Cycling helmets.Opinions please

[ShipHill]

Normality, is a terrible thing. Having said that, I would wear one for a sportive as that would carry a much higher probabilty of being offed by another cyclist than most other types of riding

Good point Adrian.

 

[ShipHill]

I doubt if anyone would claim that helmets can never offer some protection in certain types of crash.
The problem arises on helmet threads when someone comes along claiming that those who don't wear helmets when cycling are mad, crazy, irresponsible etc etc., yet when questioned that person shows an amazing lack of awareness of the research material on helmets and helmet wearing which available to us all.
It is of course "common sense" that a shell around your head will offer a degree of protection to the area it covers, but there is considerably more to it than that, as the research shows. http://www.cyclehelmets.org/
Delve into the research and decide for yourself if helmet wearing is for you.

Edit to say that helmet discussions usually relate to utility cycling where the incidence of crashes is very low, and not to higher risk activities like competitive , off road, mountain biking etc.

Thanks for the link Snorri

 

[ShipHill]

I have no strong personal feelings about helmets, and I make no claims regarding their efficacy or otherwise.

What I can't stand is the bulls*** that is spouted on the subject. Licramite's "practical test" is a case in point.

Making up a test (the methodology of which is extremely flawed to start with), not actually carrying it out but still positing your assumptions about its likely outcomes as evidence in support of your prior position is not exactly scientific, is it?



I don't see the relevance of it. I don't often drop a hammer on my foot while cycling.

It was a comparison ... hammer on foot with and without toetector against head hitting road/car/whatever with and without helmet... but you knew that.

 

[ufkacbln]

It was a comparison ... hammer on foot with and without toetector against head hitting road/car/whatever with and without helmet... but you knew that.

Cyclist or pedestrian, you are still failing to exclude either group from your "experiments"

If the "test" is not a valid reason for pedestrian helmets then why not?

 

[Pat "5mph"]

Today I wore no helmet for a leisurely ride with the girls on traffic free path.
A quite substantial tree branch hit me on the forehead
... Just saying ...

 

[Licramite]

Which is the way it should be.


Funniest thing is that "Nutcase helmets" now make a watermelon helmet

Is it really made of melon ?
oddly it seams to be that something like melon would be good in helmets (appart from a delicouces snack) it would deform and absorb the impact better at low speed/impact than the present helmets.
The problem is modern helmets only provide protection at low speed to the head surface (saving cuts and abrasions) - the cushion effect saving you from fractures and concussion doesn't happen till you have a much higher speed impact as the foam does not deform till then and so the energy of the impact goes straight through to your head. what is needed is a two density foam in the helmet, a softer foam for low speed impact with denser foam for high speed.
One of the design flaws in helmets is it relies on the foam to give the helmet structural integrity so it has to be dense enough not to fracture before it deforms, it would be far better to have a series of metal or carb/fibre straps that form a latice so it could deform without loosing its sructural intrigety onto which is attached the crush zone foam. - over all would be a plastic skid layer that would allow he head to slide along the ground. you don't want a rigid pot on your head, but something that will flex with the blow but not come apart before its crush zone has had a chance to work.

 

[Licramite]

I have no strong personal feelings about helmets, and I make no claims regarding their efficacy or otherwise.

What I can't stand is the bulls*** that is spouted on the subject. Licramite's "practical test" is a case in point.

Making up a test (the methodology of which is extremely flawed to start with), not actually carrying it out but still positing your assumptions about its likely outcomes as evidence in support of your prior position is not exactly scientific, is it?
I don't see the relevance of it. I don't often drop a hammer on my foot while cycling.

Honestly try the test - no bullshit 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")

 

[smutchin]

make your own mind up, don't beleive others, don't be told things, go out and find out for yourself. - by doing it.

When I worked at Which? many years ago, I went on a visit to the research centre in Milton Keynes. It's a truly amazing place. They have a crack team of highly qualified scientists and engineers who devise tests for all kinds of equipment and appliances. For example, when they test fridges, they spend a lot of money on building a sealed, climate-controlled environment to ensure that any external variables affecting fridge performance are eliminated.

At the time of my visit, they were also in the middle of carrying out tests on cycle helmets. They'd purpose-built a machine of their own design to recreate the effects of a helmeted head hitting the ground after a fall from a bicycle. The machine was fitted with all kinds of sensors and measuring equipment to extract the maximum possible amount of data from each impact. The machine was so finely calibrated that resetting it after each test took a good hour.

Now, you tell me - would I get better information by trusting the Which? report on cycle helmets or by carrying out your highly unscientific test for myself?

yes I have tried both tests 1 and 2 (and 3 how "hard is helmet")

That explains a lot.

 

[Licramite]

I might have suggested this once or twice in the past, that those who are pro-helmet really ought to join with those who are anti-helmet in not buying helmets. The commercial pressure might encourage the manufacturers to put some effort in to making them more effective which they don't appear to have been doing over the past couple of decades.

