It is almost as though I hadn't said the same thing.
That requires access to the Hospital Episode Statistics that I don't think I have. So it'll only be answerable if someone with such access has already calculated and published it, which I've not seen recently.Tell me this....How many deaths / severe injuries from rotational head injuries by helmet wearers ?.....This should be calculable.
Show us a decent study that states any significant advantage in exchange for paying crash helmet makers every three years, carrying it around and all that faff.Rhetoric, HUGE and complicated ?
You said it..probably enough for most to err on the side of caution until a decent study is completed, I mean show us a decent study that states there is a significant disadvantage from wearing a helmet.
And how much is your chest cavity worth?
Yep... indeed I think one came with my light, but the thought of cycling with the light strapped to my head rather than my helmet doesn't fill me with joy. I know that's rather illogical. I'll dig it out and see...With reference to helmet cams, you don't need a helmet, you buy head straps to hold them,
...
My helmet showed evidence of compression over 40% or the rear of it along with several small hairline cracks indicating it was nearing it's point of failure.
Given the way I landed I have no doubt whatsoever my head would have hit the road. I also agree it is not possible to say what injury, if any, I would have received but I would suspect I would have had a bit of a bump at least.
In different circumstances, higher speeds or different angle, the outcome could have been very different but, in the example above. I was glad to have been wearing one as I had no injury whatsoever to my head or neck. Higher speeds or different angle
It is up to each individual, and their own assessment of the risk, as to whether they wear one or not.
Yes, but humans are pretty awful at assessing risk. I studied statistics for years and can identify occasions where I made a flawed risk assessment because I didn't apply my learning.In my only crash of recent times when, I was taken out by a car, ... It is up to each individual, and their own assessment of the risk, as to whether they wear one or not.
Great deduction skills there Sherlock.Interesting, thanks for the information. For years I've been collecting accounts of damaged helmets that are supposed to have saved injury, specifically looking for cases where the helmet seems to have worked as designed - i.e. compressed as yours did. So far they're running at 6%. Almost all the others describe the helmet being shattered or other words for broken - i.e. having had rather little useful effect in brain protection - and/or grazed which suggests they have potentially caused rotational injury while possibly also saving a nasty scraped scalp. Thanks again.
Humans may very well be pretty awful at assessing risk but equally awful is the factual evidence either way in the helmet debate.Yes, but humans are pretty awful at assessing risk.
Anyway, "taken out by a car" is not a situation that cycle crash helmets are designed for.
And therein lies the biggest problems with cycle helmet debates. Nobody wants to plug the time and effort and money, into doing proper, robust, academic research on effectiveness of cycle lids, there is no 'mass market' appeal, so no willing sponsors. Until such time as there is / are, I'll just go with my hunch, that smacking my head into a solid object, will have a better outcome, with a well designed lid on my head.Humans may very well be pretty awful at assessing risk but equally awful is the factual evidence either way in the helmet debate.
Whether I was taken out by a car, come a cropper on a pothole or whatever other means made me and my bike part company the fact is that I did impact the road surface and, in this instance, said impact was within the range (albeit towards the higher end as evident by a couple of hairline cracks) the helmet was designed to withstand.
Fluke? Maybe, maybe not. I don't plan on repeating it to find out.
I was going to leave it but if you insist: I thought you hit the back of the helmet, outside the area tested by EN1078? So what assurances were there that it would withstand such an impact?in this instance, said impact was within the range (albeit towards the higher end as evident by a couple of hairline cracks) the helmet was designed to withstand.
And again, that seems to rely on the probability of smacking one's head into a solid object being independent of wearing a crash helmet.I'll just go with my hunch, that smacking my head into a solid object, will have a better outcome, with a well designed lid on my head.
..... but you just couldn't lol.I was going to leave it