Has your helmet saved your life poll

[benb]

Ben that's not the case. If you cannot provide concrete evidence that a cycle helmet does not work, to any effect, then you cannot make the claim. claims are substantiated with evidence.

you may argue that there is no reliable evidence to support the use of a helmet, but you would be wrong to conclude its inneffectiveness.

If you really think that, then you have no understanding of the scientific method. No-one has to prove that cycle helmets are ineffective as an argument for not wearing them. If people wish to promote helmet use it is up to them to provide the evidence that they are effective. That is how all public health interventions work.

And in any case I never said that cycle helmets do not work to any effect, just that any effect they have is not detectable, therefore it must be tiny.

 

[Dan B]

you may argue that there is no reliable evidence to support the use of a helmet, but you would be wrong to conclude its inneffectiveness.

You could make the same argument about lucky underpants and just as validly. That's still a rubbish basis on which to advocate that lucky underpants should be mandatory for all child cyclists

 

[Alun]

I believe the stat you are manipulating is that cycle helmets are "most" effective at or around 12mph. Not up to or exactly 12mph.

Everyone in a pro race wears a helmet. It is a fact. Why would they wear a helmet in a race where they not likely sniff 12mph let alone average it?? Do the pro's not fall??

Please don't say because of sponsorship or advertising. It is a law within the sport not a recommendation.

Are you are saying that a helmet is more effective at 12mph, than at 6mph or at 3mph? Why is this?

You seem to have answered your own question, Pros wear helmets because as you correctly say it is a law within the sport, not because the riders think it is a good idea. Before helmets were insisted upon very few, if any Pros wore them.

Thank you for pointing out the sponsorship and advertising revenue, I'm sure it amounts to a considerable sum.

Pros do fall, they fell before they had to wear helmets, and they still fall, I don't think that the number of serious head injuries have reduced as a consequence of wearing helmets.

I don't think that looking at Pro racers wearing helmets will help support your stance though. Racing is very different from most normal cycling, just as motor racing is very different from normal driving

 

[Crackle]

Okay but who says you would fall exactly one way every time? You could hit the front one day at 20mph then the side the next day at 15mph. The whole helmet is the issue, surely not just the "optimal crown impact"?

The more you look at it, the more complex it becomes. There are numerous ways you can fall but if you go over the handlebars, you'll likely hit the crown, if you get hit from the side or slide on a corner you'll likely hit the side. I'm reasonably familiar with what happens when you slide on a corner!

When they tested motorcycle helmets beyond their limits, they didn't fail a little bit and then a little bit more, they failed catastrophically such that the measuring instrumentation couldn't record the spike. As far as I know there isn't a similar study for cycle helmets but I think it's fair to assume you can interpolate those results to cycle helmets and as impact force isn't linear, 20mph is a fairly big increase, I reckon thinking around 15mph is more reasonable to hope for. Especially if you hope to have lost some momentum before your head hits. Of course you might be unlucky and get one that fails below it's design criteria, or your helmet might, unbeknown to you, be damaged or just old.

Of course if we want our helmets to be effective what we should really be doing is campaigning for a better standard more akin to the Snell one. Helmet manufacturers should be making lids rounder and less bulky and in different sizes, rather than one shell fits all. It's a very real risk and not at all far fetched to suggest that the extra bulk of a helmet will cause you to hit your head and transmit forces that otherwise you'd have avoided because an arm or shoulder would have hit first, you only need to look at a few studies of fall mechanisms to see that that is entirely possible.

The only way to be sure what helmets can do is for there to be more research into their design. So far, it's lacking.

 

[Alun]

Okay but who says you would fall exactly one way every time? You could hit the front one day at 20mph then the side the next day at 15mph. The whole helmet is the issue, surely not just the "optimal crown impact"?

You would either be a poor rider, or very unlucky to suffer such impacts on consecutive days
I think manufacturers would recommend that you replace the helmet after a 20mph impact, so you would have a new one for your 15 mph impact.

 

[ufkacbln]

I believe the stat you are manipulating is that cycle helmets are "most" effective at or around 12mph. Not up to or exactly 12mph.

Nope....... the evidence is the testing that is done to prove that they are able to take a certain impact.

EN1078 for instance requires an impact speed of between 5.42 to 5.52 m's when it strikes the anvil. That equates to between 12.12 to 12.35 mph.

