The CycleChat Helmet Debate Thread

[MarquisMatsugae]

It may be indeed rare @swansonj ,but when a bike is catapulted into the air,it doesn't choose to land anywhere .
Unfortunately for me,it was the head.
I still advocate the use of helmets in cycling.

 

[Brandane]

Also, that you may come off at 30mph but by the time your head hits the deck you may only be doing 10mph.

In which case your skull will be sufficient; it's much harder than that plastic hat. Granted it might be less painful with a helmet; but really, what are the chances of hitting your head in an off? (cue the "a helmet saved my life" brigade). I have had countless offs, including straight over the bars, and hurt just about every part of my body with the exception of my head. Natural reflexes dictate you put your hands/arms out to protect it.

 

[Mugshot]

This is a common argument, just because they are tested at that speed doesn't mean they may not work at increased speeds. How do any of you know how a particular helmet will fair at higher speeds?

Do you think that the helmet manufacturers will be providing something which is above and beyond the minimum that is required of them out of the goodness of their hearts? They will produce something which will pass the tests required. I don't think that that means a helmet will immediately disintegrate when you hit 13mph, but the effectiveness will be reduced as the speed increases. If helmet manufacturers are producing helmets which are effective at higher speeds why aren't they advertising the fact? Actually, why don't they advertise what speed they're tested to anyway?

 

[Brandane]

I still advocate the use of helmets in cycling.

Could you change your wording to "I advocate the use a helmet for going too fast for the conditions, off road on a mountain bike, because there is a much higher chance of coming off, and then there is a very remote chance that my chainring will land on my head". I can understand why you might choose to wear one after your freak accident caused in no small part by your own reckless conduct; but why "advocate" them on that evidence?
Freedom of choice is a wonderful thing and something becoming rarer and rarer in these days of legislation trying to erradicate every last risk out of our lives. Enjoy the wind through your hair while you still can.

 

[screenman]

In which case your skull will be sufficient; it's much harder than that plastic hat. Granted it might be less painful with a helmet; but really, what are the chances of hitting your head in an off? (cue the "a helmet saved my life" brigade). I have had countless offs, including straight over the bars, and hurt just about every part of my body with the exception of my head. Natural reflexes dictate you put your hands/arms out to protect it.

You really should get a trike if you come off that often You take your choice on wearing or not, I was just pointing out the old 30mph things is twaddle.

 

[Brandane]

You really should get a trike if you come off that often

I don't. Well I probably DID, in my yoof. But after 50 years of cycling I can't recall my various offs, hence the use of "countless".

 

[newfhouse]

I still advocate the use of helmets in cycling.

That's your right. Now you've had time to sleep on it will you apologise for your abuse of those that see things differently?

 

[Justinslow]

Do you think that the helmet manufacturers will be providing something which is above and beyond the minimum that is required of them out of the goodness of their hearts? They will produce something which will pass the tests required. I don't think that that means a helmet will immediately disintegrate when you hit 13mph, but the effectiveness will be reduced as the speed increases. If helmet manufacturers are producing helmets which are effective at higher speeds why aren't they advertising the fact? Actually, why don't they advertise what speed they're tested to anyway?

Have you ever watched "myth busters" on one of the many documentaries channels? Interesting stuff, particularly how some things far exceed the parameters of what they were designed to do. Go figure.

 

[screenman]

Only if you insist only on considering instances where a helmet impact is lower than the cyclist speed, and discount any possibility of instances the other way around.

It is I now agree a possibility, although like banging your head in the first place a very slight one.

 

[Mugshot]

Have you ever watched "myth busters" on one of the many documentaries channels? Interesting stuff, particularly how some things far exceed the parameters of what they were designed to do. Go figure.

I have yes, have they done one on cycle helmets?

 

[EnPassant]

I have yes, have they done one on cycle helmets?

