The CycleChat Helmet Debate Thread

[MontyVeda]

The only head injury i've sustained as an adult was whilst drinking. I'm certain if i was wearing a helmet i wouldn't have a little scar on my forehead.

 

[Big Andy]

The only head injury i've sustained as an adult was whilst drinking. I'm certain if i was wearing a helmet i wouldn't have a little scar on my forehead.

On that occasion you needed to be weraing a helmet then, all previous occasions you didn't.

 

[MontyVeda]

On that occasion you needed to be weraing a helmet then, all previous occasions you didn't.

quite... also when i'm walking under that hypothetical scaffold when an imaginary hammer drops on my head... or when some imaginary youth who's busy evading security guards in a hypothetical shopping centre sends me flying down an escalator as they barge past... and many many other imaginary reasons. We don't routinely wear helmets though, so the chances of me wearing one when i need one are really rather slim.

 

[Justinslow]

Fascinating though it is to read again how you wear a helmet for days you are likely to go beyond its design parameters but not for days you are likely to be within them, that was not my concern. I don't recall the proposed mandatory helmet law for Northern Ireland making any distinction between any sorts of cyclists. Pat Ramsey just wanted to force everyone to wear one.

Again, no one here is talking about compulsion except you.

 

[Justinslow]

The only head injury i've sustained as an adult was whilst drinking. I'm certain if i was wearing a helmet i wouldn't have a little scar on my forehead.

Great claim to fame! Learn to manage your liquor intake better??

 

[Big Andy]

quite... also when i'm walking under that hypothetical scaffold when an imaginary hammer drops on my head... or when some imaginary youth who's busy evading security guards in a hypothetical shopping centre sends me flying down an escalator as they barge past... and many many other imaginary reasons. We don't routinely wear helmets though, so the chances of me wearing one when i need one are really rather slim.

Indeed they are slim, and as long as it remains a choice of the individual as to when, where or if we decide to wear one we should all be happy.

 

[srw]

It's an interesting consideration and I suppose it rather depends how you look at it really, certainly volume and surface area are pretty much twice the size helmeted, however are either volume or surface area the correct metric to use? After all the extra volume and surface area on the parts of the head away from the impact site arent particularly relevent are they?

Since nobody else has responded to this one - yes they are. The point of this particular thought experiment is that the helmet increases the size of the potential impact site. And the potential impact site is probably best measured by surface area, which increases by the square of the radius.

 

[MontyVeda]

Great claim to fame! Learn to manage your liquor intake better??

I have. I've also learnt how not to fall off my bike after doing so three times in as many weeks.

 

[Profpointy]

Indeed, assuming of course you think cycle helmets look stupid.

Actually there's not presumption there that whole cycle helmets look stupid. "More thant twice as stupid" could be 2 x plus a lot - so even if a whole helmet looked zero degrees of stupid....

 

[Big Andy]

Not true:

Justin would have been more accurate to say "no one here is supporting or proposing compulsion." Well not that I have seen anyway.

 

[swansonj]

Since nobody else has responded to this one - yes they are. The point of this particular thought experiment is that the helmet increases the size of the potential impact site. And the potential impact site is probably best measured by surface area, which increases by the square of the radius.

Minor point of detail that makes no difference to the conclusion: the measure of the probability of an impact is possibly cross-sectional area not surface area. The concept is that the object sweeps out a swathe through space. It will hit anything within that swathe. The probability of something being within that swathe is proportional to the cross-sectional area of the swathe. That certainly works for particle physics (where the relevant area are, of course, measured in barns...)

 

[mjr]

A fall off a scooter is just about within the design parameters of most helmets.

Is it? How likely is a fall off a scooter to generate sufficient rotation for one to impact the helmet above a line "in front at a distance of 68.5 mm above the basic plane, stepping down at a point 54 mm behind the cg to 54.5 mm above the basic plane"? (That's the CPSC test - apparently the description of the test area in EN is too complex for BHSI to summarise - but EN and CPSC are considered basically equivalent AIUI). I'd be expecting more front and side impacts similar to tripping than the vertically-onto-the-top-of-the-head that cycle helmets are designed for.

Quite a solid case can probably be made for beer-drinking helmets, or car passenger helmets and even though no one ever will, that's not per se a reason to not wear one cycling.

Never say no-one...

Indeed, assuming of course you think cycle helmets look stupid.

How twisted do you have to be to think they look anything other than stupid? (pic NSFW)

Spoiler

If you want to search all the locked threads, you can find David K's stated desire to be able to compel others to wear a helmet.

I'd not seen it before, so I did. https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/pro-helmet-article-on-bbc-one-show-right-now.77093/post-1397387

 

[Big Andy]

Doesn't everyone? Especially when covered with one of those rain covers for the fluorescent mushroom look.
More to the point, and I might have said this once or twice before, they make cyclists look as though they are taking part in a dangerous activity. I appreciate that for many, this feeds their self perception as a hard roadie etc. Unfortunately, unrealistically heightened perception of danger is a major trigger in deterring mass cycling.

No everyone doesn't.

I was considering this "wearing helmets makes cycling dangerous" argument, and while it may be true that some or indeed many people think that way it is certainly not universal, over the weekend I asked quite a few people (about 20) what they thought when they see a cyclist and what percentage of cyclists they saw had helmets on. A few commented about the minority of rogue cyclists and jumping red lights, not one said that cycling must be dangerous as cyclists wear helmets but I suspect that was because not one could answer the question about numbers wearing helmets because they didn't notice, now that may be because it's common place I don't know. (I came across about 15 cyclists yesterday on an 8 mile ride, all wearing helmets, or I didn't notice any not wearing a helmet) I then asked if they thought cycling was dangerous, they pretty much all said "not really" a couple said it could be on busy roads, I then asked what they thought about helmets, they all said it seemed a sensible precaution but hadn't really thought about it.

Non scientific I realise but perhaps the presence of a helmet doesn't affect the thinking of a non-cyclist too much.

 

[Big Andy]

How twisted do you have to be to think they look anything other than stupid? (pic NSFW)

Spoiler

View attachment 144579

Well I don't consider myself twisted, don't think they look stupid either, I suspect I'm not alone in that.

I'd not seen it before, so I did. https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/pro-helmet-article-on-bbc-one-show-right-now.77093/post-1397387

So thats 1 person then. He can be the exception that proves the rule that none on here want compulsion.

 

[Big Andy]

How sad is that?

Why is it sad? Apart from myself none of them were cyclists, why should they spend any time thinking about it?