a cardboard helmet is safer than existing helmets.

[screenman]

If a cardboard helmet is said to be better than a Giro or a Bell etc, is it possible in some accidents or mishaps the latter one's would be better than no helmet.

 

[Paul_L]

If a cardboard helmet is said to be better than a Giro or a Bell etc, is it possible in some accidents or mishaps the latter one's would be better than no helmet.

Quite.

I don't normally get involved in helmet debates as they seem to be the terrain of those either extremely for or extremely against, with no possibility for any common ground.

I do however normally wear a Bell helmet, but i have also been known to ride without for comfort reasons on hot days.

Last week i had my first major accident in over 20 years of cycling. No-one else involved apart from me and a steep downhill. I estimate i was doing 35mph when my front wheel slipped from underneath me. Don't know what caused this but i suspect rider error rather than road conditions. A witness said i cartwheeled 3 or 4 times before i came to a standstill (or should that be laystill!). Somewhat miraculously I suffered no broken bones but quite a bit of muscle and ligament damage as well as lots of cuts / abrasions / bruises. I was in hospital for 4 days and will be on crutches for 2 weeks. My face took a big impact and my right cheek is still swolen with the scabs healing nicely. My Bell helmet took a hell of a beating. There is a big impact where it would have been above my right eye and there are 3 or 4 complete cracks in the internal structure. Apart from some bad headaches, my head is unharmed.

They might not be for everyone, and some people may chose not to wear them for comfort reasons, some may chose not to wear them as they don't believe the safety or marketing claims. And i respect the choice of everyone with those views.

But I am sure as hell glad i had mine on last week though!

 

[benb]

If a cardboard helmet is said to be better than a Giro or a Bell etc, is it possible in some accidents or mishaps the latter one's would be better than no helmet.

Yes, it's possible. I don't think anyone has said that helmets offer no protection at all.

 

[will golden]

A former acquaintance of mine, who was a racing cyclist, once told me that competitive helmets are designed differently to our everyday ones.

Apparently they are better "buttressed" (Notre Dame model?) to disperse any shock.

our everyday helmets however were, I am sure, designed to protect kids falling off the bikes at 5mph, before helmets were recommended for safety. You hit the ground perpendicularly and any damage is nullified. However it appears that if you hit the road at an angle governed by cycling at regular road speed, the shock can cause severe neck damage. Yes they do reduce overall injury risk but are far from the level of safety induced by, say, seatbelts in cars. However they are the best we have!

The only way out of this, then, is for the Government to subsidise the "competitive" helmet for everyday use. But would the taxpayer be willing to stump up the readies for this?

What to the taxpayers on this forum think?

 

[Red Light]

A former acquaintance of mine, who was a racing cyclist, once told me that competitive helmets are designed differently to our everyday ones.

Apparently they are better "buttressed" (Notre Dame model?) to disperse any shock.

our everyday helmets however were, I am sure, designed to protect kids falling off the bikes at 5mph, before helmets were recommended for safety. You hit the ground perpendicularly and any damage is nullified. However it appears that if you hit the road at an angle governed by cycling at regular road speed, the shock can cause severe neck damage. Yes they do reduce overall injury risk but are far from the level of safety induced by, say, seatbelts in cars. However they are the best we have!

The only way out of this, then, is for the Government to subsidise the "competitive" helmet for everyday use. But would the taxpayer be willing to stump up the readies for this?

What to the taxpayers on this forum think?

Load of tosh. They are tested to the same standard and the more expensive ones tend to do less well in the tests than the cheap ones. And they are designed from falling from sitting on a stationary bike and no more.

 

[Rohloff_Brompton_Rider]

If a cardboard helmet is said to be better than a Giro or a Bell etc, is it possible in some accidents or mishaps the latter one's would be better than no helmet.

read this.....
http://www.ctc.org.uk/resources/Campaigns/Cycle-helmets_brf.pdf

and make up your own mind, personally i agree with 90% of it. i've read a lot of research papers (quantitive and qualitative) and came to the conclusion that they do no good and possibly cause neck injuries.

 

[ufkacbln]

A former acquaintance of mine, who was a racing cyclist, once told me that competitive helmets are designed differently to our everyday ones.

