Helmets in the Tour De France???
Comments
-
Chaps, the helmet debate belongs elsewhere perhaps. But since this is race, we're talking about the UCI and therefore any ideas on rational debate fly out of the window.0
-
Well being at work :oops: I really don't have the time to search out any evidence. All I can provide is anecdotal. Could you provide anything to suggest the opposite? (That is rethorical)
My original comment was due to Aurelio making comments that people may as well wear helmets all the time as opposed to just when cycling. A comment I felt was pointless.
Like you have said, if you want to wear one do and if you don't don't. To me (i.e. my opinion only) it seems an excessive risk to take when taking in to consideration the risk/benefit equation. Others my disagree. When cycling away from traffic/at a slower pace I potentially don't wear a lid. That is where the risk/benefit equation has tipped in favor of the risk being worthwhile (again IMO).
Edit - Aurelio I certainly don't wear a helmet to 'save my life'. I wear one to protect my head bouncing on the ground unprotected and the added pain that goes with that.0 -
In the great seat belt debate of 15 years ago Aurelio asked why pedestrians didn't wear seat belts.0
-
calvjones wrote:Pro Race is REALLY not the place for yet another helmet thread :roll:
Sorry, had no idea i'd start this riot when I posted it! :shock:
I did search first but found no solid answers.
Don't understand the logic behind the "walking with a helmet" thing but there should be no debate on helmets - statistically, you're safer with a helmet if you crash. End of. What is there to argue about? :shock:0 -
aurelio wrote:
Whatever, you appear to be missing my main point which is that many people argue that helmets are able to 'save lives' and that the risks are so great when riding a bike that it is essential to wear a helmet. However, if this were the case then they would also have to argue that wearing a helmet when walking to the shops was also essential, given that the statistical risk of being killed in a road crash when walking is higher for pedestrians than for cyclists.
You can make this same circular argument for any protective safety device.
I really have to wonder if anti-helmet advocates even ride bikes. I've had three head impacts over the years, all with a helmet, and this doesn't not appear on anyone's statistics.
Counting deaths in cycling is pointless, because there are little/no stats on head injuries resulting from bicycle crashes unless they are grave. It's not just about deaths, there are head injuries worse than death.
Careful Aurelio, you could be in a crash one day, hit your head and survive, but turn into a Lance Armstrong fan.0 -
calvjones wrote:Pro Race is REALLY not the place for yet another helmet thread :roll:
You have the option of not reading this thread if it bothers you.0 -
Point is all the 'arguments' for helmet wearing by cyclists apply equally to pedestrians (more so in fact given that the risk per km for pedestrians is actually higher than for cyclists). So either helmets are essential for both user groups (in which case why the emphasis on cycle helmets?), or for neither (in which case why the emphasis on cycle helmets?)...Bhima wrote:Don't understand the logic behind the "walking with a helmet" thing0 -
And any genuinely serious head injury will almost certainly end up as part of the head injury statistics for cyclists...Martin Van Nostrand wrote:It's not just about deaths, there are head injuries worse than death.
In fact any head injury by a cyclist that results in a visit to hospital - even just for a couple of stitches or observation - will end up in the statistics as a 'serious' head injury. This is one reason why the figures for 'serious' head injuries for cyclists are so overstated, and why the Government is so keen on pushing helmet wearing.
In short the target figures for casualty reduction in the UK are based on 'fatal and serious' injuries. Now the Government could take action to reduce the fatal and genuinely serious injuries but this would be unpopular with the 'motor voter'. (Reduced speeds and so on). However, it would be politically easier to reduce the figures for minor 'serious' injuries such as cuts to the head by getting cyclists to wear helmets. True, as many cyclists as before will be killed and receive genuinely serious head injuries as helmets can only absorb a very small amount of energy in a serious crash. However, due to the reduction in the number of minor 'serious' injuries the 'killed and seriously injured' figures will look better and allow the Government to pretend that the roads are getting 'safer' without actually doing anything to make that a reality.0 -
A very realistic position to take. This is what Brian Walker of Head Protection Evaluations in Surrey, the principal UK test laboratory for helmets had to say on the subject of cycle helmets.BenBlyth wrote:Aurelio I certainly don't wear a helmet to 'save my life'. I wear one to protect my head bouncing on the ground unprotected and the added pain that goes with that.
