Pro-helmet article on BBC One Show right now

[MarkF]

I see elements of smoking will not give me cancer in these helmet posts, there will always be people who think it will not happen to them. Funny enough thinking about the people I know who do not wear helmets they are all smokers, smelly horrible things. This of course may not be every bodies experience or opinion.

Personally I do not smoke and I do wear a helmet, I have done my own risk assessment and consider it a worth while thing to do.

That is the weirdest/barmiest post I've ever read in a helmet debate. How on earth, whilst making your disgust of smokers obvious, did you make that befuddled association between smokers and non helmet wearing cyclists?

Well, I'll stop riding (actively engaging in this very safe and healthy activity) before I wear a helmet, so put that in your pipe and smoke it, Mr uber human.

 

[Peter91]

you stated that without helemts the %age of cyclists with head injuries would be much higher, if you make these statements of fact then you need to be able to support them in some way.....stands to reason isn't enough

I thought common sense would be suffice, surely you can't deny that a fall of a bike at 20mph would be safer with a helmet?

 

[Crackle]

I thought common sense would be suffice, surely you can't deny that a fall of a bike at 20mph would be safer with a helmet?

The design impact of a helmet is 12-15mph, so why would it help at 20? Do you actually know anything or are you making this up as you go along?

 

[MacB]

I thought common sense would be suffice, surely you can't deny that a fall of a bike at 20mph would be safer with a helmet?

Aaaaaaaaaaaagggggggghhhhhhhhh......have a read of Ben Goldacre and stop reading Ben Lovejoy

 

[Norm]

The chance of being hit by a car or falling of you bike and hitting your head is the same if you do or don't wear a helmet.

Jeez, I wear a helmet all the time and I still want to refute this one!

Read the research, Peter, before churning out such rubbish. Cars may pass helmet-wearers closer, cyclists may take more risks when they wear helmets, it's well-documented and supported anectodally on this very thread, the chances are not the same.

At the risk of derailing this thread... no, let me rephrase... with the intention of derailing this thread!

Voab, I'm sure you are aware that the motorcycle police in France (and other countries too for that matter) don't wear leathers. In fact, you'll see them in short sleeve cotton shirts. They've done risk assessments too. I think, though this information given to me by an ex class 1 rider in the UK, that they factor in heat and discomfort into the risk assessment. If you're too hot or uncomfortable in leathers then you are likely to become distracted or inattentive (dehydration?).

Primary against secondary safety. Being comfortable and healthy makes you less likely to have the accident in the first place.

I wear jeans (still lined with kevlar and fitted with armour) when it's warm and MX gloves when it's hot because that keeps me comfortable, alert, hydrated and thinking about the riding. I know leathers would make the accident more survivable but I believe that I'm less likely to have one.

 

[Jezston]

i think your points are obvious ones, problem is some people dont seem to realise how simple this argument is or should be. whats the difference with motorcyclists? you can fall of each or be knowkced off each and your head is the same regardless of what your riding

I think too many people believe this argument is far more simple than it actually is. Wear a helmet - it protects your head, right?

Answer - there is no answer. We don't know. There are only a few things we know FOR CERTAIN about cycle helmets:

1. They are tested by putting the helmet on a dummy and pushing them over.

2. They are rated to protect an imact at NO MORE than 14mph. After that their effectiveness drops away almost to nothing.

3. They are rated to withstand an impact of NO MORE than 100 joules. The human skull will withstand an impact of 700 joules.


Bicycle helmets are NOT motorcycle helmets. Motorcycle helmets are made of MUCH stronger materials, are MUCH thicker, contain a significant amount of padding and are put through highly rigorous testing procedures. Cycling helmets are not.



I wear a cycling helmet on my commute because it can't make things worse, and maybe it might help a little bit if I am ever knocked off, and it probably wont count against me in case of a claim. But I ride in full knowledge that this bit of plastic and polystyrene on my head is NOT going to save my life.

 

[screenman]

So would the helmet absorb say 75% of the impact in a 20mph crash? would the smooth surface of the helmet mean that the head will slide on impact rather than grip and disintegrate. Sorry to say I have no idea. Also are most falls from the bike slow speed one's like forgetting to unclip, or not getting a good footing when stepping off.

Markf, just an observation nothing more, in as much as both presume it will not happen to them. I often write what comes into my head as it often creates debate.

 

[Peter91]

The design impact of a helmet is 12-15mph, so why would it help at 20? Do you actually know anything or are you making this up as you go along?

Are you kidding? Are you actually saying it's better to go without a helmet in a crash at a speed greater than that which it was designed for?
If so and you can't see how flawed that logic is then I don't see any point in this conversation.

 

[Jezston]

However it is personal choice. Large dent in your head, or large dent in your helmet...

Again: Helmet - 100 joules; Skull - 700 joules.

Something that puts a large dent in a helmet might have no affect at all on the human skull.

 

[Norm]

Are you kidding? Are you actually saying it's better to go without a helmet in a crash at a speed greater than that which it was designed for?
If so and you can't see how flawed that logic is then I don't see any point in this conversation.

But it's ok as that's not what he said at all.

 

[Jezston]

Are you kidding? Are you actually saying it's better to go without a helmet in a crash at a speed greater than that which it was designed for?
If so and you can't see how flawed that logic is then I don't see any point in this conversation.

No, he's saying that it will unfortunately most likely make no difference at all.

 

[Peter91]

But it's ok as that's not what he said at all.

He was implying that above 15mph it wasn't much use. Better to have that 100 joule buffer no?

 

[Jezston]

So would the helmet absorb say 75% of the impact in a 20mph crash?

Someone correct me if I'm wrong but from what I've heard the effectiveness of a bicycle helmet in impacts above 14mph drops off exponentially and rapidly, so it will be down to (total guess as an example) less than 25% at 20mph.

 

[MarkF]

Markf, just an observation nothing more, in as much as both presume it will not happen to them. I often write what comes into my head as it often creates debate.

Ok, I am all for that. I presume I won't get my legs savaged by a gang of renegade guinea pigs on my commute so don't wear any leg protectors either.

 

[billy1561]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong but from what I've heard the effectiveness of a bicycle helmet in impacts above 14mph drops off exponentially and rapidly, so it will be down to (total guess as an example) less than 25% at 20mph.

But even at <25% it's better than nothing?