Bicycle Helmet Research - Short Survey

[yello]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.