'In a recent Court case, a respected eminent materials specialist argued in court against me, that a cyclist who was brain injured from what was essentially a fall from their cycle without any real forward momentum, would not have had their injuries reduced or prevented by a cycle helmet. This event involved contact against a flat tarmac surface with an impact energy potential of no more than 75 joules, his estimate, with which I was in full agreement, and the court found in favour of his argument. So in at least one case now, a high Court decided cycle helmets do not prevent injury even from when just falling from a cycle onto a flat surface, virtually without any forward momentum. Cycle helmets will almost always perform much better against a flat surface than any other.
In every other legal case that I have studied where there is a cyclist in collision with a motorised vehicle the impact energy potentials generated were of a level which outstripped those we use to certify Grand Prix drivers helmets. In some accidents at even moderate motor vehicle speeds, energy potential levels in hundreds of joules were present.
Briefly referring back to the Court case mentioned early, the very eminent QC under whose instruction I was privileged to work, tried repeatedly to persuade the equally eminent neurosurgeons acting for either side and the technical expert opposing me, to state that one must be more safe wearing a helmet than would be the case if one were not. Interestingly all three refused to so do, claiming that they had seen both severe brain damage and fatal injury both with and without cycle helmets being worn. Thus making cycle helmets in their view too complex a subject for such a sweeping claim to be made.'
And this is what one of the doctors said at the BMA meeting which voted to support any move to make the wearing of cycle helmets compulsory:
RICHARD KEATINGE, North West Wales division, AGAINST the motion.
"Compared to the huge health benefits of cycling this motion may seem trivial, After all there are relatively few deaths or injuries to cyclists. It may seem harmless, after all how much harm one centimetre of expanded polystyrene actually do? It may seem a useful protection, it's been described as uncontroversial.
"None of these things is true.
"Cycling is the best buy in health. Cyclists have a death rate about 40 percent lower than non cyclists. Obese cyclists are rare.
"Helmet laws - wear a lid or get off your bike - powerfully discourage cycling, especially amoing teenagers.
"Every enforced helmet law has been followed by a steep drop, of about 30 percent, in cycling.
"Helmet laws are a grave threat to health.
"Danger? Well, it's real. The hourly rate of injury is about the same for cycling as pedestrians and motorists. That's about one serious injury per 3000 years of cycljng. Serious injuries are not that common and the majority of them are due to motor vehicles.
"One centimetre of polystyrene won't do you much good if you get hit by an HGV.
"No helmet law has shown any effect on the proportion of head injuries to cyclists.
"Helmets laws actually don't work.
"After all, we're talking about one centimetre of polystyrene intended to be crushed and absorb the energy of a one metre fall. This is hardly relevant to most serious injuries.
"I've been shown broken helmets with the comment, 'This helmet has saved a life.' In most cases the foam wasn't even crushed. Helmets are far more fragile than even children's heads. Most broken helmets have simply failed.
"To repeat, helmet laws don't work, for either adults or children.
"This motion calls for an intervention which fails to reduce head injuries, which gravely harms health by reducing cycling and which even strangles a few children on their own helmet straps.
"We have not had a thorough review of the evidence. Until we do, we as a scientific association, I suggest, have no business passing this motion.
And here is is another quote from a doctor speaking at that BMA meeting, in this case one arguing in favour of the motion.
ANDREW WEST, no constituency listed, FOR the motion!
