Why are UK cyclists fixated on helmets

[GrumpyGregry]

We need force.

Or we need fields.

I see.

 

[Wobblers]

Would it then not be a good idea for the design to better accommodate the greater range of requirements from cyclists if large numbers of people are already wearing them?

Superficially, yes. But the overwhelming majority of serious injuries and deaths of cyclists are as a result of collisions with motorised vehicles. Fault in 70% of those collisions are solely down to the motorist. To concentrate on improving helmets is to ignore the badly driven two ton elephant in the room.

Not incidentally, a helmet designed to offer good protection in a 30 mph impact would, roughly speaking, require ten times the volume of the best helmets currently available (and would still transfer very high acceleration forces to the skull). That is simply not feasible. To reduce this problem, you'd need to use a stiffer foam - which would increase the forces transferred yet further, thus substantially negating the desired protective benefits. And this is before we consider such things as ventilation, comfort, weight, aerodynamics, rider fatigue...

 

[snorri]

If people choose to wear them should they then at least do a better job?

The people who wear them are obviously convinced of their effectiveness, so why change anything?

 

[steveindenmark]

Shumi hit his noggin at 12 mph in the slopes, the helmet he was wearing saved his life.... different scenario but thats the reason I wear mine and the reason I think they are a good idea, but its up to the individual I supoose, as for media and clever advertising I have never seen a marketing campaign for a cycle helmet...

I would like positive proof that it was the helmet and not the HD Hero that allegedly saved him. Maybe we should all be wearing head cams.

Why did I start this post?

Steve

 

[slowmotion]

I wear a helmet sometimes, and I'm totally unconcerned if it offers no protection. I don't mean to send out any messages at all. It's just a habit, except in hot weather or in Holland. I don't wear one in British Columbia either, for the sole reason that it's compulsory. The RCMP are far more interested in busting teenagers for their weed than harrassing an old git on a bike anyway.

 

[ufkacbln]

Large numbers of people would not be prepared to wear a helmet that could accommodate the range of performance required by a typical UK cyclist...

...think about what sort of helmet that would be needed to dissipate the forces involved in a 30mph off over the handlebars onto the side of skull with the head/body rotating...

...you simply could not cycle in it.

..... or as Meier Hillman (and others) have pointed out:

We would be far better off if the energy, time, money and enthusiasm put into trying to enforce helmets was diverted to training road users, and suggests that a far greater benefit would be gained

 

[ufkacbln]

I would like positive proof that it was the helmet and not the HD Hero that allegedly saved him. Maybe we should all be wearing head cams.

Why did I start this post?

Steve

Actually there is a panicked fight at the moment over this case.

There is increasing evidence that the helmet failed in it's purpose.

The helmet cam is being blamed by the helmet company as the cause for this failure, and the camera company is trying to prove that this is not the case and the helmet was simply not up to the job

 

[GrumpyGregry]

It isn't a rational universe. I blame the invisible gorillas.

 

[Markymark]

The people who wear them are obviously convinced of their effectiveness, so why change anything?

I'm afraid I find this attitude a little odd. I'm not suggesting that anyone be made to wear helmets. I think most would agree that most people who do wear them do so in the belief that they will do some good. If they are as ineffective as those that delve deeper suggest, surely wanting them to be improved would be a good thing?

If someone chooses not to wear a helmet, then that's up to them. But if someone wants to wear one, surely nobody would want to prevent them from being as effective as they could?

 

[jowwy]

I'm not one for arguing over the wear a helmet, don't wear a helmet debate - because we all have a right to choose

BUT

are there any drivers on here that were a neck brace when they drive -

WHY you may ask

Because it might stop you getting whiplash IF you get involved in a rear end shunt.

the same as a helmet might help you IF you get hit or fall of you bike while riding.


I think we've seen more whiplash claims after car accidents then any other claim, so why don't they make all drivers wear neck braces

Just saying like

 

[Markymark]

I've also read about a standard for helmets (I forget the code) that most don't apply to. What about ensuring that all meets those standards at the very least?

 

[snorri]

If they are as ineffective as those that delve deeper suggest, surely wanting them to be improved would be a good thing?

On the surface yes, but most manufacturers know what they are doing and I would imagine do a tricky balancing act with components costs/cash for R&D/observing market share etc. and will believe they have got things about right.
The product is marketed in order to make profit for the manufacturer, and not out of any wish to enhance the safety and wellbeing of cyclists.

 

[raindog]

The Culture Of Fear


View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8AwLg32ZMqA

 

[Dogtrousers]

At the end of a ride, a helmet can act as a convenient basket in which to carry lights, GPS, gloves and hat. This is not necessary in Holland where every bike is, by law, required to have an enormous wicker basket.

 

[MontyVeda]