Cycling helmets.Opinions please

Status
Not open for further replies.
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
smutchin

smutchin

Cat 6 Racer
Location
The Red Enclave
By the way, I haven't worked for Which? for about 15 years, so I have no vested interest in promoting them. I'm merely expressing an opinion about their product tests based on my experience of working for them.

Take it or leave it. It's all the same to me.
 
U

ufkacbln

Guest
Licramite said:
Honestly try the test - no bulls*** here - its a practicle way to see if a helmets effective or not. - not made up statistics , no biased studies - its see for yourself time. you could varie the test to suit your personal take on how is my head going to the floor, you could kneal down and head but the pavement , you could try with the front, side or back of your head -

In the end you will you have a far better idea than reading every study ever done (most are utter nonesense and all are refuted with counter arguements) - so its make your own mind up, don't beleive others, don't be told things, go out and find out for yourself. - by doing it.
and yes I have tried both tests 1 and 2 (and 3 how "hard is helmet")
Click to expand...


I am always inspired by this website and the inclusion of other groups in the debates.

Normally religion is a dodgy area, but this post is one that truly crosses racial and religious boundaries.

We have now not only proved that dangers of head injury when prostrating oneself before one's chosen deity, but have also come up with the suggestion of wearing a helmet to reduce the possibility of injury to the religion's adherents.

All we need to do now is counter the requirement of some reloigions not to cover one's head when performing religious rites, perhaps we can get a concession for more ventilated designs, would say 80% ventilation offer sufficient protection, but reveal enough bare head to satisfy the relogious authorities?
 
U

ufkacbln

Guest
Licramite said:
The problem is modern helmets only provide protection at low speed to the head surface (saving cuts and abrasions) - .
Click to expand...

They don't even do that adequetely!

According to the British Dental association, modern helmet design fails totally to protectthe facce, eyes, cheeks and teeth, all the areas that a MAxillo-Facial Surgeon would treat. They along with Headway are campaigning for a change to make helmets withgreater facial protection compulsory
 
U

ufkacbln

Guest
Pat "5mph" said:
Indeed I was laughing at @User 's reply.
@User :rose:
Don't cut the tree down, it was my fault, too busy chatting instead of paying attention to hazardous flora :girldance:
Click to expand...

Is "Hazardous Flora" the eldest or youngest of your branch swinging offspring?
 
Mr Haematocrit

Mr Haematocrit

msg me on kik for android
Location
Out of the saddle
you want a differing opinion on cycle helmets?

1:They do not look as crap as my hair
2:New helmets often feature Kevlar reinforcement which is also used for bullet proof vests, while polystyrene collapses and absorbs impact so your skull does not need to.
3:They may save you from having stitches (possibly)
4:Some look cool, and help reduce baldness as hair does not grow where you have had stitches.

More opinions...... no more facts :laugh:
 
OP
OP
RedFeend

RedFeend

Well-Known Member
Location
Crowland, South Lincolnshire
[quote="

Define worked: as above do you want to be protected from a falling off on your own at low speed or losing your balance stopped at traffic lights, having a mountain bike trail crash onto soft ground, bouncing off a car windscreen at 40mph or withstanding a tipper truck rolling over it whilst you're wearing it? Does worked mean leaving you a vegetable instead of dead or with a cracked helmet instead of roadrash? Does it need to provide full face protection to save you broken cheekbones, jaw and teeth to be considered as working?

there isn't a one size fits all solution and many of the above issues have been tried

David Coulthard marketed a full face one, never took off, skater hats and motorbike helmets would 'work' for more impact protection but are hot and heavy, there is an airbag helmet that has recently been developed, it sits round your neck and inflates (it knows somehow) as you fall off or roll onto a car bonnet, but last time it was mentioned on TV it was reported to cost around £400 and was single use, there are cardboard ones that are supposed to be as strong as current polystyrene ones.

The innovation is out there and alternative ideas have been tried, but for the amount of times it might actually be the difference in an accident over what is currently available, the cost or discomfort or inconvenience don't seem to be worth it.[/quote]


RedFeend's response is below.

Whoa, steady on. I'm not wearing a helmet.
 
shouldbeinbed

shouldbeinbed

Rollin' along
Location
Manchester way
smutchin said:
You're missing the point entirely. The Which? tests are consumer tests, not standards certification tests. [edit: to clarify further - they make no claims about whether or not a helmet will save your life in a real-world accident, they only test the relative ability of different helmets to absorb an impact (relative to each other and relative to not wearing a helmet), and iirc their tests cover a wider range of impacts (different angles, speeds etc) than the official BS or even SNELL tests. The point for Which? is not whether or not you should wear a helmet but if you do choose to buy one, which will perform the best. And the reason I brought it up was not to big up Which? but to highlight the difference between a proper product test and a bulls*** test.]



They don't just stick the fridges in a room and leave them, they carry out a wide range of tests on them.

The purpose of the tests is not necessarily to recreate real-life conditions [edit: I should clarify that - the tests do recreate real-life conditions but not by direct imitation] but to ensure that all the different models are tested under identical circumstances, scientifically, in order to provide a truly fair comparison, in order that readers can make a fully informed choice when choosing which fridge or cycle helmet or whatever to buy.

Most publications that run consumer product tests just use whatever free stuff the manufacturers send them, spend half an hour "testing" them, then write up their opinions. If you're happy to take their opinions on trust, that's up to you. Personally, I take most of them except Which? with a pinch of salt.

But that's just, like, my opinion, man.
Click to expand...

I think you missed the devils advocate disclaimer. but your response does raise a few questions

how do Which? test non helmeted head impacts in their calibrated identical conditions synthetic take on real life to comment on the efficacy of any helmet over not wearing one?
Which Which? staffer gets to take one (or several over a wide range of impacts) for the team?

How does a machine synthesise the comfort, grip and ventilation factor that is highly important in helmet choice? Unless you're very unlucky on the way home from the shop, you could spend an awful lot of time in/money on something that feels like an instrument of torture because a calibrated machine tells you it takes a bump better than a supremely comfy one.

I think your crossed out bit rings truer personally and that there is a big difference between a fully informed decision and a comparative assessment, however scientific and however good a simulation of real life in a test centre or with a machine it is & how do they recreate real life if not by imitating it?

but that's just, like, my opinion, man and is the reason I take the whole publications telling me what to buy, think or wear industry with a pinch of salt, Which? included. Taking it on trust doesn't come anywhere close.

anyhow we digress from the OP I think on balance I'll stick with my page 1 post: asking someone else to tell you what helmet is best for you is like asking them to pick a new favourite colour for you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom