The CycleChat Helmet Debate Thread

[Justinslow]

it doesn't matter if he was on the pull of not, or where he was looking at the time of the incident... the simple fact is, he had a hat on and it helped.

Maybe it was tilted too low and obstructed his eyesight.......

 

[MarkF]

Careful now... about five years ago i made that very same observation. Sod's law kicked in and i came off three times in as many weeks!

Had you bought a helmet or summat?

 

[PenttitheFinn]

I was out on the other week

I stopped off for lunch at a Country Pub

Due to the change from lit exterior and dim interior I failed to see the beam and cracked my head on it

I hate to think of the injury that I would have sustained if it was not for my faithful Tilley living up to the manafacturer claims of saving lives

I know there will be those who will refuse to believe this, but I really believe my Tilley saved me from serious injury

Hitting this beam without the Tilley I does not bare thinking about

Correct my if I am wrong, but haven't you had a skull injury, amongst many others if my memory is correct, you really should stay out of pubs !

 

[ufkacbln]

Now you know none of that is asked for in this thread as laid out at the very beginning and anecdotal evidence is absolutely fine to use.
And we seem to be slightly lacking on "I wore a helmet, it saved me, I didn't go to hospital" statistics.

My Tilley is one of these!

 

[ufkacbln]

Correct my if I am wrong, but haven't you had a skull injury, amongst many others if my memory is correct, you really should stay out of pubs !

Do you also advise cyclists to stay off their bikes?

 

[PenttitheFinn]

The point is that, for reasons best known to themselves, people pitch up here with stories about helmets saving their lives never having thought to check whether or not it has been done before. What should the response be, ignore it or have yet another go at explaining the complexity of the issue?

Until a dead person posts "if I had worn a helmet I wouldn't be dead" I suppose this debate will go on, but my ears, eyes and mind are open, and like you I believe the issue is very complex, and that's the reason why no one should draw definite conclusions about the pros and cons of helmets. Feel free not to join in the debate which will run and run...........

 

[PenttitheFinn]

Do you also advise cyclists to stay off their bikes?

What's funny about that? humour sometimes gets lost on the keyboard, but no I advise people to ride with or without helmet, and to make their own choices based on whoever they care to listen to.

 

[ianrauk]

Real

Really ? Do you want to rethink that one ?

Yes your right...I forgot to add....'it saved my life'

 

[PenttitheFinn]

Which appears to be your personal aim here.

So you are a mind reader as well, there you go you were right

 

[mjr]

ASA reply to say it's been passed "to a colleague for further assessment. They will respond shortly with more information."

The wheels of truthiness grind slowly... watch this thread for further updates.

ASA have replied again, apologising for the delay, to say that they have now formally notified Rutland Cycling and asked for relevant evidence to support the added claims in line with the CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation), 3.11 (Exaggeration) and 3.33 (Comparisons with identifiable competitors)... keep watching this space. The wheels of truthiness slowly rumble on...

 

[mjr]

ASA have replied again, apologising for the delay, to say that they have now formally notified Rutland Cycling and asked for relevant evidence to support the added claims in line with the CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation), 3.11 (Exaggeration) and 3.33 (Comparisons with identifiable competitors)... keep watching this space. The wheels of truthiness slowly rumble on...

And actually, I note that the extra "prevent injuries" claims no longer appear on http://www.rutlandcycling.com/331035/products/2015-kask-mojito-helmet---brazil.aspx or similar pages where it used to be, so I'll see what the ASA final reply is, but does that mean Rutland couldn't support that claim?

 

[philepo]

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...

***I am not pro-compulsory helmet wearing**
** I agree that anecdotal evidence is flimsy evidence**
**I am not an expert and simply would like to learn more**

Sorry, got distracted with work. I looked at a rider falling 2 m onto a solid floor (the speed of the rider is immaterial unless you are also considering rotational frictional forces, which our could easily do too, but I'll ignore for now...) and took the deformation of the helmet foam to be 10 mm (of ~20 mm on my helmet). Now whether this actually hgappens or not is important and I would like to see an experimental measurement - any data on that?? So, my very simple calculations were fore deceleration of a 5 Kg head through 10 mm after free fall from 2 m in the air (e.g. knocked off bike and free fall to solid ground). The deceleration is about 180 g which is below the <250 g I understand that the makers have to claim to get EU approval (?).
If on the other hand you assume that an unprotected head hits the ground and deflects by 3 mm (broken skin and some skull deformation) then the deceleration is about 600 g (i.e. 3.3. times more).
Obviously the internal reaction of all that fluid and blobby brain is going to influence this too, but that is extremely complex to model and doesn't take away the fact that the impact energy is reduced when wearing a helmet.
I presume someone out there has decided that < 250 g gives a fighting chance of reducing injury. Anyone know?