I agree with you there 100% - theres no real commercial imperative to make them better and until bicycles are taken as a serious mode of transport the whole question of cycle safety (not just helmets) will never change.

 

[Licramite]

At the time of my visit, they were also in the middle of carrying out tests on cycle helmets. They'd purpose-built a machine of their own design to recreate the effects of a helmeted head hitting the ground after a fall from a bicycle. The machine was fitted with all kinds of sensors and measuring equipment to extract the maximum possible amount of data from each impact. The machine was so finely calibrated that resetting it after each test took a good hour.

Now, you tell me - would I get better information by trusting the Which? report on cycle helmets or by carrying out your highly unscientific test for myself?
That explains a lot.[/quote]

unless you have led a very sheltered life I would guess we all have done tests 1 & 2 in variuos forms.
and how is my test unscientific. - I employed thousands of more sensors and system than any mechanical device does. OK I didn't repeat the experiment too many times but the evidence was compelling.
My test machine was far better calibrated - it took 25years to calibrate my machine at the time and several weeks after each test.

'Which' is commercially driven and is based on opinion of the data presented which could be totally falsified. - why should I trust your opinion. (thats just an example of a counter arguement to any data you presented - in the end its all beleif , all evidence comes down to belief in the evidence - which is largely pre-disposition)

 

[RedFeend]

When I began this thread and asked for advice/opinions about cycling helmets, I never expected so many posts.
It's all very enlightening, hearing such diverse views.

Perhaps someone here comes from an engineering background and can design us an effective helmet. I wouldn't care if it looked like a melon so long as it worked and did not weigh a ton.

 

[shouldbeinbed]

When I worked at Which? many years ago, I went on a visit to the research centre in Milton Keynes. It's a truly amazing place. They have a crack team of highly qualified scientists and engineers who devise tests for all kinds of equipment and appliances. For example, when they test fridges, they spend a lot of money on building a sealed, climate-controlled environment to ensure that any external variables affecting fridge performance are eliminated.

At the time of my visit, they were also in the middle of carrying out tests on cycle helmets. They'd purpose-built a machine of their own design to recreate the effects of a helmeted head hitting the ground after a fall from a bicycle. The machine was fitted with all kinds of sensors and measuring equipment to extract the maximum possible amount of data from each impact. The machine was so finely calibrated that resetting it after each test took a good hour.

Now, you tell me - would I get better information by trusting the Which? report on cycle helmets or by carrying out your highly unscientific test for myself?



That explains a lot.

*devils advocate* Yet people wearing helmets still die and are seriously hurt by head injuries.

Such testing is all well and good but surely it depends what tolerance these machines are calibrated to - clipless moment with outstretched arm or bouncing off a car windscreen at 40mph?
Was the proportion of different accident types factored in to look at the per mile efficacy of a cycling helmet compared to not, or to the detrimental health effects of not cycling because you don't want to wear a helmet?

Is there any point to such unrealistic hermetically sealed tests when the fridge, helmet, ballpoint pen etc will never ever find itself in such a situation in real life? I'd be far more impressed if you told me Which put a fridge in a real life kitchen for a week and had the kids wander off and leave the door half open when they'd finished in it, and you have the cooker or central heating or night-time change the temerature it has to deal with, and they'd tried it boxed into a set of units to see how that affects it or put it right next to a washing machine rattling and vibrating away at least once a day.

 

[Dan B]

coming off on a bike is almost inevitable - its a highly unstable machine

Over the last couple of months I've been watching my son learn to walk, and it's a salutary reminder that standing on two legs is a highly unstable equilibrium requiring continuous muscular control to maintain. Most of us by the age of about two years have pretty much internalised the effort required though, and absent external factors (alcohol, drugs, unstable surfaces) would never even think to describe standing up as difficult or as an activity that needs special protection.

 

[shouldbeinbed]

uote="RedFeend, post: 2485261, member: 29343"]When I began this thread and asked for advice/opinions about cycling helmets, I never expected so many posts.
It's all very enlightening, hearing such diverse views.

Perhaps someone here comes from an engineering background and can design us an effective helmet. I wouldn't care if it looked like a melon so long as it worked and did not weigh a ton.[/quote]

you should have read some of the other threads in H&H first, it would have opened your eyes, this one has been quite short and polite.

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.

 

[smutchin]

*devils advocate* Yet people wearing helmets still die and are seriously hurt by head injuries.

Such testing is all well and good but surely it depends what tolerance these machines are calibrated to - clipless moment with outstretched arm or bouncing off a car windscreen at 40mph?

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 bullshit test.]

Is there any point to such unrealistic hermetically sealed tests when the fridge, helmet, ballpoint pen etc will never ever find itself in such a situation in real life? I'd be far more impressed if you told me Which put a fridge in a real life kitchen for a week and had the kids wander off and leave the door half open when they'd finished in it, and you have the cooker or central heating or night-time change the temerature it has to deal with, and they'd tried it boxed into a set of units to see how that affects it or put it right next to a washing machine rattling and vibrating away at least once a day.

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.