# Bicycle Helmet Research - Short Survey



## jpm (3 Nov 2009)

I am currently researching bicycle helmets for my university course in product design engineering and have produced a short survey which is I would be very grateful if you could complete. It only takes a couple of minutes and is complete confidential. 

To take part in the survey click here please.


----------



## very-near (3 Nov 2009)

Hands up who wears them but isn't convinced they actually work B)


----------



## NorfolkNewbie (3 Nov 2009)

I wear a helmet but wish they could make them more chic - even the chic ones look geeky... But then whatever the "look" I think it's better to be safe than sorry even if the jury is out. It's not worth the risk really... it's not exactly hard putting a helmet on. B)


----------



## numbnuts (3 Nov 2009)

B)


----------



## blazed (3 Nov 2009)

I dont wear a helmet my skull is triple butted and barring a colision with a P&O ferry unbreakable.


----------



## Theseus (3 Nov 2009)

Filled it in. Could do with more space for the written answers. Also gave the impression of being slanted rather than an objective survey.


----------



## 2Loose (3 Nov 2009)

Hmmm, I sense a 'convenient to carry helmet design will encourage more cyclists to wear a helmet' type product in design...


----------



## Noodley (3 Nov 2009)

I sense yet another 'researcher' who is not interested in the forum. B)


----------



## darkstar (3 Nov 2009)

blazed said:


> I dont wear a helmet my skull is triple butted and barring a colision with a P&O ferry unbreakable.


]
Yeh judging by the majority of your posts there not much up top to protect anyway B)
I wear a helmet, never had to use it thankfully.


----------



## threebikesmcginty (3 Nov 2009)

Noodley said:


> I sense yet another 'researcher' who is not interested in the forum.



How about a separate section for researchers?!! B)


----------



## Shaun (3 Nov 2009)

Maybe a chat with a few forum members beforehand might have been a better way to introduce yourself and your project / survey.

Some of us like a hug and a kiss before getting down to the nitty gritty ... B)

Cheers,
Shaun


----------



## Noodley (3 Nov 2009)

threebikesmcginty said:


> How about a separate section for researchers?!! B)


----------



## swee'pea99 (3 Nov 2009)

Noodley said:


> I sense yet another 'researcher' who is not interested in the forum. B)



More than likely but what the hell? No-one's obliged to take part.


----------



## Noodley (3 Nov 2009)

swee said:


> No, but I know what is involved in undertaking research and the processes involved (e.g see Admin's post re asking permission)....


----------



## Shaun (3 Nov 2009)

It's the one-post wonders that I'm not too keen on. "Hello, help me do my work" ... and we never hear from them again.

No follow-up; no sharing of information they've gained from CC'ers; and no ciggie / cuddle afterwards ... B)

Wheeledweenie was an example of how to do it. She asked, shared, chatted, and in fact ended up staying.

I'm not suggesting everyone who wants to do a survey should become a CC regular, but it would be nice if they took part a bit and gave something back in the process.

Besides, I'm sure a few more people might be more interested if they knew a bit more of what the survey was about, and could have some interaction with the researcher beforehand.

Cheers,
Shaun


----------



## swee'pea99 (3 Nov 2009)

Fair points all.


----------



## blazed (3 Nov 2009)

darkstar said:


> ]
> Yeh judging by the majority of your posts there not much up top to protect anyway
> I wear a helmet, never had to use it thankfully.



Im one of the few great minds left in this world.


----------



## TheDoctor (3 Nov 2009)

And I'm just watching a Shropshire Saddleback on final approach at Luton Airport.


----------



## Speck (3 Nov 2009)

TheDoctor said:


> And I'm just watching a Shropshire Saddleback on final approach at Luton Airport.




I don't believe that for a second, we all know they use Stanstead


----------



## Arch (3 Nov 2009)

very-near said:


> Hands up who wears them but isn't convinced they actually work



They work some of the time. They work if they stop you getting a cut head, or a lot of road rash, or a fracture. They won't stop you dying if a truck runs over you. I wear mine (when I wear it), with that in mind.