 

[Racing roadkill]

***I am not pro-compulsory helmet wearing**
** I agree that anecdotal evidence is flimsy evidence**
**I am not an expert and simply would like to learn more**

Sorry, got distracted with work. I looked at a rider falling 2 m onto a solid floor (the speed of the rider is immaterial unless you are also considering rotational frictional forces, which our could easily do too, but I'll ignore for now...) and took the deformation of the helmet foam to be 10 mm (of ~20 mm on my helmet). Now whether this actually hgappens or not is important and I would like to see an experimental measurement - any data on that?? So, my very simple calculations were fore deceleration of a 5 Kg head through 10 mm after free fall from 2 m in the air (e.g. knocked off bike and free fall to solid ground). The deceleration is about 180 g which is below the <250 g I understand that the makers have to claim to get EU approval (?).
If on the other hand you assume that an unprotected head hits the ground and deflects by 3 mm (broken skin and some skull deformation) then the deceleration is about 600 g (i.e. 3.3. times more).
Obviously the internal reaction of all that fluid and blobby brain is going to influence this too, but that is extremely complex to model and doesn't take away the fact that the impact energy is reduced when wearing a helmet.
I presume someone out there has decided that < 250 g gives a fighting chance of reducing injury. Anyone know?

I know.

 

[ufkacbln]

***I am not pro-compulsory helmet wearing**
** I agree that anecdotal evidence is flimsy evidence**
**I am not an expert and simply would like to learn more**

Sorry, got distracted with work. I looked at a rider falling 2 m onto a solid floor (the speed of the rider is immaterial unless you are also considering rotational frictional forces, which our could easily do too, but I'll ignore for now...) and took the deformation of the helmet foam to be 10 mm (of ~20 mm on my helmet). Now whether this actually hgappens or not is important and I would like to see an experimental measurement - any data on that?? So, my very simple calculations were fore deceleration of a 5 Kg head through 10 mm after free fall from 2 m in the air (e.g. knocked off bike and free fall to solid ground). The deceleration is about 180 g which is below the <250 g I understand that the makers have to claim to get EU approval (?).
If on the other hand you assume that an unprotected head hits the ground and deflects by 3 mm (broken skin and some skull deformation) then the deceleration is about 600 g (i.e. 3.3. times more).
Obviously the internal reaction of all that fluid and blobby brain is going to influence this too, but that is extremely complex to model and doesn't take away the fact that the impact energy is reduced when wearing a helmet.
I presume someone out there has decided that < 250 g gives a fighting chance of reducing injury. Anyone know?

Why a rider?

The average person is 161 cm tall, so a person standing on a stool would fall from the same height......

If such maths prove the "Need" (or not) for a helmet then it must prove helmets as required for ANY operation with the head at 2 m

 

[philepo]

Why a rider?
Because we are discussing cycle riding and cyclists ride on the road where they sometimes go for a tumble onto the ground because of various road-related issues.

The average person is 161 cm tall, so a person standing on a stool would fall from the same height......
Yes, hence the most likely place to have an accident is in the home and yes, falling off a stool can kill you, I know someone who did just that - 3rd step of a step ladder actually: leaned out too far while painting, overbalanced, fell, banged head, brain bleed, got worse, life support, then switched off. No, that is not evidence, just anecdotal. (Yawn).

If such maths prove the "Need" (or not) for a helmet then it must prove helmets as required for ANY operation with the head at 2 m

Well, if you are a nervous wobbly stool/ladder user, then yes, you may do. Or, if you have cars coming past your stool sometimes too close for comfort, then yes, might be an idea. If you are a fit, confident stool user and you don't stand on it the middle of the road, then no, you probably don't. I hope that is a little clearer