"I feel that, I take that, I accept that injury to the brain, depends how you define head injuries but injuries to the brain not affected a great deal by helmets but helmets do protect the shredding of the scalp. I feel that we should support this motion as it protects the scalp even if it doesn't protect much else."0 -
The statistics are the 'Passenger death rates by mode of transport' figures compiled by the Department for Transport. These are overall figures for all classes of road and show that, on average in 2002 there were 29.5 deaths for every billion km cycled and 44.8 deaths for every billion km walked. The figure for motorcycles was 111.3 deaths per billion km and for cars 2.8 deaths per billion km.Bhima wrote:
Evidence? Where are your stats from? Perhaps it's true for the more dangerous country roads but surely not for any given road at any given time...?aurelio wrote:...more so in fact given that the risk per km for pedestrians is actually higher than for cyclists.0 -
aurelio wrote:Point is all the 'arguments' for helmet wearing by cyclists apply equally to pedestrians (more so in fact given that the risk per km for pedestrians is actually higher than for cyclists). So either helmets are essential for both user groups (in which case why the emphasis on cycle helmets?), or for neither (in which case why the emphasis on cycle helmets?)...
Simple marketing. To "casual" cyclists, cycling seems dangerous (hence their apparent love of riding on the footpath or MUP). There is money to be made from selling things to people based on fear.
To more serious riders (esp us roadies) we're just about the most gullable fashion-obsessed bunch of consumers after 15 year old girls. Just look at the whole shaved leg debate. We see the pro's with helmets on, we'll wear helmets, but only special "road" helmets mind, none of those MTB ones. (and the MTB guys are the same no doubt)
Again, there is money to be made selling things to fashion victims.
If you're neither, then don't buy a helmet, nobody is forcing you to.
If anyone thinks it's a silly rule for the UCI to have, you might want to direct your efforts to the really silly rules the UCI has first.0 -
I think that many people also 'believe' in helmets because wearing a helmet gives them a sense of control over the risks they face in an environment that is otherwise unpredictable and potentially dangerous. In older times they would have probably sworn by the effectiveness of carrying a rabbit's foot!Eau Rouge wrote:To "casual" cyclists, cycling seems dangerous (hence their apparent love of riding on the footpath or MUP). There is money to be made from selling things to people based on fear.
On the other hand helmets are very popular with the motor lobby because they reinforce the old mantra that the major responsibility for road safety lies not with drivers but with vulnerable road users who must do everything possible to 'protect' themselves from the dangers created by the actions of others.
Anyhow, back to the UCI. I would bet that the UCI's reluctance to enforce it's own doping regulations have cost more lives than have been saved by them forcing professional cyclists to wear polystyrene hats!0 -
Making helmets compulsory means it attracts more sponsors to the sport, no doubt there was some serious lobbying by the like of Bell Sports to get the rules changed.
I mean you'd never get the drug companies deliberately doing 'product placements' just to encourage their use would you - oh, just remembered the Tour of California!Make mine an Italian, with Campagnolo on the side..0 -
It is very simple for me. Last time I came off my bike, I was hit by a car, I hit my (helmet wearing) head on the ground. When I got up, my head didn't hurt. If I was not wearing a lid, my head would have hurt a lot.
For that reason it seems a very simple question for me to answer, do I wear a helmet or not.
For all the stats etc, that is all they are. Stats can be dressed up in any way you want. One of the people Aurelio quoted was talking about how worthwhile a helmet was vs a HGV!!! That is not the point of the helmet debate, I have never heard anyone say they will be protected in a situation like that by a lid.0 -
I have.BenBlyth wrote:One of the people Aurelio quoted was talking about how worthwhile a helmet was vs a HGV!!! That is not the point of the helmet debate, I have never heard anyone say they will be protected in a situation like that by a lid.
One example. In few years ago in Hull a female cyclist was run over and killed by the driver of a cement lorry. The local paper covered the story with the headline 'A helmet would have saved her', quoting, albeit inaccurately, the comments made by the police in court. I have read many similar examples over the years involving everything from lorries to speeding cars and the general assumption in all of them was that an inch of polystyrene has an ability to absorb energy that defies the laws of physics and that when it comes to road safety it is the vulnerable road user who carries the primary responsibility, not those in charge of a couple of tons of potentially lethal, high-speed metal.
