The CycleChat Helmet Debate Thread

[ufkacbln]

Why has no one responded to this? If anyone cares about safety, I'd have expected somene to comment on this.

What are you thinking, @stearman65? That cap is build to EN 812, it's not built even to the minimal standards of a bicycle helmet. And if you google the standard, it's tested with
and a penetration test which is so far below the forces in even a low speed crash that your hat would be of no more protection than a baseball cap. Even in a trip, the distance fallen would be nearly four times that, and the weight would be your body weight, so 20 times? That indicates that if you were in a collision, the forces involved would be nearly 2 orders of magnitude (80 times) greater than the hat was designed to withstand. At that level of force, it might fail catastrophically, and shatter, pushing sharp plastic shards into your scalp.

And that's if it's actually meets the standard it's claiming. I would not buy safety equipment from an eBay seller unless I was really sure that it was built as described.

Please don't wear this anymore.

I am afraid that Ms Goodbody the forum's resident expert on penetration tests is taking a sabbatical at the present time so cannot be asked for an authorative opinion

 

[jefmcg]

It's important to realise that cycle helmets are only designed and tested to withstand an impact equivalent to a rider travelling at 12 mph falling onto a kerb from a height of 1 metre.

That's not the standard. The standard is a drop test from 1.5 m, which means it would be travelling at 12mph when it struck the ground. If you are moving at 12mph, and then come off, the speed you hit the ground would be around 17mph, already considerably faster than the tests performed on the helmet.

Edit: if the height was 1m, then velocity at the ground would be a little below 16mph

 

[srw]

Of ridiculous anti-cycling arguments being "laughed out of parliament". MPs that have said mad stuff like "I used to watch about 50% of the cyclists go straight through red lights" are still there.

Fortunately that sort of thing is testable.

Frankly, Parliament doesn't much care about cycling, as long as it's seen to support it. There's one remarkably silly debate in the Lords, where the government minister is the most reasonable voice (that's how silly it is): https://hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/2014-10-23/debates/14102379000703/CyclingHelmets

Other than that, there's a "debate" (a polite term...) in which a Tory numpty from Reading puts forwards the views of a pressure group, and Ben Bradshaw, who politely and forensically puts him straight.
https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2012-11-21/debates/12112164000001/CyclingSafety
It's worth extracting a long piece....

The reason why the House has repeatedly rejected the idea of compulsory cycle helmets is that, overall, it would create a public health disaster, and I will explain why. Wherever cycle helmets have been made compulsory —whether in Canada, New Zealand or Australia—that has had such a detrimental impact on cycling rates that the overall impact on children’s health and the health of society as a whole has been deeply negative. The hon. Gentleman used an important statistic, which is essential to the whole subject of cycle safety, when he said that the benefits of cycling outweigh the risks by 20 to one.



In Western Australia, which has had a lot of experience of this issue because it has had a law on it for more than 20 years, cycling decreased by more than 30%, and it decreased faster among young people. That has been the experience in every country that has made cycle helmets compulsory. By all means encourage, by all means exhort and by all means have campaigns, but please do not, based on the best intentions, pursue a policy that is deeply counter-productive and that will cause more premature death, more obesity and more ill health among young people.



This is completely different from the seat belt issue. The last time the British Medical Journal was asked for its opinion on this issue, its board of education and science concluded:



“Cyclists are advised to wear helmets but legislation to make them compulsory is likely to reduce the number of people choosing to cycle and would not be in the interests of health”.



The BMJ added that research suggested that



“non-cyclists tended to be most in favour of helmets. In fact, a much greater number of lives would be saved if pedestrians and car occupants were encouraged to wear helmets.”



An analysis of the experience in Western Australia, which was the first place in the world to impose uniform mandatory cycle helmet legislation, showed that the legislation increased hospital admissions per cyclist on the road, reduced the popularity of cycling, damaged public health and increased all road casualties.



I therefore urge the hon. Gentleman to go back to the evidence and the debates that we have had in this House, and to pursue with all his energy and time the many measures that will help to protect children and improve child health and cycling safety. He himself cited the excellent campaign by The Times and its eight-point wish list. I gently suggest that The Times took great care in assessing the most important things that needed to happen to save the lives of cyclists and young cyclists. Compulsory cycle helmets were not among them, and there is a reason for that

 

[Mugshot]

Fortunately that sort of thing is testable.

