Has your helmet saved your life poll

How has the cycle helmet preformed for you


  • Total voters
    188
Status
Not open for further replies.
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Gravity is the basis upon which the Americans find our helmets inadequate? So you agree with all American rulings regarding helmets or do you just pick the ones to suit your argument? Again some states require the use of a helmet on children. Seen as it doesn't make a difference to science where you are globally i assume we will see your support for compulsion in under 16's??

The other points i think you will find show that some laws in America are maybe slightly less than logical. That clear up your condescending point?

Things are really getting silly if you require explanation at this level

The EN1078 requires a helmet to impact at a certain energy The Snell B 95 requires a higher energy

A helmet that passes at the lower energy and fails at the higher is less efficient and in case of an accident less likely to prevent injury

As both the EN 1078 and Snell B 95 rely on gravity to power the drop test so unless as you appear to claim the gravity is different it is clear that the two tests are. Comparable
 

Norm

Guest
You clearly think yours is superior to mine so why do me the disservice of assuming i am lesser?
A somewhat hypocritical thing to write, given your claims for a monopoly on logic and common sense.
2194202 said:
Why not ask some of your friends to read this and tell you whether or not they think your behavior here is reasonable?
I doubt he'd want them to see the way that he lies and his inability to grasp simple concepts, such as you and me both choosing to wear helmets on occasion.

I wonder if he will ever stop to think for long enough to figure out what the difference is between his PoV and that of, say, Pat or Drago.
 

Hip Priest

Veteran
I didn't mean to stoke up any arguments here chaps. I still believe helmet use is a choice for the individual and that mandatory helmet use would cause a sharp reduction in cyclist numbers, and a sharp reduction in cyclist numbers would cause danger to us all.
 
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.

...............but it does exist - you are simply in denial of this.




"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.

The question is why you are happy to accept a helmet that can induce and exacerbate injury in favour of one that will function better.




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.

I am in command of far more of the evidence than you claim to be..... that is one of the problems in teaching, you can only improve a student's knowledge and skills if the y wish to learn
 
"Bicycle helmets are 85- to 88- percent effective in mitigating head and brain injuries, making the use of helmets the single most effective way to reduce head injuries and fatalities resulting from bicycle crashes"

"Universal bicycle helmet use by children 4 to 15 would prevent 39,000 to 45,000 head injuries, and 18,000 to 55,000 scalp and face injuries annually".

Source: 2008 Traffic Safety Facts

"A review of international research on cycle helmets by the University of Newcastle concluded that there is considerable scientific evidence that cycle helmets are effective in reducing the incidence and severity of head and brain injuries, and that there are even greater safety benefits for child cyclists [1]. Another review (which looked at five academic studies, and is cited by the British Medical Association as being particularly reliable) concluded that helmets reduce the risk of head injury by 85%, brain injury by 88% and severe brain injury by 75% "

"A helmet dramatically reduces the risk of skull fracture when a cyclist’s head hits something. It also reduces their chances of concussion and helps to protect their head from cuts and scrapes".

"The British Medical Association (BMA) recommends that all cyclists, but especially children, wear a helmet, and supports a law making helmet wearing compulsory [4]. The World Health Organisation promotes helmet wearing as a key way to reduce head injuries among cyclists".

" helmet wearing reduced head injuries by between 24-32% in non-motor vehicle crashes, and by 20% in motor vehicle crashes".

"Canada, the Czech Republic, Iceland, Spain and some states in the US and Australia have introduced similar legislation. Many have concluded through academic research that there has been a reduction in head injuries among cyclists through increased helmet wearing".

Source: http://www.brake.org.uk/facts/why-cycle-helmets-save-lives.htm (links all original sources inside site).


"Predicts helmets would reduce concussions by 29%, skull fractures by 82%"

"Of 42 cyclists over 3 years not wearing helmets who were killed (all causes, not just head injuries), 6 may have survived if they had been wearing a helmet. For 21 of the cyclists a helmet would probably have made no difference".

"Own data suggests helmets give 25% reduction in risk of head injury for adults, but no reduction for other serious injuries. Adjusting Thompson results to eliminate forehead lacerations, re-calculated benefit is 61% (instead of 85%). Also noted small sample size in Thompson data".

"Potential of 63% reduction in all head injuries to children under 14 years"

"Deduced increased risk factor of 2.95 if motor vehicle involved, and 3.25 protection factor for wearing a helmet".

"Concluded that helmets decrease risk of head injury by 69%, brain injury by 65% and severe brain injury by 74%. Helmets work equally well for all age groups, and in crashes with and without motor vehicles (which are most important risk factor for serious injury). Substantial protection provided against lacerations and fractures to upper and mid-face, but not to lower face. Hard shell helmets may offer greatest protection against severe brain injury"

"clear evidence that helmets reduce head and facial injuries for cyclists of all ages in all types of crashes".