What that headline should have read was ' A little more attention would have saved her' but as long as the emphasis by both the motor lobby and cyclists themselves is on helmets, it will always be easier to blame the victim instead.0 -
Martin Van Nostrand wrote:I really have to wonder if anti-helmet advocates even ride bikes. I've had three head impacts over the years, all with a helmet, and this doesn't not appear on anyone's statistics.
What a strange thing to say. Just because you personally choose to wear one all the time does not mean those who choose not to are not cyclists.
I wonder how people in the 50's, 60's and 70's ever managed to get through a season without head injury?0 -
celbianchi wrote:Martin Van Nostrand wrote:I really have to wonder if anti-helmet advocates even ride bikes. I've had three head impacts over the years, all with a helmet, and this doesn't not appear on anyone's statistics.
What a strange thing to say. Just because you personally choose to wear one all the time does not mean those who choose not to are not cyclists.
I wonder how people in the 50's, 60's and 70's ever managed to get through a season without head injury?
I think cotton caps and wooly hats look cool. That's why my helemt use is limited to racing and any rides where I ride in a big group or down something fast... In these situations it is, as Aurelio states, a safety net.
Afterall, who is affected by my decision not to wear one? Me. And i'm a grown up so I take the risk as I judge it appropriate."In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"
@gietvangent0 -
Without helmets, I would personally not be alive to waste time participating in this eternal debate. A nice superman onto a bed of rocks resulted in a helmet cleanly broken in two. On top of that, I'd be way uglier. I actually cracked the face guard on my sweet Troy Lee fullface while DHing.
I'm not for helmet laws, as it's statistically true riding your bike is quite safe compared to many things, but I suspect many of us here don't ride in a very "statistically average" fashion. Riding a bike in anger without a helmet is not something I'd do, personally. If you decide not to wear a helmet to blast down descents, it's your choice, but don't use statistics relating to my uncle and auntie riding down to the shops on the cycle path to justify it.0 -
If you helmet was 'cleanly broken in two' then it almost certainly failed to function as intended and had nothing to do with your survival. Helmets are designed to absorb what little energy they do via the compression of the foam. A helmet that breaks up (a very common event given all the holes and vents in a modern helmet) has usually suffered from a brittle-fracture failure, which absorbs a negligible amount of energy. (Just think how easy it is to break a piece of polystyrene in half with your hands).drenkrom wrote:Without helmets, I would personally not be alive to waste time participating in this eternal debate. A nice superman onto a bed of rocks resulted in a helmet cleanly broken in two.
In fact cycle helmets are perhaps the only inherently fragile and brittle structure whose catastrophic failure is commonly regarded as providing proof that they have 'saved a life'. If we read about a crash involving, say an old-fashioned Reliant Robin, where the occupants escaped with minor injuries but the vehicle's bodywork was shattered, no one would attribute their survival to the miraculous energy-absorbing properties of the vehicle's flimsy fibreglass bodywork. No one would anyone say 'Wow look at that, it simply fell to bits when it hit that tree, I'm selling my BMW and getting one of those!' Rather, an awareness of the fact that the catastrophic failure of a brittle structure absorbs next to no energy would lead people to say 'They were lucky to get out of that alive' or 'It can't have been a very serious crash, otherwise they would be dead in that thing'.
More importantly, don't try to use the behaviours of mountain bikers ' who blast down descents' to try to justify imposing cycle helmet use on those using a cycle for utility purposes.drenkrom wrote:Riding a bike in anger without a helmet is not something I'd do, personally. If you decide not to wear a helmet to blast down descents, it's your choice, but don't use statistics relating to my uncle and auntie riding down to the shops on the cycle path to justify it.0 -
Martin Van Nostrand wrote:dumb rule.
A fall from standing to the ground at 0 km/hr is enough to kill. It has nothing to do with speed.
Which makes them compulsory for Press interviews?<b><i>He that buys land buys many stones.
He that buys flesh buys many bones.
He that buys eggs buys many shells,
But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.</b></i>
(Unattributed Trad.)0 -
As I said earlier, some people think that the laws of physics don't apply to polystyrene hats. At 0 km/hr there is absolutely no kinetic energy to be dissipated!Cunobelin wrote:
Which makes them compulsory for Press interviews?Martin Van Nostrand wrote:dumb rule.