Apparently they are better "buttressed" (Notre Dame model?) to disperse any shock.

our everyday helmets however were, I am sure, designed to protect kids falling off the bikes at 5mph, before helmets were recommended for safety. You hit the ground perpendicularly and any damage is nullified. However it appears that if you hit the road at an angle governed by cycling at regular road speed, the shock can cause severe neck damage. Yes they do reduce overall injury risk but are far from the level of safety induced by, say, seatbelts in cars. However they are the best we have!

The only way out of this, then, is for the Government to subsidise the "competitive" helmet for everyday use. But would the taxpayer be willing to stump up the readies for this?

What to the taxpayers on this forum think?

Load of tosh. They are tested to the same standard and the more expensive ones tend to do less well in the tests than the cheap ones. And they are designed from falling from sitting on a stationary bike and no more.

Not entirely the case....

One of the problems with racing helmets is the problem of flat surfaces and sharp points that are features of aerodyamc design.

It is the snag points that catch and cause rotational injuries, hence the "rounder, smoother, safer" campaign in the states. In some cases the helmet can be ejected from the head in an accident.

The answer for the safety tests is to apply masking tape to keep the helmet in position!

Not something recommended for normal commuter use.

As for the link between cost and safety, this again simply isn't that simple. There are Snell rated helmets on the market in both high and low cost groups.

 

[Red Light]

Not entirely the case....

Still designed and tested to the same standard. There is no EN1078:Sport, just EN1078.

 

[the snail]

[QUOTE 1861538, member: 45"]Thanks for the facts.

It does beg the question though -why isn't there a drive for more protective helmets? The impact limitations are well known.[/quote]
I don't wear a helmet, but I was quite impressed when I heard about the cardboard helmet. Seems to me that the designer deserves praise for original thinking, and coming up with a design which claims to absorb 4x more energy than existing designs. As you imply, the majority of manufacturers seem to concentrate on fashionable style and light weight rather than offering useful protection.

 

[Rohloff_Brompton_Rider]

^+1

 

[ufkacbln]

[QUOTE 1861538, member: 45"]Thanks for the facts.

It does beg the question though -why isn't there a drive for more protective helmets? The impact limitations are well known.[/quote]


We should really be wearing helmets that are better designed, and more effective, but that is where it becomes ironic, even the most evangelical of helmet advocates starts to make feeble excuses not to do so.

Weight, sweatiness, discomfort are all dismissed as "petty" and "daft" when used by someone who decides not to wear a helmet, yet get trotted out as definitive and substantial reeasons why we are not wearing helmets with fewer snag points, less ventilation, more absorbent material and full facial protection

 

[Red Light]

We should really be wearing helmets that are better designed, and more effective, but that is where it becomes ironic, even the most evangelical of helmet advocates starts to make feeble excuses not to do so.

Why should we? Cycling is very safe and the risk of a head injury lower than many other daily activities for which no-one would think of wearing a helmet.

 

[Rohloff_Brompton_Rider]

Why should we? Cycling is very safe and the risk of a head injury lower than many other daily activities for which no-one would think of wearing a helmet.

yep, mile for mile, cycling is safer than being a pedestrian, a well known evidence based fact.

 

[Paul_L]

Why should we? Cycling is very safe and the risk of a head injury lower than many other daily activities for which no-one would think of wearing a helmet.

And this sums it. The two sides of the helmet debate are so heavily entrenched, neither is for shifting. You are perfectly entitled to your opinion, and your opinion is worth no less, nor no more than that of anyone else. I assume (apologies if this is not the case) that you don't wear a helmet for your own reasons. I'm not in favour of compulsion so this is entirely your choice.

It's something i've never really had an opinion on one way or t'other before my accident last week. Cycling is very safe as you say. In over 20 years of cycling this was the first major accident i've had. I've probably fallen or tripped over as a pedestrian more times in that period and hit the ground quite hard when tackled at football and as you say, no-one would think of wearing a helmet for these activities. But i've never travelled at 35mph as a pedestrian or footballer before, nor been cartwheeled into the road several times before coming to a standstill. Yes, i know my helmet would not have been tested under these conditions, but i am adamant my injuries would have been much more serious were it not for my helmet. I think it would be pretty difficult to dispute that, so in my example, yes it might not be perfect and the design many focus on fashion as much as safety, but i am of the opinion that helmets offer "some" protection which in some cases may help to reduce injuries. I'm also prepared to accept that in some cases they may not.

 

[ACW]

Usain bolt can run at 23mph but he will never be asked to wear a helmet during the Olympics. IMHO its the fact that we have to mix with bigger vehicles that puts us under pressure to wear a helmet.