The CycleChat Helmet Debate Thread

[MontyVeda]

Helmets aren't supposed to prevent skull damage per se, they are meant to prevent brain injury. ...

Yes I know. I and everyone else was born with a bone helmet which is ample for many activities. I reckon it's better than a cycle helmet which is why i don't bother with them... after all, those polystyrene hats do seem to crack rather than compress.

 

[Racing roadkill]

In that case why is it that that when you view websites selling helmets, there's very little information about the supposed safety reasons for actually wearing a helmet? Apart from any reference to conforming to EN1078 or other international standards, they don’t actually say much about the helmet protecting you.

Here's some random examples from various places:

POC Octal Aero Raceday -£198. 221 words of descriptive blurb. The only “safety” reference is “To further improve safety, the Octal provides more coverage and additional protection for the temples and back of the head and the EPS liner is strategically thicker in the most exposed areas”. Thicker than what?

Kask Protone - £189. 542 words of descriptive blurb. The only "safety" reference is “Its strengthened frame further reduces the risk of a shock breaking the shell.” So no mention of protecting your skull, just that the shell might be less likely to break!

Giro Synthe - £195. 363 words of descriptive blurb. No "safety" reference mentioned at all.

Giro Aerohead Ultimate Helmet with MIPS - £395. 665 words of descriptive blurb. Apart from saying the carbon compound they use is stronger than other carbon compounds and that the shell is stronger than previous helmets they’ve made, the only “safety” reference is the inclusion of MIPS: “designed to redirect energy and provide more protection in certain impacts”. What impacts?

Giron Aeon -£149. 359 words of descriptive blurb. The only "safety" references are that being lightweight doesn't compromise its protective qualities. Although it doesn't say what those qualities are.

What they all seem to extoll in far more detail is how light and airy and well ventilated they are, coupled with the fact you can hook your sunglasses on them as a cool feature. The blurb used by the online shops merely seems to copy what's on the actual manufacturers' websites.

If we should be wearing helmets because they’re absolutely brilliant at protecting us, why don’t they actually say anything in detail along those lines?

Because anybody with even a modicum of sense, would know that the proof of the pudding is in the eating, when it comes to lids.

 

[Racing roadkill]

Helmets aren't supposed to prevent skull damage per se, they are meant to prevent brain injury. Brain injury occurs in a typical bike incident not when your skull hits the ground, but a moment later when your brain hits the inside of your skull, which as you point out is quite hard. The helmet is meant to compress, reducing deceleration and thus the force of that second collision.

This may mean that helmets in American football are increasing brain injury. Players can use their heads as battering rams, with the helmet protecting them from bruises, abrasions and fractures but because they can endure greater force on outside of their skull, they are subjecting their brains to much more injury. I think very few of the players who have suffered terrible brain damage have had fractures.

Comparing apples to watermelons again then

 

[Racing roadkill]

The old “car crashes cause more head injuries than bike crashes” type arguements make me chuckle. If you’re sample size is an order of magnitude larger, it’s not really surprising. The numbers of people who expose themselves to the risks, which wearing a lid when riding a bike, mitigate, is relatively tiny, ergo, you get more serious head injuries, caused by car accidents. Not to mention that the risk of head injuries in a car crash is of a much higher order, due to the greater forces, present during a typical head injury inducing car crash.

 

[Mugshot]

The old “car crashes cause more head injuries than bike crashes” type arguements make me chuckle. If you’re sample size is an order of magnitude larger, it’s not really surprising. The numbers of people who expose themselves to the risks, which wearing a lid when riding a bike, mitigate, is relatively tiny, ergo, you get more serious head injuries, caused by car accidents. Not to mention that the risk of head injuries in a car crash is of a much higher order, due to the greater forces, present during a typical head injury inducing car crash.

Don't you think we should be trying to prevent head/brain injuries wherever possible? Are head/brain injuries from motorised vehicle crashes of less imprtance than those of cyclists?

 

[glasgowcyclist]

Went over the handlebars if I wasn't wearing a helmet then things could of been worse and I possibly wouldn't off survived

Every now and again someone makes this sort of claim, sometimes much more emphatically, declaring that the helmet saved his or her life. They might even use an opinion of a paramedic/doctor/cop to reinforce that belief. The very strange thing, which I'll ask you to consider, is this: in all of these 'saved my life' events, not once has the relevant helmet manufacturer made any use of this in promoting their product. Not once, when any high profile celebrity has had a similar incident, has a helmet manufacturer used that publicity to endorse its product.

Why wouldn't they?

Why wouldn't the makers jump at the chance for global coverage of the life-saving efficacy of their brand of PPE?