----------



## Steve Austin (3 Nov 2009)

I'm wearing one now. i feel safe


----------



## ufkacbln (3 Nov 2009)

Poor survey in that it only allows limited options and is only interested in those who wear helmets....... one category assumes people who don't wear helmets don't ride bikes.

There is also no option to rank the importance of effectiveness or level of protection.


----------



## scook94 (3 Nov 2009)

Cunobelin said:


> Poor survey in that it only allows limited options and is only interested in those who wear helmets....... one category assumes people who don't wear helmets don't ride bikes.
> 
> There is also no option to rank the importance of effectiveness or level of protection.



Agreed. I also get the feeling the researcher isn't even a cyclist.


----------



## Arch (3 Nov 2009)

scook94 said:


> Agreed. I also get the feeling the researcher isn't even a cyclist.



That wouldn't be at all unusual....


----------



## Cubist (3 Nov 2009)

scook94 said:


> Agreed. I also get the feeling the researcher isn't even a cyclist.


In which case let's hunt him down and burn him.


----------



## TVC (3 Nov 2009)

Could we suggest he looks at helmets for peds, a much bigger potential market.


----------



## Noodley (3 Nov 2009)

Maybe combine it with speicher's research into pringles?


----------



## GrasB (3 Nov 2009)

Proto said:


> I would have agreed with you until I clipped a wheel on a sportive this summer. Knee, hip, elbow, shoulder all hit the deck, followed a few microseconds later by my head.


The interesting one is would you have hit your head had you *not* been wearing a helmet? I had a circa 30mph get off on saturday, I've got bruises all over the place except for my head which wasn't protected by a helmet. In fact the only times I've had a head impact is when I've come off a bike with a hemet on.

I won't say you shouldn't be wearing a helmet, but on the other hand I won't say you should. There are circumstances where I'm sure they do increase accident survivability. Rather than preach I'll leave it up to each person to make up their own mind if they want to wear one & they can go by their decision.


----------



## Noodley (3 Nov 2009)

Noodley said:


> Maybe combine it with speicher's research into pringles?



In fact, maybe helmets should be made out of the same material and be of the same construction as Pringle tubes? I mean we know how fragile pringles are but they seldom get broken in the tube, do they? But as soon as you touch them....snap! 

So long cylindrical helmets made out of cardboard with a plastic cap on top


----------



## Cubist (3 Nov 2009)

and a means of ignition.......


----------



## Archie_tect (3 Nov 2009)

The question whether one should have worn a helmet is irrelevant for those people who should have but didn't and as a consequence aren't around to debate the point.


----------



## Noodley (3 Nov 2009)

Archie_tect said:


> The question whether one should have worn a helmet is irrelevant for those people who should have but didn't and as a consequence aren't around to debate the point.



...or those who did and suffered the same end consequence


----------



## Archie_tect (3 Nov 2009)

If an accident is so severe that it takes you out permanently it matters little if you were wearing a helmet or not... 

My wearing one could be the difference between me surviving without major concussion or injury so it tips the balance enough for me, but that's just my decision and I'm happy with it.

I don't care overmuch if I look daft.


----------



## Kirstie (3 Nov 2009)

Absolutely hilarious age bands: 35 - 60?!?!?!?


----------



## Noodley (3 Nov 2009)

I wonder what the 'obvious' features are which we have to exclude.....

I am struggling with this being a 4th year University research survey! 4th year at secondary school maybe. But even then not very good.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (3 Nov 2009)

Kirstie said:


> Absolutely hilarious age bands: 35 - 60?!?!?!?



Yes, I know... and some of the fields have data entry limits which are way too small to add any meaningful explaination. The student probably needs to look a bit more carefully at research methods and in particular at survey design. I was always telling my students this, but they still seemed to think it was just a matter of common sense. It isn't.

