The CycleChat Helmet Debate Thread

[ufkacbln]

Either he thinks it's dangerous or he does the kind of cycling - too fast for the conditions, too fast for his skill, with people who have poor bike-handling skills and poor decision-making - which makes it dangerous. Because of where I am I'm irresistibly reminded of the novice skier who thinks he (and it's almost always a he) can tackle an off-piste black run after a week of lessons.

We know from previous threads that this is exactly the case

 

[srw]

What is being suggested is that a decision is made to satisfy a "loved one" as opposed to a logical and evidence based one,

No it's not. It's that the feelings and emotions of loved ones are taken into account in decision making. To do so is to be human. Not to do so is to be an arse.

 

[benb]

What is being suggested is that a decision is made to satisfy a "loved one" as opposed to a logical and evidence based one, yet it seems that it is only the case of it suits the pro-helmet agenda

So let's apply the Spock like logic?

Why is it the right approach to decision-making, as thoughts and feelings of loved ones are very important, but only when it comes to helmets

Hypocritically when it doesn't suit the same process and logic becomes very silly?

I wonder if someone who currently wears a helmet would stop if their loved ones said "Please don't - I'm worried about rotational injuries and risk compensation"

 

[mjr]

...I have absolutely no idea whether or not a cycling helmet would help. Because no manufacturer has advertised their product as being tested against this kind of thing, I have to follow the idea that no advertising means no the helmet won't help otherwise a manufacturer would be all over the market to gain an advantage.

I think that it's more likely that most manufacturers think they are selling enough and marketing on safety would be bad in at least two ways: it probably encourages crash victims or their families to sue when the helmet doesn't help; and it associates their helmet with danger when few of their competitors are doing it.

Based on the various helmet advocacy sites and hoping that they're accurate and up-to-date about this (which they aren't about other things... the 85% claim still appears on some ), then we know this about cycle helmets:

• If marked EN 1078 or B95, then an exemplar of the design has passed a test of whether the top of the helmet mitigates the impact of a fall from standing onto an idealised flat surface.
• If marked EN 1078 or B95, then an exemplar has passed a test of whether the top of the helmet mitigates the impact of a fall from standing onto a straight kerb edge.
• If marked B95, then an exemplar has passed a test of whether the top of the helmet mitigates the impact of a fall from standing onto an idealised hemispheric rock shape.
• I feel we can probably trust to a lower level any explicit claim the manufacturer makes, but all the stuff about MIPS and so on is meaningless if untested.
• I feel we should probably heed any explicit warnings the manufacturer makes, such as Trek/Bontrager warning against wearing caps or hair under their helmets.

So applying this to a peloton pile-up:

• If the top of your head hits the road, I'd expect an EN 1078 or B95 helmet will probably help;
• If the top of your head hits the kerb, I'd expect it'll probably help;
• If the top of your head hits a straight fat tube, I'd expect it'll probably help (due to similarity to a kerb);
• If the top of your head hits a curved fat tube or rounded fat edge (wheel?), I'd expect a B95 helmet may help (due to similarity to the stone shape) but an EN1078 may fail;
• If the top of your head hits a thin edge (brake disc, chainring?) or tube end (handlebar ends?), I'd expect both types of helmet to fail with minimal effect;
• If the top of your head hits a thin end (QR lever?), I'd expect the vents on most helmets to channel the end towards the skull and actually make matters worse;
• If any impact is anywhere other than the top of the head/helmet, the result is unpredictable.

So for a helmet to be worth wearing in that situation, the help needs to outweigh the thin end case hindrance plus the greater probability of impact due to the increase in size of a helmet compared to a head and the greater probability of neck injury. I'm not sure what the numbers are or if they can be found somewhere.

Personally, I prefer to mitigate the risk by riding with a safe stopping distance in front of me, rather than donning a helmet and hoping the above risk calculation comes out in my favour, but I probably value the benefits of peloton riding lower than some.

 

[martint235]

Without copying all that in to a new post, the one thing that immediately stands out is "the impact of a fall from standing" needs much more specification in the design. I have a bit of head start in this so for example, if the fall is from 1 metre I'm already outside the parameters as my saddle is higher than 1m.

 

[mjr]

I wonder if someone who currently wears a helmet would stop if their loved ones said "Please don't - I'm worried about rotational injuries and risk compensation"

Not quickly, in one case I know, although they did start to ride without one in situations where a helmet is impractical (short rides to events at places where you'd feel daft handing a helmet into the cloakroom, using London cycle hire, and so on). The belief that the helmet saved them in a past collision is still too strong... and not entirely without foundation AFAICT: it was one of those who ' "frequently" fall "usually as a result of trapping in sunken railway lines" ' mentioned in http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-bristol-28197993

So I guess I return to my theory that helmet are over-used because councils are building dangerous/lethal shoot that they wouldn't dare build for motorists.

