Has your helmet saved your life poll

[ufkacbln]

Inferior to what?

So you want to know now then?

The first lesson...

There are a series of test carried out across the world to prove that helmets can pass a certain impact and this gives an estimation as to how well a helmet performs.

The Snell B95 is recognised as the toughest and that there are many helmets out there being worn that cannot reach this standard

The classic case is the UK / European EN1078 that is so watered down as to be virtually useless.

In fact if you wish to race or take part in a Triathlon in the US than EN1078 endorsed helmets are considered inadequate and banned!

Snell B95 requires more rigorous testing and a helmet that has not passed Snell B95 cannot make an evidenced claim to be as efficient as a helmet that does and when it comes to protection, the proven capability to prevent injury is inferior.

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

Although I realise that it is easier for you to bleat than to offer something positive, rather than continuing to make yourself look a bit of a berk with this, maybe you could propose any way that the stats you quoted would have been relevant to the discussion at that point.

Lets just assume my stats were about as relevant as the ones you posted. Several people on here have illuminated their flaws. Many have admitted the lack of any real, concrete evidence. Few claim it exists and those who do produce nothing but a soft dry mix.
To discount every bit of evidence just because it is detrimental to your argument shows how closed your mind is on the subject. I am not going to spend any more time answering questions which are loaded to suit their argument.

I am not asking you to wear a helmet and feel i do not need to justify my cycling safety preferences with you or anybody else. In short, i could debate this for another week and we would be no further forward in terms of "relevant evidence".

If you choose (some arrogantly do) to inform me that my decision is not based on evidence or logic, then i will clarify for you that my decision is based on my risk assessment . Now can we let bygones be bygones?

 

[ufkacbln]

Inferior to what?

Lesson 2....

The helmets you are using have large vents and protrusions known as a "snag point"

Snag points - these are a hazard and can cause deceleration and rotational injury. A smooth, round design is more optimal for impact as it allows a smooth deceleration. Rapid declaration when a snag point arrests on an uneven surface causes the brain to move inside and impact the skull itself this increases injury when compared with a smoother design

The designs like the ones you are using can cause and exacerbate injury when compared to a smooth, round helmet and are therefore inferior when it comes to preventing injury on impact

To come:
Lesson 3 - material density and energy absorption
Lesson 4 - Ejection from the head during impact

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

I chose 'it has saved me from injury'. My recent crash caused my helmet to split on contact with the road, and I'm fairly sure I woud've been knocked out without it, and 99% sure I would've suffered superficial injuries (cuts, bruising) without it.

Shame I wasn't wearing one on my ribs though.

Glad you were okay. The informative people on here are likely to tell you, with the only "relevant" information available, that if your helmet split then it failed massively to do it's job.
I too am 99% sure that if you were not wearing one, and your head hit the road, then you would have at least suffered "cuts and bruising".

So it is my opinion that the helmet may have played a part in saving you from further injury. Well it also appears it is yours too.
Now you can await the firing squad........

 

[ufkacbln]

Any chance of a reply?????

Lost me. Have you misread?

I suggest you re-read your post and then answer?

I doubt you will ever change your mind RE helmets.

I simply asked:

So what flawed interpretation do you have of my mind RE helmets then?

So what is your flawed perception?

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

So you want to know now then?

The first lesson...

There are a series of test carried out across the world to prove that helmets can pass a certain impact and this gives an estimation as to how well a helmet performs.

The Snell B95 is recognised as the toughest and that there are many helmets out there being worn that cannot reach this standard

The classic case is the UK / European EN1078 that is so watered down as to be virtually useless.

In fact if you wish to race or take part in a Triathlon in the US than EN1078 endorsed helmets are considered inadequate and banned!

Snell B95 requires more rigorous testing and a helmet that has not passed Snell B95 cannot make an evidenced claim to be as efficient as a helmet that does and when it comes to protection, the proven capability to prevent injury is inferior.

Thanks for the lesson. A bit like going back to school to do the times table though. As in knew that already. Funny how some don't want to talk about America or outside of the UK until it supports their argument. In kentucky it is also illegal to have an ice cream in your back pocket and you must not handle reptiles during church services. I think that is based on a similar series of tests carried out in America.
Triathlons in the US and "considered inadequate" doesn't really concern the UK just now does it?? Or we could list the states/districts in America which favour compulsion in children if you would like?

 

[Hip Priest]

Glad you were okay. The informative people on here are likely to tell you, with the only "relevant" information available, that if your helmet split then it failed massively to do it's job.
I too am 99% sure that if you were not wearing one, and your head hit the road, then you would have at least suffered "cuts and bruising".

So it is my opinion that the helmet may have played a part in saving you from further injury. Well it also appears it is yours too.
Now you can await the firing squad........

I hope I don't get too much stick, because I still see it as personal choice! But all I can say is that I'm glad I was wearing it and that I'll continue to wear a helmet.

This now hangs in my garage as a reminder to sort out problems with my drivetrain *before* they cause me to have a hugely painful unplanned dismount.

 

[mickle]

The job of a helmet is to absorb some of the energy of collision between skull and hard surface. To lengthen the deceleration period. Flattening the spike in energy reduces the forces acting on the brain. The helmet achieves this by compressing the high density expanded polystyrene from which it is constructed. If a helmet cracks on impact its failed to do its job.

Early helmets used a hardshell outer but these were heavy and hot. Then manfacturers dispensed with the outer altogether. Non shell - bare polystyrene - helmets didnt last long in the market because they soon became known for causing rotational injuries as the helmet gripped the tarmac on impact. So we saw the quick-fix introduction of spandex covers - designed to slide - quickly followed by the first of the modern thin shell helmets we use today.