A fall from standing to the ground at 0 km/hr is enough to kill. It has nothing to do with speed.
Still it makes a change from people who assume that even when a massive amount of kinetic energy is present in a crash a flimsy polystyrene hat can absorb a significant percentage of it.
The forces developed in a crash rise with the square of the speed so even if a helmet could reduce ALL of the energy created in a 12 Mph crash (which is doesn't), in an otherwise identical 40 Mph impact the same helmet would only reduce the impact load by the equivalent of around 1-2 Mph. (Assuming, of course, that it did not simply break up on impact as is normally the case with modern helmets due to all the holes in them). Further, in helmet testing it is assumed that the head is effectively independent of the body, with the testing load being just 5kg. If the rider's head is struck with an unyielding body weighing more that this, (say a car) or the energy otherwise generated in a crash is dissipated through the helmet, say from the riders own body mass in an 'over the bars’ header, the ability of the helmet to absorb the energy created will be an irrelevance in relation to the forces created. Just do the maths!
Kinetic energy = mass in kg x velocity squared in m/sec /2.
If we take a mass of ‘5kg’ (the load helmets are actually tested with) the kinetic energy generated in a 14 mph impact would be 5 x (6.3m/sec x 6.3m/sec) / 2 = 100 Joules. Now, this figure correlates with the test load for a Snell B-90 certified helmet, a HIGHER standard than almost all modern helmet meet. ALSO note that the test standard does not require the helmet to absorb ALL the energy developed in such an impact, merely to reduce to acceleration experienced by the brain to 400g (A value which research shows is probably still to high to avoid serious brain injury). ALSO note that this standard relates only to crown impacts onto a flat surface, with the performance of the helmet being LESS for point and ‘kerb edge’ impacts. ALSO note that these are values derived from tightly-controlled laboratory impacts, not real-world impacts. ALSO note that these tests only relate to linear de-accelerations, and studies indicate that the major problem in a high-impact crash is the rotational forces generated, with the brain being torn as it ‘swirls’ around inside the skull. This is something that no helmet can prevent and in reality wearing a helmet can make these ‘rotational’ forces HIGHER due to the extra mass and size of a hemeted head.
Now, back to the maths… In a 42 Mph impact the kinetic energy generated would be: 5 x (18.8 m/sec x 18.8 m/sec) /2 =884 Joules.
Now let us assume our helmet works as intended and does not simply break up, something that modern helmets full of vents and holes often do. Let us also assume that it will absorb ALL of the energy of a 14 Mph impact. (In reality it will absorb only a proportion of this).
Our 'perfect' helmet would reduce the impact load to an equivalent of 884 -100 = 784 Joules. Now this still equates to an ‘unsurvivable’ impact speed of 39.6 Mph.
Of course, if the mass is higher than 5kg the energy generated will be still higher. A 75 kg cyclist going 'over the bars' at 21 Mph has a kinetic energy of 3314 Joules, over 33 times greater than even a Snell-certified helmet is designed to cope with! A 2 tonne car doing 40 Mph has a kinetic energy of over 320,000 Joules, 3,200 times greater than the load a Snell certified helmet is tested with...
To place these figures into perspective, a Snell-certified cycle helmet is 'good' for just 100 Joules maximum, less against a non-flat suface. Also, as Brian Walker of Head Protection Evaluations has noted:
'Due in the main to the introduction of the weak EN1078 standard present day cycle helmets generally, offer a lower level of protection than those sold in the early 1990's. In the early 1990's market research suggested that in excess of 90% of the cycle helmets sold in the UK were certified to the Snell B-90 standard, at that time the most stringent cycle helmet standard in the world. In 1998 Head Protection Evaluations (HPE) my safety helmet laboratory, conducted a test program for the Consumers Association's assessment of cycle helmets available in the UK. By that year all of the helmets were manufactured to the EN1078 the European harmonised standard for cycle helmets. The results showed that with one or two exceptions all of the helmets tested were totally incapable of meeting the higher Snell B-90 standard, to which many of the models had been previously certified. Some tests suggested that certain helmets were even incapable of meeting the weak EN1078. standard.'0 -
P.s. what was it I was saying about the way the emphasis on cycle helmets is no more than an expression of the way, in the UK especially, vulnerable road users are held to carry more responsibility for their own safety than those who run them down and where the victim of an errant driver is held to be at fault wherever possible?