Frankly, Parliament doesn't much care about cycling, as long as it's seen to support it. There's one remarkably silly debate in the Lords, where the government minister is the most reasonable voice (that's how silly it is): https://hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/2014-10-23/debates/14102379000703/CyclingHelmets

Other than that, there's a "debate" (a polite term...) in which a Tory numpty from Reading puts forwards the views of a pressure group, and Ben Bradshaw, who politely and forensically puts him straight.
https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2012-11-21/debates/12112164000001/CyclingSafety
It's worth extracting a long piece....

That's an excellent extract, thank you.

 

[srw]

That's an excellent extract, thank you.

In general, MPs are pretty sensible. Unfortunately a few have hobby horses.

 

[mjr]

Fortunately that sort of thing is testable.

Indeed. Feel free to give your example of a bonkers anti-cycling statement being "laughed out". It's great that the usual suspects like Ben Bradshaw or former MP Julian Huppert rebut them, but that's not what was said.

Moving on, I expect everyone remembers back around https://www.cyclechat.net/posts/4429391 that several manufacturers warn users not to wear things under their helmets. Well, many makers also warn people not to stick random crap on (because the glue could weaken the outer shell IIRC) or tie random crap on (because the fixing could promote cracking in an impact IIRC), yet so many sportive organisers require cyclists to disobey that instruction and stick or tie numbers to their helmets. I seriously doubt they've tested the glues with every helmet shell or the fixing ties in crash tests - many probably use the cheapest product without obvious drawbacks. Have any of the helmet users reading this ever objected to or complied with a sportive's instruction to stick a number on it? Why and how did it go?

 

[srw]

Indeed. Feel free to give your example of a bonkers anti-cycling statement being "laughed out".

I would.... if I'd found any bonkers anti-cycling statements. But despite looking through a dozen or so debates I didn't.

 

[Justinslow]

Indeed. Feel free to give your example of a bonkers anti-cycling statement being "laughed out". It's great that the usual suspects like Ben Bradshaw or former MP Julian Huppert rebut them, but that's not what was said.

Moving on, I expect everyone remembers back around https://www.cyclechat.net/posts/4429391 that several manufacturers warn users not to wear things under their helmets. Well, many makers also warn people not to stick random crap on (because the glue could weaken the outer shell IIRC) or tie random crap on (because the fixing could promote cracking in an impact IIRC), yet so many sportive organisers require cyclists to disobey that instruction and stick or tie numbers to their helmets. I seriously doubt they've tested the glues with every helmet shell or the fixing ties in crash tests - many probably use the cheapest product without obvious drawbacks. Have any of the helmet users reading this ever objected to or complied with a sportive's instruction to stick a number on it? Why and how did it go?

Ride London, big sticker across front of helmet, no problem.
It doesn't bother me because I'm not going to crash anyway

 

[Justinslow]

View attachment 142044
I felt the same way riding the Brompton World Championships.

Cool!

 

[Justinslow]

Eureka!
I've just found a helmet aimed for pedestrians, see, they are available, soon we'll all be wearing them, should keep some of you happy.
http://uk.babyhaven.com/thudguard-i...+shopping+uk&gclid=CPD-iLek7M4CFdEV0wodJxQObg

 

[Justinslow]

More childish protest unbefitting a man of my years, if truth be told.

Well racing can be dangerous you know, handy that you have a broom attached so you can sweep up all the broken bits after a crash.

 

[ufkacbln]

In general, MPs are pretty sensible. Unfortunately a few have hobby horses.

Then there is the lying and contemptible mouthpiece of BHIT, Eric Martlew

 

[srw]

Eureka!
I've just found a helmet aimed for pedestrians, see, they are available, soon we'll all be wearing them, should keep some of you happy.
http://uk.babyhaven.com/thudguard-i...+shopping+uk&gclid=CPD-iLek7M4CFdEV0wodJxQObg

My bet is 5 minutes. Anyone else?

(Waits patiently for the inevitable....)

 

[Justinslow]

My bet is 5 minutes. Anyone else?

(Waits patiently for the inevitable....)

Oh it's a bit of fun, read the reviews, very interesting.

 

[Justinslow]

My actual thinking is that, if I drop the thing, the brush of zip ties would cushion its fall, and save it from damage.

I've spotted a flaw, what if it drops on its side? Maybe if you covered all over in zip ties?