And yes, what on earth is the rationale for 35-60? It doesn't seem to fit any social categories...


----------



## skudupnorth (3 Nov 2009)

I wear one and feel safer even though i would rather not wear one.I must admit i like the weather protection and the fact i can attach front and rear mini LED's to it.


----------



## ComedyPilot (3 Nov 2009)

Noodley said:


> I sense yet another 'researcher' who is not interested in the forum.



+1

I think it is very bad form and rude towards Shaun to come on here in post 1 and expect all the info, with little chance of future input - just like the others.

I WANT to be proved wrong here, I really do.


----------



## NorfolkNewbie (3 Nov 2009)

Something that's been occuring to me after reading some of the comments about helmets is that if they ARE so useless, why don't we all wear motorcycle helmets instead when cycling?

I'm not offering ... but just a thought into the mix.


----------



## karen.488walker (3 Nov 2009)

I don't understand how they are so light weight yet ski helmets are much heavier. Surely the needs of both sports are similar?


----------



## GrasB (3 Nov 2009)

NorfolkNewbie said:


> Something that's been occuring to me after reading some of the comments about helmets is that if they ARE so useless, why don't we all wear motorcycle helmets instead when cycling?
> 
> I'm not offering ... but just a thought into the mix.


One of the problems with the latest FIA, etc. approval for crash helmets is the impact requirements are getting higher & higher. This is great for those huge crashes but there's a fair amount of concern that the latest standards are no longer protecting against the smaller impacts & the head it's self is heavily impacted via percussion though the helmet's structure. I wonder if this could be an issue with using motorbike helmets? They'd be great if you binned at 40mph on a down hill section but may afford little to no effective protection at lower speeds. I duno, just thinking on the keyboard.


----------



## wafflycat (4 Nov 2009)

NorfolkNewbie said:


> Something that's been occuring to me after reading some of the comments about helmets is that if they ARE so useless, why don't we all wear motorcycle helmets instead when cycling?
> 
> I'm not offering ... but just a thought into the mix.



Because when doing cycling by our own efforts, as opposed to sitting on a motorcycle, we're effectively exercising, which generates heat. That heat would cause you to sweat buckets in a motorcycle helmet and also to overheat. The overheating effect is one reason why cycle helmets have vents..


----------



## jimboalee (4 Nov 2009)

Crap survey.

He didn't even ask what colour we liked.


----------



## Kirstie (4 Nov 2009)

Flying_Monkey said:


> Yes, I know... and some of the fields have data entry limits which are way too small to add any meaningful explaination. The student probably needs to look a bit more carefully at research methods and in particular at survey design. I was always telling my students this, but they still seemed to think it was just a matter of common sense. It isn't.
> 
> And yes, what on earth is the rationale for 35-60? It doesn't seem to fit any social categories...



Problem is with all of these survey websites etc its very easy to put together a survey that will tell you precisely nothing. Try doing a properly administered online survey and reach the right respondents by email - it's really hard (guess what I'm currently embroiled in...)


----------



## Arch (4 Nov 2009)

Flying_Monkey said:


> And yes, what on earth is the rationale for 35-60? It doesn't seem to fit any social categories...



Thinking about it, I suppose I thought "Oh, I'm over 35.... hey, I'm nowhere near 60!" So maybe it's a confidence booster...

<watchout! Aerially mobile porcine!>


----------



## yello (4 Nov 2009)

jimboalee said:


> He didn't even ask what colour we liked.



Appalling. I dunno, the youth of today. They know nothing of real life.

I'd really like a carrier for a packet of rolos on my helmet but nobody ever thinks about that.


----------



## Arch (4 Nov 2009)

yello said:


> Appalling. I dunno, the youth of today. They know nothing of real life.
> 
> I'd really like a carrier for a packet of rolos on my helmet but nobody ever thinks about that.



Oh, I want that too! It would need to be adjustable, to adapt to Polos. Or at a pinch, a chocolate eclair.