So the simple fact is that they are only "proven" up to this speed.

It's a bit like a watch...... if it states waterproof to 10m would you wear it at 20m depth, and expect it to still be waterproof?

Everyone in a pro race wears a helmet. It is a fact. Why would they wear a helmet in a race where they not likely sniff 12mph let alone average it?? Do the pro's not fall??

Please don't say because of sponsorship or advertising. It is a law within the sport not a recommendation.

You do realise that you have answered your own point?

Why do they wear helmets, it is because it a regulation

This was covered before, and hasn't changed - The reason they wear helmets in a race is because they have to - hence the strikes when and non-compliance they were first introduced,

Also unchanged ( like it or not ) is that the choice of helmet really is down to sponsorship and advertising and nothing to do with choice

Finally there is no "law", it is simply not the case. It is a rule or regulation. They also state that Socks (and shoe covers) used in competition must not exceed the mid-distance between the ankle and the knee. Do you think that is because longer socks are more dangerous?

 

[ufkacbln]

Everyone in a pro race wears a helmet. It is a fact.

Please don't say because of sponsorship or advertising. It is a law within the sport not a recommendation.

Absolutely correct....

 

[DooDah]

This is all very bizarre to me. I wear a helmet whilst cycling but not walking. It is my choice and my opinion. Why has everyone gone mad about their opinions and try to change others???? Also, is this a cycling forum or a walking forum? It seems like this is an issue where a lot people join in just to have a go at each other. Would it not be better just to state why you wear a helmet or not and the reasons why, and not try to change other peoples opinions

Just a thought......or alternatively carry on as you are.

 

[Alun]

This is all very bizarre to me. I wear a helmet whilst cycling but not walking. It is my choice and my opinion. Why has everyone gone mad about their opinions and try to change others???? Also, is this a cycling forum or a walking forum? It seems like this is an issue where a lot people join in just to have a go at each other. Would it not be better just to state why you wear a helmet or not and the reasons why, and not try to change other peoples opinions

Just a thought......or alternatively carry on as you are.

If you had your way this thread would be over in 10 pages, boring!

 

[DooDah]

Actually I can't be bothered to read a load of people having a go at each other, whether I am new to this forum or not. Some of the posts I have read are informative, but most are people arguing on the internet. Judging by your posting, I guess you are one of them. 10 pages is why too much in my opinion, so I won't waste my time anymore.

 

[totallyfixed]

If you wear a helmet please, please read these:
http://www.risksense.org/2012/06/14/the-myth-of-the-bicycle-helmet/
http://crag.asn.au/?p=391

 

[mrandmrspoves]

OK then....


Dog with helmet:

Poves says.....That is NOT a dog!



Snail with helmet:

Poves says.....How do we know this isn't a slug impersonating a snail?


Quote]

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

If you really think that, then you have no understanding of the scientific method. No-one has to prove that cycle helmets are ineffective as an argument for not wearing them. If people wish to promote helmet use it is up to them to provide the evidence that they are effective. That is how all public health interventions work.

I have a perfectly fine understanding thanks. You are making false claims.



"just that any effect they have is not detectable, therefore it must be tiny"

So now helmets have no detectable effect?? You will find that it is claims like this that should be backed up. Otherwise we could all just go around making assumptions and/or accusations wether it was true or false.

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

You could make the same argument about lucky underpants and just as validly. That's still a rubbish basis on which to advocate that lucky underpants should be mandatory for all child cyclists

Again with "mandatory".

I'll look after me and you look after you. We will let the rest of the world figure out what they want to do regarding helmet safety.

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

Before helmets were insisted upon very few, if any Pros wore them.

Before seat belts were insisted upon very few people wore them. Now it is just accepted behaviour and now known to be a lot safer. More time means more evidence.

Thank you for pointing out the sponsorship and advertising revenue, I'm sure it amounts to a considerable sum.

Pros do fall, they fell before they had to wear helmets, and they still fall, I don't think that the number of serious head injuries have reduced as a consequence of wearing helmets.

I don't think that looking at Pro racers wearing helmets will help support your stance though. Racing is very different from most normal cycling, just as motor racing is very different from normal driving

I don't think we are getting anywhere with this. Cyclists fall. I will wear a helmet. You (others too) may not. Pretty much sums up where we are at.