 

[martint235]

Not to mention the incredible unlikelihood of landing on the top of your head.

Maybe in my younger days but I doubt I could do a half somersault now. Particularly not with a bike attached to my feet.

 

[mjr]

Without copying all that in to a new post, the one thing that immediately stands out is "the impact of a fall from standing" needs much more specification in the design. I have a bit of head start in this so for example, if the fall is from 1 metre I'm already outside the parameters as my saddle is higher than 1m.

http://www.bhsi.org/stdcomp.htm#DROPSPEED claims it's within 0.01m of 1.5m - how high from the floor is the head of a rider in the drops? My saddle top is something like 77cm above BB (up the seat tube, not vertical), and a BB is maybe 30cm up? So it's not completely stupid in drops, although it would be on my Dutch bike which puts my head over 2m up based on when I have to duck to get under stuff!

Not to mention the incredible unlikelihood of landing on the top of your head.

Where "the top of your head" is probably defined as "above about 60mm above a horizontal plane aligned on the upper edges of the skull's ear opening and the lower edge of the eye" as far as I can understand the things on http://www.bhsi.org/stdcomp.htm#TESTAREA which complains that the EN calculation is incomplete - I think CPSC is roughly equivalent and B95 actually covers slightly more of the head.

But I suspect crashing into other bikes is actually more likely to hit the top of your head, so there may be more benefit for peloton riders than the rest of us... although maybe still not enough.

 

[ufkacbln]

No it's not. It's that the feelings and emotions of loved ones are taken into account in decision making. To do so is to be human. Not to do so is to be an arse.

So a "loved one" whose wishes are for you to give up cycling because it is dangerous and a "loved one" who wishes you to wear a helmet because it is dangerous should both be given consideration

.... and in either case a "Spock like" application of common sense should be the over-riding factor

Deciding to continue cycling or not to wear a helmet against their wishes being equally valid,and equally an arse for not complying ?

 

[ufkacbln]

I wonder if someone who currently wears a helmet would stop if their loved ones said "Please don't - I'm worried about rotational injuries and risk compensation"

It is an equally valid request ......

 

[ufkacbln]

I think that it's more likely that most manufacturers think they are selling enough and marketing on safety would be bad in at least two ways: it probably encourages crash victims or their families to sue when the helmet doesn't help; and it associates their helmet with danger when few of their competitors are doing it.

Slightly OT

Reminds me of the story in the US when there are two major electrical companies Westinghouse and General Electric

One was extolling the virtues of DC, and the other AC

Then up came the contract for the new Electric Chair to humanely execute prisoners

Both companies were desperate NOT to win the contract as there was already some concern over safety and reinforcing that by executing people would reinforce that type of electricity being dangerous would be detrimental to their expansion

 

[martint235]

I think that it's more likely that most manufacturers think they are selling enough and marketing on safety would be bad in at least two ways: it probably encourages crash victims or their families to sue when the helmet doesn't help; and it associates their helmet with danger when few of their competitors are doing it.
.

But if you'd tested your helmet thoroughly against real world situations and provided peer reviewed evidence afterwards, you'd be confident enough in the performance of the helmet that the threat of being sued would be mitigated by the number of extra helmets you'd sold. You'd also be able to build in safety clauses (backed up by evidence of course) along the lines of "The helmet must be replaced every 3 years" and such things. You'd test how a helmet performs in its second crash too and would therefore be able to build a clause around that. It all goes back to testing and evidence. As far as I'm aware the lawsuits against MMR manufacturers from parents whose children have gone on to contract one of those diseases are minimal.

My assertion that absence from advertising means that at best even the manufacturers haven't got a scoobies or that they know the helmets aren't very good at what people "think" they are for.

 

[Justinslow]

Either he thinks it's dangerous or he does the kind of cycling - too fast for the conditions, too fast for his skill, with people who have poor bike-handling skills and poor decision-making - which makes it dangerous. Because of where I am I'm irresistibly reminded of the novice skier who thinks he (and it's almost always a he) can tackle an off-piste black run after a week of lessons.

I haven't crashed remember!

 

[Justinslow]

Either he thinks it's dangerous or he does the kind of cycling - too fast for the conditions, too fast for his skill, with people who have poor bike-handling skills and poor decision-making - which makes it dangerous. Because of where I am I'm irresistibly reminded of the novice skier who thinks he (and it's almost always a he) can tackle an off-piste black run after a week of lessons.

Oh and you may call it "willy waving" it's not intended to be, but - I can ride a bike.......

Whether a helmet will ever help me is of course a fair point.

 

[martint235]

Oh and you may call it "willy waving" it's not intended to be, but - I can ride a bike.......
View attachment 119082
Whether a helmet will ever help me is of course a fair point.

Don't understand. You appear to have won it by only racing two races. And your first TT resulted in a PB.

Well done though. A trophy is a trophy and a medal a medal. (I chase shiny medals too, only 2 so far though)