If something is that good at what it does, it would be a marketing department's dream to have the impact of a world famous figure being alive, thanks only to wearing a simple polystyrene head covering.

Yet when it comes to advertising these things in the wake of this intense publicity, what do we hear from them? ....tumbleweed ....

The only people to exploit the life-saving claims are groups like Headway, who are in favour of helmet compulsion for cyclists, and we don't need to look far to see the detrimental effects of mandatory helmet laws.

 

[benb]

The old “car crashes cause more head injuries than bike crashes” type arguements make me chuckle. If you’re sample size is an order of magnitude larger, it’s not really surprising. The numbers of people who expose themselves to the risks, which wearing a lid when riding a bike, mitigate, is relatively tiny, ergo, you get more serious head injuries, caused by car accidents. Not to mention that the risk of head injuries in a car crash is of a much higher order, due to the greater forces, present during a typical head injury inducing car crash.

Relative risk is irrelevant.
If your goal is to reduce head injuries, you should be using absolute risk not relative risk. The fact that you don't encourage helmets for driving or walking just shows that your goal is not to reduce head injuries at all, but merely to proselytise.

 

[Mugshot]

Because anybody with even a modicum of sense, would know that the proof of the pudding is in the eating, when it comes to lids.

I like pudding, I particularly like chocolate pudding. When I buy my pudding I find it very helpful if the manufacturer puts "Chocolate Pudding" on the label, it also helps me if they let me know if they've put cinnamon in there as I don't like that. So when choosing my pudding if the people making it telling me which one offers the things I most want from it really help my decision. If I were to buy a helmet to protect my head it'd be nice if the manufacturers did something similar, after all as any advocate will tell you, you only get one head, it's really very important, so why can't helmet manufacturers tell me about the most important feature of their product but pudding manufacturers can?

 

[the snail]

...The numbers of people who expose themselves to the risks, which wearing a lid when riding a bike, mitigate, is relatively tiny....the risk of head injuries in a car crash is of a much higher order...

Typically muddled thinking there RR, surely those arguments would suggest that on an individual level and at a population level, car helmets would be more use than bike helmets?

 

[Racing roadkill]

@Racing roadkill
In April 2016 you wrote

The other day you wrote

I asked you what had changed in the intervening period, to which you have not replied. I reckon that nothing has changed at all, that the first statement is the truth and the second is a fabrication designed to lend a spurious degree of reasoning to your views on this matter.

Well that shows your ‘reckoning’s a bit out, as is your selective quoting. If you were as good a ‘librarian’ as you clearly want people to think you are, you’d find that I’ve said that I don’t wear a lid on every ride, several times in the past. In your second bit of spurious ( mis ) quoting, I’ve clarified the situation ( which has always been the case). To cut a long and boring story short, not all rides warrant the lid, most do.

 

[classic33]

Because anybody with even a modicum of sense, would know that the proof of the pudding is in the eating, when it comes to lids.

Why would you want to eat your "lid"?

 

[MontyVeda]

Says who? The fact is, there is no agreement as to what a cycle helmet is actually for. For example, the European Standard doesn't mention brain injury - it says: "An item to be worn on the head and intended to absorb the energy of an impact thus reducing the risk of injury to the head." 'Injury to the head' covers all sorts of things.

The Snell Standard doesn't mention brain injury either - it says: "This Standard addresses the problem of protecting the head from direct impact with various shapes of surfaces that may be encountered in a bicycling accident."

In fact, none of the national or international standards mention brain injury - they certainly don't suggest that a helmet is intended to prevent brain injury.

I wonder if the old bone helmet* would pass those standards? Has anyone tried?

*skull.

 

[Flying Dodo]

Because anybody with even a modicum of sense, would know that the proof of the pudding is in the eating, when it comes to lids.

I have plenty of sense. However, I wouldn't advocate eating lids, as you seem to be.

The plain truth is that helmet manufacturers don't really mention any supposed benefits of being able to reduce injury, because they can't. They have far more emphasis on them being a fashion item to hang your sun glasses on. If there was any real scientific evidence that they reduce injuries, rather than increase them, they'd be stating that on their web site.

 

[Flying Dodo]

Right, that's one problem solved. What's next to sort out - Trump or Brexit?

 

[mjr]

Now Cat-Ears have some competition: stick a shell-like over your shell-like with Helmet Angle http://www.bikebiz.com/news/read/helmet-angel-add-on-seeks-to-block-wind-noise-while-cycling/022144

I can think of a much simpler way to stop being deafened by helmet strap noise, that's cheaper with fewer practical drawbacks...