I get that, but the fact it broke, does that therefore exclude ANY compression which would have mitigated?
The CycleChat Helmet Debate Thread
- Thread starter Shaun
- Start date
-
- Tags
- helmet helmet debate
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
mjr
Comfy armchair to one person & a plank to the next
- Location
- mostly Norfolk, sometimes Somerset
It is possible for something to compress, then exceed its limit, then break, but that picture is one of the worst "looks like it just crumbled" that I've seen for a while. It would be interesting to see other angles and measure the thickness against an intact example, but I doubt anyone will bother.
How old was it? It looks like it might have been a Lazer Z1 but that's not a current colour scheme.
Gear hangers
shouldbeinbed
Rollin' along
- Location
- Manchester way
And kit kats
mjr
Comfy armchair to one person & a plank to the next
- Location
- mostly Norfolk, sometimes Somerset
American dramas.
No its not. Its a shambles of a site that seems to just link to ancient articles you cant even read! "we provide references to journals but cannot generally give direct access"
Its commentary on articles is biased, poorly written and often not relevant to the study in question. You may as well read the Daily Mail to get you information on migration.
@blackgoff If you haven't got access to the journals themselves, Google scholar is your best bet, followed by a bit of reading and make your own mind up. You don't need a website to tell you what to think.
That would be good. In the days when I wore a helmet and tried to persuade others to do so, the BMA attitude was something I quoted as supportive of the case. I'm sure a change of heart on their behalf would be helpful and persuasive.
There is a suggestion that there was a con pulled when they did change to support
Reports at the time suggested that the conference allowed time for the pro helmet argument, and capped time for the arguments against being pro helmet.
It was then the only "show of hands" vote for the conference.... with some claiming that the vote was not convincing
Comes back to my biggest question....
If the argument for helmets is so convincing, why do ll the pro helmet groups have to lie, cheat and fiddle votes to get their way
DaveReading
Don't suffer fools gladly (must try harder!)
- Location
- Reading, obvs
That may well be true.
It's also a shame that some of the pro-choice lobby seem determined to deny that just occasionally, under certain circumstances, a helmet might have prevented an injury (or a worse one).
It's as if the overwhelming evidence that helmets don't make cycling safer overall isn't enough to outweigh the occasional inconvenient exception to that.
Mugshot
Cracking a solo.
I have to say that I can't remember seeing this.
mjr
Comfy armchair to one person & a plank to the next
- Location
- mostly Norfolk, sometimes Somerset
Again, I've not seen anyone claiming they are completely useless - more often it's that they're harmful on balance.
For example, I accept that crash helmets might reduce the severity of an injury if you crash, but that's a big if, there's some suspicion that they increase the probability of a crash (although the evidence is not clear, nor is the mechanism) and the vast majority of crashes are completely outside the tested scenarios. There's understandably little chaotic scenario testing (who other than ill-funded pro-evidencers would be interested in it?), usually no chance of replicating the collision in a claimed-benefit scenario and it seems like many people who wear helmets don't understand how they are claimed to work (fractured helmets are seen as successful whether or not they compressed), so I am very sceptical of most "last night a helmet saved my life" stories.
Then you have to consider the damage to the majority of rides where no crash occurs.
So your argument is helmets work if you crash...but it would be better if cyclists never crash...and that can somehow be achieved?
Profpointy
Legendary Member
A bit mischevious cutting mj's post mid sentence - hey, you've even left the comma in
Profpointy
Legendary Member
ah, but if she'd not been wearing her helmet her head might have missed the railings completely . And yes, I am being slightly tongue in check, rather than disagreeing. But they do make your head bigger so will unarguably make some misses into hits. The mathematically challenged even claim "only a bit bigger". On my "off" my shoulder hit the ground, but my bare head didn't - how close? Width of a helmet maybe?
What swayed it for me was the "no difference / slightly worse" real world experience from Ontarion and Australia - and maybe not logical, but the tendency of the pro compulsin campaign types to dissemble also made me very skeptical.
(not disagreeing with quoted post, but quoted.for context)
mjr
Comfy armchair to one person & a plank to the next
- Location
- mostly Norfolk, sometimes Somerset
No, the argument was the rest of the post that was cut nastily... and even the quoted part is summarised badly: I say that crash helmets might work if you crash, not that they definitely will!
But of course it would be far better if cyclists crashed even less... and of course we can achieve that, such as by improving road design through sustainable safety or Vision Zero or similar and not putting obvious crash hazards in the way of cyclists. It may even be that cyclists would crash less if fewer wore crash helmets, but that needs further investigation.
The bigger problem with crash helmets is they're dealing with a small fraction of an already-unlikely event... truly obsessing about what to do about one toenail of the elephant in the room... which is that lots of people won't ride no matter how much safety gear you try to persuade them to wear, because they don't have good streets to ride on, they don't know the routes (which are often ill-signed) or they don't know how fast and practical it can be. Crash helmets don't make the streets nicer, don't help you to find the routes and even make cycling slower and less practical faffing about with special hats.
Let's not forget we're talking about a device that, it is claimed (although not by the manufacturers), reduce severe head injury or can even save your life.
So it's quite interesting that proponents often end up talking about helmets saving you from scrapes and bruises. That is, injuries that are minor and not life-threatening.
Now I actually think helmets are probably quite effective at preventing scrapes and bruises, but that's not what they're portrayed as being for.
In any case, the likelihood of coming off is low in the first place.
The set of "offs" that will result in a head impact is even lower.
The set of head impacts that are in the narrow envelope of energy where a helmet will make any difference at all is so vanishingly tiny that no wonder any protective effect is lost in the statistical noise.
So yeah, they are probably quite good at, in low speed impacts, making the difference between a scrape or a bruise and not, but I don't really care about preventing such trivial injuries that are extremely unlikely in the first place.
So it's quite interesting that proponents often end up talking about helmets saving you from scrapes and bruises. That is, injuries that are minor and not life-threatening.
Now I actually think helmets are probably quite effective at preventing scrapes and bruises, but that's not what they're portrayed as being for.
In any case, the likelihood of coming off is low in the first place.
The set of "offs" that will result in a head impact is even lower.
The set of head impacts that are in the narrow envelope of energy where a helmet will make any difference at all is so vanishingly tiny that no wonder any protective effect is lost in the statistical noise.
So yeah, they are probably quite good at, in low speed impacts, making the difference between a scrape or a bruise and not, but I don't really care about preventing such trivial injuries that are extremely unlikely in the first place.