----------



## knackeredknees (4 Nov 2009)

Kirstie said:


> Absolutely hilarious age bands: 35 - 60?!?!?!?



I quite agree. I may occasionally look and feel nearer 60 but am in fact much nearer to 35, well, comparatively. Anyway can you get a helmet in a nice beige colour more befitting people of advancing years ???


----------



## NorfolkNewbie (4 Nov 2009)

wafflycat said:


> Because when doing cycling by our own efforts, as opposed to sitting on a motorcycle, we're effectively exercising, which generates heat. That heat would cause you to sweat buckets in a motorcycle helmet and also to overheat. The overheating effect is one reason why cycle helmets have vents..



 Good point....although to someone with an underactive thyroid that they just can't seem to get right with the thyroxine, the thought of overheating sounds positively blissful


----------



## ufkacbln (4 Nov 2009)

Cubist said:


> In which case let's hunt him down and burn him.



Beat him round the head with a kipper....... you know the one, does th kipper hurt more with a helmet than without.


----------



## ufkacbln (4 Nov 2009)

There is an unfortunate trend for helmets to be less protective asthey develop - the opposite of the trend in motorcycle and vehicle helmets.

To work a helmet needs soft absorbent material to soak up the energy that would otherwise cause injury.

As helmets become lighter there is less absorbent material to perform this task. Asdditionally the remaining material has to be stiffer and denser to maintain the form and shape. Even with the frames of stiffer material this will still be the case.

With less material and the remaining material unable to absorb as much energy modern designs are less protective than those of say ten years ago.

There are no helmets today that would pass the Snell B95 test that was the standard then.


----------



## Arch (4 Nov 2009)

knackeredknees said:


> I quite agree. I may occasionally look and feel nearer 60 but am in fact much nearer to 35, well, comparatively. Anyway can you get a helmet in a nice beige colour more befitting people of advancing years ???



Yeah, but you have to cycle wearing a single giant zip up tartan boot, and an emergency call button round your neck...


----------



## knackeredknees (4 Nov 2009)

Arch said:


> Yeah, but you have to cycle wearing a single giant zip up tartan boot, and an emergency call button round your neck...




The worst thing is trying to get the cleats in the bottom of the tartan slippers with the fluffy pom-pom on........they're a bastard........


----------



## very-near (4 Nov 2009)

Cunobelin said:


> There is an unfortunate trend for helmets to be less protective asthey develop - the opposite of the trend in motorcycle and vehicle helmets.
> 
> To work a helmet needs soft absorbent material to soak up the energy that would otherwise cause injury.
> 
> ...



Perhaps all cyclists should start wearing motorcycle helmets if you feel this way Cunobelin. You seem to adopt an all or nothing attitude to these devices. 

You've had X-rays before, If you feel this way about degrees of safety, why do you still hide behind the lead curtain when exposing people or do you feel that the ones you've had aren't going to kill you so a bit more accumulation in your system could add up to a real problem ?


----------



## ufkacbln (4 Nov 2009)

very-near said:


> Perhaps all cyclists should start wearing motorcycle helmets if you feel this way Cunobelin. You seem to adopt an all or nothing attitude to these devices.



If you are genuinely looking for protection, why compromise?

There is evidence that present helmet design is inadequate from the present campaign in the states for smoother , rounder helmets that will not be removed from the head as many modern designs are in impacts.

Equally well an article in the British Dental Journal is campaigning for full face helmets:


> The dental profession could: play an active role in promoting cycle helmet use; support calls for the compulsory wearing of cycling helmets, particularly for children; press for modification of helmet design and standards to increase protection of the face.







very-near said:


> You've had X-rays before, If you feel this way about degrees of safety, why do you still hide behind the lead curtain when exposing people or do you feel that the ones you've had aren't going to kill you so a bit more accumulation in your system could add up to a real problem ?



