BentMikey
Rider of Seolferwulf
- Location
- South London
OTOH Brock's point would rather seem to be supported by the study that found helmet wearers were 7 times more likely to hit their heads.
Detention Lines: I will wear a helmet.
- Thread starter handsome joe
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
BentMikey said:
And in the continuing story of an accident prone Crackle........
A few months after I'd fractured my skull, on my way home in the dark I hit a piece of debris in the form of a large bolt, probably off a lorry. The impact twisted the bars away from me and flung me forward and sideways over the bars. I landed on my back with the bike on top of me and slid along the road.
The only thing damaged: The back of my helmet which scraped along the road even though I had my head lifted as I'd managed to react enough to control my fall.
...and those two anecdotes are the reason I'm ambivalent about wearing a helmet.
Incidentally I haven't fallen off in the following 17 years, maybe I'm due a big one
hackbike 6
New Member
- Location
- The Mile End Road.
LOL, yes, trot out that old hack about headbutting walls. What a bunch of wonkers you really are.
Yes im an old hack.
Yes im an old hack.
Wolf04
New Member
- Location
- Wallsend on Tyne
I agree with BentMikey that helmet wearing is a red herring in terms on cycle safety. Part of my job involves being a safety officer and while I do not claim any great expertise one of the first things you learn is that protective equipment should be the last line of defense. What we should focus on is better cyclecraft as this will have a more obvious effect on our safety. However as we are discussing helmets, Crackle's comment below seems key.
Government, safety and medical bodies seem to be trying to enforce cycle helmet wearing. None of these bodies however seem interested in having effective standards.
Have a look at Wiggle or any of the other web sites and read the description of any helmet it will tell you how brilliant the air flow is but how much protection it gives is never mentioned. Crackle's comment about fitting is equally important a badly fitting helmet is almost certainly more dangerous than no helmet. I wear a helmet but I still continually try to improve my cyclecraft and see that as a much more important factor in my personal safety.
Crackle said:
Government, safety and medical bodies seem to be trying to enforce cycle helmet wearing. None of these bodies however seem interested in having effective standards.
Have a look at Wiggle or any of the other web sites and read the description of any helmet it will tell you how brilliant the air flow is but how much protection it gives is never mentioned. Crackle's comment about fitting is equally important a badly fitting helmet is almost certainly more dangerous than no helmet. I wear a helmet but I still continually try to improve my cyclecraft and see that as a much more important factor in my personal safety.
dudi
Senior Member
- Location
- Ipswich, Suffolk
Cunobelin said:
I've not read that paper yet as i'm a bit busy, i will do later on. but from the snippet you posted i can see a few failures.
Firstly, it's rider only accidents. not a total figure.
Seconly, it's comparing walking down stairs to cycling on the road, if it compared cycling down stairs to walking down stairs, i wonder what the outcome would be.
Thirdly, it makes no mention of the proportion of "rider only accidents" that resulted in fatalities.
And finally, it does not make any mention of any safety measures the riders/walkers have put in place.
for all we know, it could be equally true to report:
"Of at least 3.5 million regular cyclists in Britain, only about
10 a year are killed in rider only accidents.
However there are 300,000 rider only incidents each year, and that only 10 of these resulted in the death of the cyclist could be attributed not only to the low injury nature of the falls, but also that the majority of these cyclist were wearing a helmet"
I'll read the report later on to check more later.
hackbike 6
New Member
- Location
- The Mile End Road.
Good god cyclecraft has been quoted now.
BentMikey
Rider of Seolferwulf
- Location
- South London
So dudi, now you want cycling to be dangerous!!!
Wolf04
New Member
- Location
- Wallsend on Tyne
hackbike 6 said:
I was actually referring to the craft of cycling but buying a copy of Cyclecraft would still be a better option than hoping a helmet will save you.
IMHO
dudi
Senior Member
- Location
- Ipswich, Suffolk
Wolf04 said:
what's wrong with doing both?
Wolf04
New Member
- Location
- Wallsend on Tyne
dudi said:
Absolutely nothing wrong, my point was and still is that helmets should be the last thing used to address your personal safety while cycling and certainly not the only thing.
Maz said:
Because there is no "context".... it simply proves that a helmet may contribute under certain circumstances.... and not for a particular activity - it certainly does not prove anything for an activity where the impact is far greater than in the test!
As I posted before try the experiment sat on a bicycle, standing and wearing a pink tutu, Doc Martens and lace full arm gloves?
If you are arguing that this "test" proves helmets are appropriate for cyclists you have also proved that they are appropriate for pink tutus!
It is also interstingthat someone has mentioned "standards"
Over the last ten years or so these have been "dumbed down" and EN1078 is far inferior to the previous Snell B90 or B95 tests - in fact modern helmets functionality is far less.
Present fashion for vents and weight reduction means that there is less material to absorb impact thus meaning the helmtets no longer protect to the same extent!
Manafacturers are even allowed to produce special batches for testing, and En1078 does not even have a test equivalent to a kerb impact - the helmet you are wearing is not even proven to work in this case!
Two EN1078 passed helmets (Trek Anthem C Elite and the WSD version) and were actually withdrawn in the states for failing to meet the US CSPC requirements!
Are you all therefore wearing Snell quality helmets - if not - why not?
Over the last ten years or so these have been "dumbed down" and EN1078 is far inferior to the previous Snell B90 or B95 tests - in fact modern helmets functionality is far less.
Present fashion for vents and weight reduction means that there is less material to absorb impact thus meaning the helmtets no longer protect to the same extent!
Manafacturers are even allowed to produce special batches for testing, and En1078 does not even have a test equivalent to a kerb impact - the helmet you are wearing is not even proven to work in this case!
Two EN1078 passed helmets (Trek Anthem C Elite and the WSD version) and were actually withdrawn in the states for failing to meet the US CSPC requirements!
Are you all therefore wearing Snell quality helmets - if not - why not?
