The CycleChat Helmet Debate Thread

[classic33]

Drop testing used because the same impact speed would be recorded each time.
Simple & reliable to replicate. Pneumatic, spring loaded or hydraulic could give varying results.

 

[martint235]

Yeah I did think of that. Wow why does everyone think I didn't. !!

I sort of fell to one side and slightly behind, I did put my arm out to try to stop me but, that did not work. Still hit the floor. What is so hard to understand about this I really don't get it. Why is it so hard to grasp, I couldn't UN clip in time, fell to the right, and as I had tried to dismount my weight then shifted and I was falling sort of backwards. Shoulder hit the floor and then my head.
Hope that clears up the accident.
I'm unsure why it's such an issue, it did happen, sure it was stupid but it did, what do I gain by making it up.
I'm so glad that others are completely capable of avoiding every type of accident and always being able to do exactly the right thing in any given situation.
Shame I'm to thick to think about putting my arms out to stop my self. Why don't they teach that at schools?

Well evidently we need to consider starting to teach it.

 

[mjr]

I realise that applies in the real world, but in this case I'm interested very specifically and narrowly in whether riding at a particular (forwards) speed puts one outside the tested parameters of the helmet and I don't believe it does, due to the stated velocity only applying in the vertical dimension.

Where is that road with nothing causing an impact in the horizontal dimension? All the ones I've seen have numerous orthogonal edges, from small stones through to potholes and kerbs, that would exceed tested parameters.

EN1078 is woefully inadequate. B95 is slightly better as at least it contains a rock-like shape but still pretty unrealistic. Improved testing is a way where many people could be persuaded.

 

[ufkacbln]

If you ever ned to worry about how helmet standard tests are distanced fro real life then you only need to ask why cycclists dom't carry Gaffer tape

It is extensively used to prevent helmets coming off the head forms in tests

Yet you see few cyclists wearing helmets taped to their heads

 

[ufkacbln]

Where is that road with nothing causing an impact in the horizontal dimension? All the ones I've seen have numerous orthogonal edges, from small stones through to potholes and kerbs, that would exceed tested parameters.

EN1078 is woefully inadequate. B95 is slightly better as at least it contains a rock-like shape but still pretty unrealistic. Improved testing is a way where many people could be persuaded.

EN1078 9s not accepted for many sporting activities, including some sportives inthe UK. They specify helmets of higher test standards

 

[Dan B]

Falling off a bike is quite different to walking through a hail of bullets or a low doorway. I can understand a smaller target being harder to hit, but when your body is travelling head first towards an immovable object such as a road or car, I think the target (head) size is far less relevant. Do people with naturally larger heads suffer more head injuries in general?

I would posit that people with naturally larger heads know intuitively how large their heads are, and when landing on their neck /shoulders will instinctively use neck muscles to attempt to hold their head far enough off the floor to avoid hitting it. Unless you wear your helmet 24/7 you probably don't have the same instinct.

Someone else mentioned children, and it's often observed that children become clumsy during growth spurts when they don't have a good instinctive sense of how large their various parts are

All I've heard from people who don't wear helmets is that they don't have accidents.

I have accidents, but they very rarely result in hitting my head

 

[winjim]

Where is that road with nothing causing an impact in the horizontal dimension? All the ones I've seen have numerous orthogonal edges, from small stones through to potholes and kerbs, that would exceed tested parameters.

EN1078 is woefully inadequate. B95 is slightly better as at least it contains a rock-like shape but still pretty unrealistic. Improved testing is a way where many people could be persuaded.

I am not arguing the existence of any particular road surface, nor am I claiming the adequacy or otherwise of any particular testing standard. The point I would like to discuss is the very specific assertion made by @martint235 in post #106 that travelling at a particular speed puts one outside the limits of testing of one's helmet. I don't believe it does, unless you take the position that travelling at any non zero forward speed also does.

 

[classic33]

What if you're travelling backwards at the time of impact?

 

[Dan B]

What if you're travelling backwards at the time of impact?

Then you'd best hope you're not wearing a pointy time trial helmet

 

[winjim]

What if you're travelling backwards at the time of impact?

I think space-time collapses and you fall through a wormhole. Or something.

 

[JMAG]

I would posit that people with naturally larger heads know intuitively how large their heads are, and when landing on their neck /shoulders will instinctively use neck muscles to attempt to hold their head far enough off the floor to avoid hitting it. Unless you wear your helmet 24/7 you probably don't have the same instinct.

Both times I came off my bike I had no idea which way was up, left or right. The 2nd time I hit my head hard, hurt my left hand (hard), left knee (hard), right shoulder (average) right elbow (slight), cut the bridge of my nose and above my right eye (caused by glasses) and I scraped the buckle on my right shoe. I have no idea how I landed and still can't work it out from all the clues. Maybe I lack this instinct you mention or perhaps it applies to a sideways fall more than a faceplant? Either way, I would be reluctant to rely on ninja instinct to protect my head in event of a fall, particularly if I happen to fall in the wrong way.

 

[ufkacbln]

I think space-time collapses and you fall through a wormhole. Or something.

Timey-wimey?

 

[Dan B]

Both times I came off my bike I had no idea which way was up, left or right. The 2nd time I hit my head hard, hurt my left hand (hard), left knee (hard), right shoulder (average) right elbow (slight), cut the bridge of my nose and above my right eye (caused by glasses) and I scraped the buckle on my right shoe. I have no idea how I landed and still can't work it out from all the clues. Maybe I lack this instinct you mention or perhaps it applies to a sideways fall more than a faceplant?

Probably it does apply more to sideways falls - like coming off on corners, or clipless moments. But I wasn't proposing it as an argument not to wear a helmet, I was suggesting it in response to the question of how "it makes your head bigger" is relevant

 

[mjr]

EN1078 9s not accepted for many sporting activities, including some sportives inthe UK. They specify helmets of higher test standards

But if you ask some about the omission in their terms (Cycle Sportives UK is one that doesn't include EN1078 AFAIK) then they email you back to say EN1078 is OK. From standing nearby and watching the signing in at several events, they don't check or ask anything as long as it LOOKS like a helmet. Sportive helmet regulations seem to be pure safety theatre and if any of the drawback hypotheses (risk compensation, rotational forces, overheating.or whatever) are true, they're actually increasing the risk for participants!

Anyone here ever been asked questions to confirm the age and testing of their helmet at a sportive, or had their examined?

 

[ufkacbln]

But if you ask some about the omission in their terms (Cycle Sportives UK is one that doesn't include EN1078 AFAIK) then they email you back to say EN1078 is OK. From standing nearby and watching the signing in at several events, they don't check or ask anything as long as it LOOKS like a helmet. Sportive helmet regulations seem to be pure safety theatre and if any of the drawback hypotheses (risk compensation, rotational forces, overheating.or whatever) are true, they're actually increasing the risk for participants!

Anyone here ever been asked questions to confirm the age and testing of their helmet at a sportive, or had their examined?

UK Cycling Events specifically states in their terms and conditions that:

It is mandatory that all riders wear a safety approved cycling helmet complying with latest ANSI Z90/4 or SNELL standards.

Given that the requirements for insurance is the reason why helmets are mandatory for these event, then the question is whether a rider wearing a helmet that does not comply would be insured?

Secondly in case of an injury would the Company be negligent for not enforcing their own rules?

It makes a real mockery of the corner stone on which this mandatory use is based