Blame the victim
Martin Porter QC comments on a ruling which will send shivers down the spines of cyclists
http://www.newlaw-directories.co.uk/job ... sp?id=14920 -
speaking as someone known to fall over occasionaly it appears to be more dangerous to walk home paraletic from the pub than weaving on my bike.
Manys the time ive proved that it hurts hitting the pavement as a cyclist as much as a pedestrian.
To date I havent recieved a head injury driving the same route. (i dont wear a helmet in the car either)0 -
The wrong side of sixty now , I never considered helmets for general or racing cycling use until comparatively recently .
Very much of the 'wind in my hair ' school of cycling I slightly resent the encroaching menace from the self-righteous health and safety mob of their attempts to make the innocent and blameless feel irresponsible for their continued reluctance to adopt their shaky mores , particularly with regard to helmet use .
More to the point is the fact that since the introduction of the 'helmets-always-on' rule , cycle racing has lost a vital aesthetic and has become , to me , characterless and impersonal . It seems to have become a minor spectacle of team shirt watching and has very much lost that human element of heads , hair , furrowed brows , obvious distress , sweat and joy as , from the spectating viewpoint of the camera , all we can see is a sea of bobbing plastic noggins . Gone are the stylish days of Indurain , Theunisse , Bugno , Jalabert , Yates and the rest from a century before . How sad . I don't quite remember what Casartelli was doing that day when he blew it - although I was watching - but he ended the age of ... oh , I don't know quite what , but his accident probably marked the onset of the new puritanical age in cycling . Inevitable . Pity our new-age puritans appear to be less rigorous in their exertions to wheedle out the drugs cheats in our midst .
Incidentally , lest Aurelio thinks he's the only one left in a sea of vipers : keep up the good work !
"Lick My Decals Off, Baby"0 -
http://twitter.com/janibrajkovic/status/1316521661
Jani Brajkovic, "Now I know how it feels to land on your head @ 60kph. I saw lots of stars"
I guess he'd still have been fine if he hadn't had a lid on.Le Blaireau (1)0 -
If he survived a 60 kph crash, then the actual impact his helmet /head received must have been relatively minor otherwise he would have received very serious injuries or been killed. In an impact serious enough to cause genuinely serious injury or death, whether you are wearing a helmet or not is pretty much an irrelevance. That is unless his helmet was not bound by the laws of physics. It is of course possible that his helmet did save him from scalp lacerations and similar relatively minor non-fatal injuries.DaveyL wrote:
Jani Brajkovic, "Now I know how it feels to land on your head @ 60kph. I saw lots of stars"
I guess he'd still have been fine if he hadn't had a lid on.
I know that for some the intuititive belief that an inch of polystyrene can absorb enough energy to 'save lives' in a potential fatal crash is hard to shake. However, perhaps even less inuititively a helmet may not actually give any meaningful reduction in trauma to the brain in an impact at a speed lower than it is designed to 'protect against'.
Below are some quotes from the Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute, A US based pro helmet group, from a document looking at the limitations of helmets.
I.e. helmets are designed only to pass tests in a lab, and need not offer the degree of real world 'protection' suggested by those tests...'We are aware that the acceleration measured in a test lab drop is not necessarily equal to the acceleration the head sees in an actual crash of the same distance on the street.'