Because there is an identified risk of harm, and lead shielding is proven to diminish that risk. Unlike helmets there is well substantiated and unequivocal peer reviewed substantiation of the methods of reducing staff exposure to radiation. There are also (again unlike helmets) standards which must be met both in design and effectiveness.

We also refuse to perform some examinations and apply the principle of lowering the patient's exposure to the risk as well.

No radiation exposure should be carried out unless there is no alternative imaging with less on no radiation. The examination must be clinically justified and then the minimum amount of radiation used to achieve the required diagnostic result. Overall there must be a benefit to the patient that outweighs any possible risk.

Apart from the wonderful financial recompense offered by the NHS here is no such benefit to the staff. As with exposure to any other environmental hazard the employer and employee has a duty to protect, again with validated and proven methods. The principle one is to reduce your exposure to the hazard as opposed to protecting against it. 


Personally I work in Radiopharmacy and PET imaging and although the the lead screens are the most visible, they are only one of the measures and the least important in many ways - the most effective safety method is to reduce the time you are exposed to the risk, then to ensure you keep the largest possible distance from the source and as a last resort use lead screens as protection. 

I


----------



## ufkacbln (4 Nov 2009)

very-near said:


> You've had X-rays before, If you feel this way about degrees of safety, why do you still hide behind the lead curtain when exposing people or do you feel that the ones you've had aren't going to kill you so a bit more accumulation in your system could add up to a real problem ?



You could also look up the theory of radiation hormesis where it is suggested that chronic low level doses are beneficial, promote repair, and can prevent disease.


----------



## WeeE (5 Nov 2009)

I'm amazed no-one's "campaigning" to make helmet-wearing compulsory for football playing. At least for children who play football; and of course fining parents for allowing children to play football in gardens and so on, where they could be tempted to run out of the garden after a ball.

And gymnastics - children hurling themselves off the ground on purpose! _Upside down! _WHY AREN'T THEY ALL WEARING POLYSTYRENE ON THEIR HEADS?

And trampolining is still legal  ? I'm just...stunned.


----------



## snorri (5 Nov 2009)

Noodley said:


> I sense yet another 'researcher' who is not interested in the forum.



I think the hint was in the survey company title, SURVEY PIRATE.

Pirates were usually blind in one eye, I seem to remember.


----------



## ufkacbln (5 Nov 2009)

WeeE said:


> I'm amazed no-one's "campaigning" to make helmet-wearing compulsory for football playing. At least for children who play football; and of course fining parents for allowing children to play football in gardens and so on, where they could be tempted to run out of the garden after a ball.
> 
> And gymnastics - children hurling themselves off the ground on purpose! _Upside down! _WHY AREN'T THEY ALL WEARING POLYSTYRENE ON THEIR HEADS?
> 
> And trampolining is still legal  ? I'm just...stunned.



Because these debates are not about preventing head injuries - simples!




Having said that.. Google "Thudguard" helmets for toddlers. The site is a microcosm of the pro-compulsion helmet debate. Lots of emotional blackmail, attempts to bully their use, unsubstantiated claims by medics, support from a head injury charity, dodgy use of stats and no eeal evidence of rffectiveness.


----------



## WeeE (5 Nov 2009)

Cunobelin said:


> Because these debates are not about preventing head injuries - simples!
> 
> Having said that.. Google "Thudguard" helmets for toddlers.



Yeah, that sums it up.

The questionnaire obviously isn't about helmets preventing head injuries either, come to think of it. 

The fact that it's_ all about _cosmetics, with a nod to comfort, basically tells you that designers are being taught to view / design helmets as consumer products to flog to us - not for preventing head injuries.


----------



## Kirstie (5 Nov 2009)

As a matter of courtesy I think the OP should at least post the results of his/her project on this thread, so we can see what they came up with as a result of our suggestions.


----------



## ufkacbln (5 Nov 2009)

Kirstie said:


> As a matter of courtesy I think the OP should at least post the results of his/her project on this thread, so we can see what they came up with as a result of our suggestions.