Oh if not I do hope so, I'm very much looking forward to Adam, for it will be he and not Jamie, being fired out of a human cannon towards a car windshield wearing an EN1078 and again as a control with something like a strap on stuffed turkey.
I don't like a lot of American television but this one is a lot of fun.

 

[Mugshot]

Oh if not I do hope so, I'm very much looking forward to Adam, for it will be he and not Jamie, being fired out of a human cannon towards a car windshield wearing an EN1078 and again as a control with something like a strap on stuffed turkey.
I don't like a lot of American television but this one is a lot of fun.

I like the sound of that, unfortunately I think the show's been cancelled now

 

[MontyVeda]

Don't try and be "different".Don't think you are a rebel because you don't wear a helmet.
Wear a helmet and stop being one.
Don't die of ignorance.
Or Aids.

speaks volumes. That and your views on carnivals (AKA people having fun)... absolute volumes!

 

[MontyVeda]

I had my mountain bike come down on top of my head in the Carrick Hills,after a high speed OTB
I sustained a cut head that required stitches.
As opposed to a cracked skull and my brain mashed.
Non helmet wearers obviously don't go fast enough to injure themselves.
The cycling equivalent of Sunday Drivers.
Why do pro's wear helmets anyway ?

You sure about that brain mashed bit? Because you're talking absolute cobblers, again.

 

[mjr]

Publish them then.
Because I don't believe it.

I'm pretty sure I've quoted this one before, if you'd bothered to search the thread: latest helmet usage rates by country, extracted from ETSC PIN Flash 29 Table 15 "Helmet wearing rates for cyclists":

• Austria 30%
• Denmark 28%
• Estonia 31%
• Finland 41%
• Germany 15%
• Ireland 46%
• Latvia 12%
• Poland 12%
• Sweden 37%
• United Kingdom 34%
• Serbia 1%
• Israel 14-27%
• Norway 49%
• Switzerland 43%

The only European country to report a helmet-using majority was Ireland in 2012/2013, but that has fallen since. It's also interesting that it was achieved by scaremongering and not law, and coincides with a decline in %age transport cycling from 2010 to 2014, despite an already-low level, almost the exact inverse of the UK in the same period (source: ECF, based on EU data releases).

I had my mountain bike come down on top of my head in the Carrick Hills,after a high speed OTB
I sustained a cut head that required stitches.
As opposed to a cracked skull and my brain mashed.
Non helmet wearers obviously don't go fast enough to injure themselves.
The cycling equivalent of Sunday Drivers.

Helmets aren't tested for impacts with bikes. You got lucky.

Why do pro's wear helmets anyway ?

We've covered that before too, if you search this thread: the UCI exploited the death of a cyclist to force helmets onto the peloton after years of rejection. We don't really know the reasons why they forced that rule through, but the UCI didn't exactly make itself famous for ethical behaviour under Hein Verbruggen, did it? Payments connected to keirin, denying an Armstrong payment which McQuaid later confirmed. So it's fun to speculate about the possible reasons but given how often UCI has sued people, I'm not going to write them explicitly

This is a common argument, just because they are tested at that speed doesn't mean they may not work at increased speeds. How do any of you know how a particular helmet will fair at higher speeds?

We don't know. That's more often what I write: if you crash faster/harder/into other objects, then you've exceeded the tested capacity of a helmet and all bets are off. You might get lucky, but you might get unlucky and suffer an injury exacerbated or possibly even caused by the helmet, which would help explain why their verifiable impact protection doesn't translate into real-world casualty statistics improving.

How do any of you know how your helmet will fare at higher speeds?

Myself and others have suggested various improvements to helmet testing, but while people keep buying - and over-promoting - the current sub-1990s EuroNorm crap, what's the incentive for helmet manufacturers to accept greater scrutiny?

Also, that you may come off at 30mph but by the time your head hits the deck you may only be doing 10mph.

Yes, that's likely: gravity decelerates falling objects, right?