Read that again. A certified helmet only gives any significant level of protection at a speed equivalent to the impact load imposed in order to pass the certification test. (Usually equivalent to a simple 12.5 mph crown impact onto a flat surface). Again this is largely because helmets are specifically designed to pass a single test with a single specified impact load. Not only will a helmet be as much use as a chocolate fireguard in a high impact situation, largely because the foam will just crush down completely (or more likely the helmet will simply break up) it need not reduce the impact significantly in an impact situation lower than that which the helmet is designed/tested for. This is because a foam density that is stiff enough to crush down - but not bottom out - at 12.5 Mph will not crush down at all in a lesser impact.'There is a second thread in the seemingly endless discussion of g thresholds: concussion. The vast majority of consumers assume that a helmet should prevent concussion in even the heaviest hits, and that if the helmet protects against severe blows it must surely be easily protective in lesser ones. in fact the helmets built to our standards are in many cases too hard to protect against a mild concussion in either a low speed hit where foam fails to crush or a much harder hit where clinically evident permanent injury is avoided, but a lesser concussion still results even though the helmet has not crushed completely and bottomed out.'
I.e. we don't even know what sort of characterises a helmet actually needs to have to be effective, what's more we probably need a different design of helmet for each user group...'nobody has a clear definition of the threshold of concussion, or at least a workable new failure threshold that can be applied in lab testing...We have a suspicion that the threshold should be different for children and perhaps senior citizens than for others, but no data to support a change.'
I.e. it is rotational and shear injuries that we need to be most concerned about, but as we don't understand the mechanisms of such injuries, or the relationship between real world impacts and such injuries, and cannot measure rotational loads in the lab, we will just forget about them...'Finally, there is the question of rotational injury. We know it is a problem, and perhaps even the worst villain in concussion. But we don't have generally accepted injury thresholds and lab test equivalents to write into our standards. In fact, most of our labs don't even have the test equipment they would need to begin testing helmets for rotational injury performance.'
And all this is from a strongly pro helmet organisation!
Helmets are a dangerous diversion away from the real issues that need to be addressed if we are to genuinely improve the safety of cyclists.0 -
Although Aurelio's debating style is not mine, I do agree with his basic argument here. Interesting article in that respect on today's bikeradar front page: http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/w ... more-20829 ; And no, it's not just women concerned with helmets messing up their hair; I feel a bike should be a good mode of transport to pick up a date, go to the hairdresser and back, or go to the pub. Helmets as a norm and general safety concern make using a bike for those kind of casual mini-trips challenging.
I'm from Amsterdam, and have used a bike long enough in Engalnd to compare, and yes, an environment where cyclists as a rule don't wear helmets is a sign of a safe and healthy cycling environment. Most cyclists in the UK already wear helmets, and a next step should not be to promote that even further but to make it less necessary. Unless even cyclists on a cycling forum are happy with a status quo where cycling is a marginalised activity only for very defined uses (dedicated long-distance commuters + sport).0 -
Absolutely spot on! It is no coincidence that the safest country in the developed world for cyclists, in terms of the number of fatal and serious injuries sustained per billon km ridden, also happens to be the country with the lowest level of cycle helmet wearing, (Denmark), with the Netherlands being not far behind on both counts.FJS wrote:I'm from Amsterdam, and have used a bike long enough in Engalnd to compare, and yes, an environment where cyclists as a rule don't wear helmets is a sign of a safe and healthy cycling environment. Most cyclists in the UK already wear helmets, and a next step should not be to promote that even further but to make it less necessary. Unless even cyclists on a cycling forum are happy with a status quo where cycling is a marginalised activity only for very defined uses (dedicated long-distance commuters + sport).
Helmets are a dangerous diversion away from the real issues that need to be addressed if we are to genuinely improve the safety of cyclists.0 -
aurelio wrote:Not only will a helmet be as much use as a chocolate fireguard in a high impact situation, largely because the foam will just crush down completely (or more likely the helmet will simply break up) it need not reduce the impact significantly in an impact situation lower than that which the helmet is designed/tested for. This is because a foam density that is stiff enough to crush down - but not bottom out - at 12.5 Mph will not crush down at all in a lesser impact.
I guess it worked OK for Brajkovic in his high impact (60 kph) crash. Difficult to make a scientific comparison though - I'm guessing it might be hard to find someone willing to do the control experiment. Perhaps you'd like to volunteer?Le Blaireau (1)0