Over the years helmets have got lighter, their structural integrity, ventilation and fit has improved imeasureably. But these things dont make up for the fact that they are deigned to meet a particular type of test. Ie strap it to a headform and drop it on an anvil. Which seems a bit of an strange test. I reckon that the top of the head is the least likely bit to hit the ground.

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

Lesson 2....

The helmets you are using have large vents and protrusions known as a "snag point"

Snag points - these are a hazard and can cause deceleration and rotational injury. A smooth, round design is more optimal for impact as it allows a smooth deceleration. Rapid declaration when a snag point arrests on an uneven surface causes the brain to move inside and impact the skull itself this increases injury when compared with a smoother design

The designs like the ones you are using can cause and exacerbate injury when compared to a smooth, round helmet and are therefore inferior when it comes to preventing injury on impact

To come:
Lesson 3 - material density and energy absorption
Lesson 4 - Ejection from the head during impact

Thanks again for a thoroughly educational piece. I was not aware that these snag points were a proven problem with road helmets in cycling. Sometimes i miss this FACTUAL evidence. It could be because it doesn't exist of course in my defence.

"The designs like the ones you are using can cause and exacerbate injury when compared to a smooth, round helmet and are therefore inferior when it comes to preventing injury on impact"

Surely you are not suggesting that information is "relevant" if something "CAN" happen. That would be a real bonus to all pro helmet wearers arguing their point on this thread.

May i suggest that if you wish to give "lessons" you first become a teacher. Or at least someone who is in command of all the evidence.

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

I hope I don't get too much stick, because I still see it as personal choice! But all I can say is that I'm glad I was wearing it and that I'll continue to wear a helmet.

View attachment 16084

This now hangs in my garage as a reminder to sort out problems with my drivetrain *before* they cause me to have a hugely painful unplanned dismount.

Sadly you are no longer safe. Seek shelter!
Or better yet go out and ride your bike instead of being pulled into a discussion about riding your bike.

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

The job of a helmet is to absorb some of the energy of collision between skull and hard surface. To lengthen the deceleration period. Flattening the spike in energy reduces the forces acting on the brain. The helmet achieves this by compressing the high density expanded polystyrene from which it is constructed. If a helmet cracks on impact its failed to do its job.

Early helmets used a hardshell outer but these were heavy and hot. Then manfacturers dispensed with the outer altogether. Non shell - bare polystyrene - helmets didnt last long in the market because they soon became known for causing rotational injuries as the helmet gripped the tarmac on impact. So we saw the quick-fix introduction of spandex covers - designed to slide - quickly followed by the first of the modern thin shell helmets we use today.

Over the years helmets have got lighter, their structural integrity, ventilation and fit has improved imeasureably. But these things dont make up for the fact that they are deigned to meet a particular type of test. Ie strap it to a headform and drop it on an anvil. Which seems a bit of an strange test. I reckon that the top of the head is the least likely bit to hit the ground.

Okay, but could Hip priest have suffered cuts, scrapes or bruises without the helmet? Or imagine at the point of impact there was a small sharp stone, would the helmet possibly have saved from further possible injury or do you/others discount any possibility of this having happened?

 

[srw]

Triathlons in the US and "considered inadequate" doesn't really concern the UK just now does it??

Unless the laws of physics are different across the Atlantic, yes it does.

Incidentally, you mentioned your cited evidence yet again. I take you believe that prayer is an effective cure for cancer and that homeopathic medicines effectively address flu?

 

[Norm]

Lets just assume my stats were about as relevant as the ones you posted. Several people on here have illuminated their flaws. Many have admitted the lack of any real, concrete evidence. Few claim it exists and those who do produce nothing but a soft dry mix.
To discount every bit of evidence just because it is detrimental to your argument shows how closed your mind is on the subject.

I didn't discount it because it was detrimental. If you actually used the logic that you feign to assume, you'd realise that it wasn't detrimental at all as it was, by adding cars with peds and adding motorbikes with cyclists, irrelevant.

If there was a shred of logic in your proposed stats, because they actually ranked peds above cyclists, they would be anything but detrimental to my 'argument' (your rather telling phrase). However, even though they might appear to support the position thay walking is more dangerous than cycling, I would not place any store in them because adding cars and motorbikes still makes them irrelevant.

Still at least It appears, by not even offering the weakest of defence, that you agree there was nothing worthwhile in them.

 

[StuartG]

You may just be wrong Steve. Scientific methodolgy and statistical theory is very different in Perthshire if Pedro is to be believed. Dammit, why am I posting again. Pointless with mutually exclusive worldviews.

(And that dear P is about reasoning. Helmeteering differences are just a consequence of this).

 

[ufkacbln]

Thanks for the lesson. A bit like going back to school to do the times table though. As in knew that already. Funny how some don't want to talk about America or outside of the UK until it supports their argument.

So the fact that the test is American invalidates gravity?

Sadly a helmet travelling by gravity will be the same on both sides of the Pond....... So if a helmet fails in th US it will fail in the UK

However if you wish to dismiss the fact that Snell is considered the Gold Standard internationally, then feel free... Says a lot about your understanding

In kentucky it is also illegal to have an ice cream in your back pocket and you must not handle reptiles during church services. I think that is based on a similar series of tests carried out in America.

You are claiming that ice creams are drop tested at a higher speed in the US than in the UK.

Are there really tests to see how securely a snake fastens to your head?

What "similar" tests are you talking about care to enlighten us?

Triathlons in the US and "considered inadequate" doesn't really concern the UK just now does it?? Or we could list the states/districts in America which favour compulsion in children if you would like?

This has already been explained to you above