IT would also be good practice to verify the results by discussion them with the participants to see if they feel they represent their opinions accurately


----------



## ufkacbln (7 Nov 2009)

very-near said:


> You've had X-rays before, If you feel this way about degrees of safety, why do you still hide behind the lead curtain when exposing people or do you feel that the ones you've had aren't going to kill you so a bit more accumulation in your system could add up to a real problem ?



This is the second time I have answered this same question for you... is it the wrong answer?

After asking the question I would be interested in your response to the answer.


----------



## HJ (7 Nov 2009)

NorfolkNewbie said:


> I wear a helmet but wish they could make them more chic - even the chic ones look geeky... But then whatever the "look" I think it's better to be safe than sorry even if the jury is out. It's not worth the risk really... it's not exactly hard putting a helmet on.



The jury is out, there is plenty of sound scientific evidence to show that they have no positive effect on road safety, the only reason for wearing one is fashion and as you say they ain't even chic, they are just pointless...

You want cycle chic? Try here, but don't expect helmets.

You want to be safe, read Cyclecraft.


----------



## HJ (7 Nov 2009)

Noodley said:


> I sense yet another 'researcher' who is not interested in the forum.



No not a 'researcher' just a design student...


----------



## brokenbetty (7 Nov 2009)

Noodley said:


> In fact, maybe helmets should be made out of the same material and be of the same construction as Pringle tubes? I mean we know how fragile pringles are but they seldom get broken in the tube, do they? But as soon as you touch them....snap!



Completely off-topic...

I once saw a 60s industrial training film from America that happened to be about how to handle Pringles without breaking them. 

The narrator was one of those deadly serious Americans you hear on films about the Red Menance or how to survive a nuclear attack, but instead of saying something like "The Communist may appear as a friend or a neighbour. Do Not Be Fooled!" he kept repeating "Remember! Pringles are Fragile as Eggs"

To this day I can't eat Pringles without thinking "Fragile As Eggs"


----------



## Arch (8 Nov 2009)

brokenbetty said:


> Completely off-topic...
> 
> I once saw a 60s industrial training film from America that happened to be about how to handle Pringles without breaking them.
> 
> ...



The irony being that an egg, in certain ways, is very very strong - try holding one lengthways between finger and thumb and crushing it. Much tougher than a Pringle.

Why on earth did anyone need an industrial training film about handling Pringles?


----------



## brokenbetty (8 Nov 2009)

Arch said:


> Why on earth did anyone need an industrial training film about handling Pringles?



 I can't believe you would ask that! 

Because...




Pringles Are Fragile As Eggs! 




(pronounce it "*Fra-*jul uz *Eh*ggs" to capture the true drama of the original)


----------



## TheCyclingRooster (10 May 2010)

Whilst this survey may have good intention as part of it's creation it is not searching enough,is to subjective and narrow in the question/answer provision and 50 characters for a constructive response is a waste of space.For those of you that wear helmets I am sure that neat appearance/sharp graphics,a minimum of three size options and a good fit when adjusted, combined with good ventilation and a built-in rainwater collection/discharge system would be a hands down winner in any ones book.Of the ones that I have looked at,the Bell Lumen £59.99p(Cycling Active June 2010 p67 comes the closest,all it needs is the rainwater system).Back to the drawing board for Bell Designers.Happy & Safe Riding to You All.


----------



## ufkacbln (22 May 2010)

reiver said:


> 71% of people admitted to casualty departments with head injuries have had a direct relationship with alcohol. So wouldn't the do gooders intent on preventing head injuries be better spending their time advocating the wearing of helmets when having a night out or a few tinnies in front of the tele?




Apparently those head injuries don't hurt, have any lasting effect, do not need prevention and are not worthy of consideration as they are not cyclists!

Helmets only work with cyclists and to suggest anything else is apparently very silly!


----------

