How can wearing a helmet offer no protection from injury?

[Wobblers]

BHIT and Headway do!

Exactly this.

 

[Wobblers]

You miss the point. They are built to a standard. That standard may be crap but still they meet it. What is the point of using that fact in advertising if all competative products do the same. The trick is to find a USP.

No. You've missed the point. The point being, if the manufacturers were to sell on safety, they'd have to prove that their products actually worked. Which they can't. So instead they're hiding behind the European standards so that people will believe that helmets will work under all conditions. The physics and the epidemiology demonstrate otherwise.

Helmet protection is a can of worms the manufacturers don't want opened: it makes perfect commercial sense to them to sell under the implicit assumption of protection, thanks to the CE mark, without actually having to mention it. Just how many helmet adverts do you see that say "THIS WILL SAVE YOUR LIFE!!"???

 

[Wobblers]

No thats not what I was suggesting. You would need to refer to the post I was commenting on.

I did. Perhaps I'm being thick, but your post still seems irrelevant. Could you spell it out for the, ahem, neurally challenged, of us?

 

[Norm]

So lets consider mtb for a moment. Speeds are generally low. Chances of collisions with cars even lower. Most crashes are telegraphed to the rider long before it occurs.
Most of the hazards as far as the head is concerned are branches and sharp objects.

Helmet of benefit or not ?

I think I've said this elsewhere but, just in case, I usually wear one when off road, and usually don't when on tarmac, so I think it does have a potential benefit.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

No. You've missed the point. The point being, if the manufacturers were to sell on safety, they'd have to prove that their products actually worked. Which they can't. So instead they're hiding behind the European standards so that people will believe that helmets will work under all conditions. The physics and the epidemiology demonstrate otherwise.

Helmet protection is a can of worms the manufacturers don't want opened: it makes perfect commercial sense to them to sell under the implicit assumption of protection, thanks to the CE mark, without actually having to mention it. Just how many helmet adverts do you see that say "THIS WILL SAVE YOUR LIFE!!"???

Even if a helmet could do that in all imagined circumstances it could not be used in advertising in case there was a situation not imagined and death occured. This is why bleach claims to kill 99.9% of germs or "all known germs".

 

[lukesdad]

Does anyone know of a study researching head injuries in Mtb.

 

[lukesdad]

Or let me put it another way. A study of head injuries amongst cyclists that is broken down into disciplines where the injuries occured ?

 

[lukesdad]

I did. Perhaps I'm being thick, but your post still seems irrelevant. Could you spell it out for the, ahem, neurally challenged, of us?

Different forms low impact collisions can take.

 

[Cyclopathic]

He kept changing the configuration and then saying "try it now", BANG !!, new piece of fuse wire, "OK try it now"BANG !! FOUR TIMES, I ran out of 5amp in the end.

Obviously what you needed was larger capacity fuse wire.

 

[Red Light]

I think you need to rethink your definition of a low impact collision. Have you never been mtbing in a forest or wood with low branches. When a rider falls natural instinct is to protect the head usually done with the hands or arms. Hence most common injuries being shoulder and collar bone. This action will of course reduce the impact to the head or remove it all together.

As you can see or maybe not. these to are low impact collisions.

I hurt my neck quite badly like that back in the days when I wore a helmet. Branch caught in a vent on the helmet and I was lifted backwards off the bike by it.

 

[ufkacbln]

Hold on there, they only show a decline in average cycling by around 30%, yet the total hospitalised cyclist injuries did not and the reduction in head injury was marginal. The health benefits of more people cycling outweights the risks of wearing a helmet.

The greatest protection however is a safe cycling infrastructure. http://www.youtube.c...h?v=Il1IGKaol_M[/quote]

The research shows that a campaign in 1991 on drunk driving, speeding, vehicle safety standards and poor driving showed a greater reduction in head injuries than occurred in the period of time following compulsion

The difference is even more pronounced if you correct for cyclist reduction

The safer roads were a more effective method of reducing head injuries

 

[ufkacbln]

379,000 injuries caused by footwear.

For this reason I prefer not to wear 6" stilettos whilst on the bike!

 

[Red Light]

You miss the point. They are built to a standard. That standard may be crap but still they meet it. What is the point of using that fact in advertising if all competative products do the same. The trick is to find a USP.

Specialised helmets are tested to the more rigorous Snell standard and are, I think, the only ones on sale in the UK that are. So why don't they make something of it?

 

[lukesdad]

I hurt my neck quite badly like that back in the days when I wore a helmet. Branch caught in a vent on the helmet and I was lifted backwards off the bike by it.

Personal experience Red Light, good for you !

Perhaps you can tell me if such a study has been conducted as I asked above ?

 

[lukesdad]

I hurt my neck quite badly like that back in the days when I wore a helmet. Branch caught in a vent on the helmet and I was lifted backwards off the bike by it.

By the way you must be very light to have a branch lift you off the bike.