" threads on this forum to see that it can not be termed "safe" or "not dangerous" jeez only the other day there was a thread regarding the death of a lady hit by a vehicle when she hit a pot hole and fell into its path!

you'll also find tales all over the place of people being killed doing all sorts of everyday activities... swimming, walking to the shop, driving, playing football, climbing a ladder... this stuff happens daily.