The CycleChat Helmet Debate Thread

[philepo]

So the data and evidence to show how much of a 25mph impact is dissipated by a Kask helmet? Or are you just saying "physics" as a get out when it comes to evidence.? You don't need to have a human in the helmet to accurately simulate meaningful impacts (I don't believe any humans are harmed in the testing of motorcycle helmets for example). You cherry picked that testing vaccines is expensive but I believe a bottle of H&S is significantly less than a helmet but it's tested and evidenced.

I will do some sums when i am free and get back to you
H&S contains stuff that is not tested but is believed to be harmless, just like talcum powder was...

 

[claudbutler]

 

[ufkacbln]

Depends what you consider more important. Personally I think reducing the deceleration should be a priority (EN rules say <250 g, whereas Snell was 300g)

You have completely and totally missed the point

Breakage only evidences that the impact was severe and energy has been dissipated before it got to the brain (unless it was a faulty product)

Whereas previous helmets would have absorbed more energy, (more slowly)not broken in the process and hence dissipated more energy, being more beneficial, and offering greater protection. You are accepting the performance of a grossly inferior product and in doing so allowing the manufacturers to get away with this

Yes, but if they pass the same tests (i.e. deceleration was under what has been decided as harmful) then that's fine. If they didn't then that wouldn't be fine. A non-issue surely.

Again missing the point - they don't, Snell B95 was the standard for ALL helmets, at present there are only about a dozen that do pass the test. The pro helmet Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute points out that the EN1078 standard "Permits lighter, thinner (less protective) helmets than any of the other standards." EN1078 is not recognised in teh US or by some UK events organisers because of this low level of protection

Why not wear a helmet with instead on foam inside it has razer blades? Since you really won't want to fall off and bang your head, the inverse 'risk compensation' theory takes over and you will never crash. I really should patent this design before someone from cyclechat does.

How did you manage to equate the real and proven risk of snag points with this bizarre sentence?
Of course it is easier than recognising another of the design faults in modern helmets where we have allowed the manufacturers to get away with design features that can increase injury

Depends what you consider more important. Personally I think reducing the deceleration should be a priority (EN rules say <250 g, whereas Snell was 300g)

What do I consider important? I would consider the numerous other ways in which a historic Snell B95 tested helmet is superior to the present ones that are unable to meet these standards as important. Even the concentration on the single aspect of deceleration is hardly supportive of your case when by your own evidence that the modern EN1078 helmet is less efficient

Also there seems to be a misconception about deceleration. The thinner denser modern helmets with their inability to absorb energy also do so more quickly than a thicker, less dense historic helmet. This exacerbates the problem as the shorter time again makes the modern helmet less efficient

So in summary the facts still remain that modern helmets are less efficient, less able to absorb energy and make less of a contribution to the reduction of head injury than older helmet designs





Of course if this is inconvenient then concentrating on the one that suits your limited agenda is fine.

 

[derrick]

How many times will this go around in circles. Wear one don't wear one, Who really gives a ****. Your head you decide.

 

[derrick]

That would be great, if only everyone would respect people's decisions not to wear them. The fact of the matter is that there are people who do give a *"@#, and who wish to be able to tell me what to do.

You ignore them. I do actually wear one. No one has ever told me i should not.

 

[martint235]

[QUOTE 4190765, member: 43827"]I really am fed up to the back teeth with the posturing and determination to show that their position is the only correct one, no matter which side the writer is on.

I wear a helmet, even though I realise that there is no absolute proof that it will protect me in all situations. As a crap rider I have been in too many falls on the mtb and the road bike. In most of them the helmet made no difference, but on two falls there was damage to the helmet from direct knocks , which otherwise would have been direct knocks to the side of the head from iron railings and then the road surface. Logic, admittedly not backed up by a scientific research paper, although in the second case backed up by the doctor in A&E (who hasn't written a dissertation on the subject), tells me that that damage to my helmet would otherwise have been to my skull, so I feel happier wearing one.

I can fully understand why people do not want to wear helmets, based on evidence they have read, and support their right not to wear them, but please let's stop these pointless black/white arguments that do not allow for the existence of grey.

Written more in hope than expectation![/QUOTE]
I agree with almost everything you've said. If you accept the evidence isn't there but want to wear a helmet anyway, your call. You're making an informed, from your point of view, choice. I have absolutely nothing against that.

However some people wear helmets believing it will do something that is not supported. I only want informed choice

 

[derrick]

It's no difference to going to meeting where you have to wear a tie, I hate ties and suits but on the odd occasion i have to wear one. i just do it, i don't make a big fuss about it, as soon as i can i will take them off, It's no different to having to wear a helmet on a sportive, Don't understand why the big fuss.

 

[srw]

It's no difference to going to meeting where you have to wear a tie, I hate ties and suits but on the odd occasion i have to wear one. i just do it, i don't make a big fuss about it, as soon as i can i will take them off, It's no different to having to wear a helmet on a sportive, Don't understand why the big fuss.

Because the tie is a social nicety - it's not being presented as essential to being safe at the meeting.

 

[derrick]

Does wearing a tie to a meeting project an image that going to meetings is an especially dangerous activity?

Depends on who i am meeting, I have been known to wear protective clothing. I would say cycling is no more dangerous than walking but it's how different people perceive it.

 

[benb]

It's no difference to going to meeting where you have to wear a tie, I hate ties and suits but on the odd occasion i have to wear one. i just do it, i don't make a big fuss about it, as soon as i can i will take them off, It's no different to having to wear a helmet on a sportive, Don't understand why the big fuss.

Because it puts people off cycling, and stops kids from attending training (which will do a lot more to improve their safety than a magic plastic hat)

 

[benb]

and that is before we start with snag points and other design faults.

Speaking of snag points, I can't understand how these are legal:

 

[ufkacbln]

It's no difference to going to meeting where you have to wear a tie, I hate ties and suits but on the odd occasion i have to wear one. i just do it, i don't make a big fuss about it, as soon as i can i will take them off, It's no different to having to wear a helmet on a sportive, Don't understand why the big fuss.

Actually ties are a major risk.

We used to wear them, but the evidence is that where most clothes are washed regularly, ties are not resulting in a growth of nasties, over half of the ties tested carried infection causing pathogens

In the Hospital environment in particular this was an issue as these pathogens could be transferred between patients

There is no unequivocal evidence, but it is suggested that removing ties from hospitals has resulted in a 15% drop in hospital acquired infections

 

[ufkacbln]

Speaking of snag points, I can't understand how these are legal:

Because the manufacturer will claim "complete security" and "complete safety"

The parents will be good little consumers and believe the hype, not bother to understand the real issues and buy them

 

[martint235]

I will do some sums when i am free and get back to you
H&S contains stuff that is not tested but is believed to be harmless, just like talcum powder was...

Well I'm glad I've learnt over 186 pages not to hold my breath.

And I'm expecting proper "sums" not "a head falling from 1m is travelling at x m/s therefore a helmet is useful". I'm expecting deceleration figures from impact for the outside of the helmet plus the brain inside the helmet and skull based on the density of the helmet construction (for the sake of argument let's use the Kask Mojito as it's popular). These figures will of course depend on the helmet compressing rather than cracking (which seems to be the most common based on pictures in the "helmet saved my life" series).

You never know, you sound confident in your maths and I'm a logical person, you may even get me to wear my helmet again. Oh no, hang on, it's over 5 years old and the deterioration pixies have been at it and I'll need to buy a new one.

 

[theclaud]

rubbing your helmet with garlic

TMI