Source: http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/helmet_research.html (links all original sources inside site).


"Less than two percent of motor vehicle crash deaths are bicyclists. The most serious injuries among a majority of those killed are to the head, highlighting the importance of wearing a bicycle helmet. Helmet use has been estimated to reduce head injury risk by 85 percent".

"95% of bicyclists killed in 2006 reportedly were not wearing helmets".

Source: http://www.bhsi.org/quick.htm (original sources inside)



  • "Helmets decreased the risk of head injury by 69 percent, brain injury by 65 percent, and severe brain injury by 74 percent. These results, using emergency room controls, are the same as the results obtained in our 1989 study. Had it been possible to use population controls in the current study, the overall protectiveness rate of 85 percent for head injury and 88 percent for brain injury reported in our prior work would in all likelihood have been obtained.
  • Helmets work equally well in all age groups examined. There is no evidence supporting the need for a separate standard for young children.
  • Helmets were equally effective in protecting cyclists in crashes involving motor vehicles and those not involving motor vehicles.
  • Helmets provide substantial protection against lacerations and fractures to the upper- and mid- face, but appear to offer little protection to the lower face.
  • Involvement in a motor-vehicle crash was the most important risk factor for serious injury.
  • Hard-shell, thin-shell and no-shell helmets had similar protective qualities. Hard-shell helmets, however, may offer greater protection against severe brain injury.
  • The major site of helmet damage was to the rim in the frontal region".
Source: http://www.smf.org/docs/articles/report.html (Snell).
"Approximately three-quarters of the head and brain injuries among cyclists are caused by crashes that do not involve motorized traffic; as many as nine out of ten young children who sustain head/brain injury, do so in crashes not involving motor vehicles. These are mostly cyclist-only crashes. This type of crash is difficult to prevent, but it is possible to limit the severity of the head and brain injury by wearing a bicycle helmet. According to the most recent estimate (Elvik, 2011), the risk of sustaining head injury is 1.72 times higher for cyclists who do not wear a bicycle helmet than for the cyclists who do, with a 95% confidence interval of 1.33-3.45. For brain injury, the risk seems to be 2.13 times higher (with a confidence interval of 1.33-3.45)"

"In a large-scale study, Hynd et al. (2009) investigated the possible effects the bicycle helmet may have on injury prevention. They used a literature study, in-depth research, biomechanical studies into the possible limitations of the bicycle helmet, and an evaluation study of the way in which helmets are tested and approved. They conclude that the bicycle helmet – if properly fitted and correctly worn – should be effective in reducing the risk of head/brain injury. They also say that a bicycle helmet will be especially effective for children as the drop height is smaller for children than for adults"

Source: http://www.swov.nl/rapport/Factsheets/UK/FS_Bicycle_helmets.pdf
 
I'd rather a debate based on individual opinion but if you want stats.................^^^^^^^

I look forward to finding out how EVERY one of them is "irrelevant".
 

snorri

Legendary Member
"Bicycle helmets are 85- to 88- percent effective in mitigating head and brain injuries, making the use of helmets the single most effective way to reduce head injuries and fatalities resulting from bicycle crashes"
This excerpt doesn't mention neck and spinal injuries. I can't remember when I last bumped my head but I can remember when I last gave my neck a painful twist. Wearing a helmet in a place where you don't usually wear a helmet can lead to neck injury I discovered as the helmet came in contact with a hard surface.:sad:
 
This excerpt doesn't mention neck and spinal injuries. I can't remember when I last bumped my head but I can remember when I last gave my neck a painful twist. Wearing a helmet in a place where you don't usually wear a helmet can lead to neck injury I discovered as the helmet came in contact with a hard surface.:sad:
Sorry to hear that Snorri. Neck and back injuries can be a right pain in the.............well neck and back. :laugh:
I have a friend who is plagued by sciatic nerve problems due to irregular disc positions. A shame as it is potentially life changing.
Sorry, deviation. Helmets! ^_^
 

srw

It's a bit more complicated than that...
I'd rather a debate based on individual opinion but if you want stats.................^^^^^^^

I look forward to finding out how EVERY one of them is "irrelevant".

Congratulations Pedro. You have very effectively cherry-picked your data. Fortunately you've done it in such a way that it is very obvious. The number of times you typed 85% might have been a clue. Most of those reports seem to be based on a single study - one that's criticised in the second of your snippets. Further, if you read either Franklin or the other ink you originally provided you'll see that your selection is partial and misleading. Your evidence is not irrelevant (and no-one ever said it was.) It's partial.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom