Are helmets now compulsory?
Comments
-
lost_in_thought wrote:
But, it's not really what I meant. What I'm trying to find out is whether, in the event of a collision, there's any real evidence that you could come off worse as a result of wearing a helmet.
Well, there is one thing to bear in mind with children: tell them to take it off when not cycling!
I never tought my son to wear a helmet: he had a few bumps without, and decided to wear one (he is 4 now).
I don't insist, he does.
But what I insist is that he takes it off when not cycling. He forgets he is wearing one and heads straight through a gap he is familiar with, but only used to without a helmet.
Helmets can cause strangulation if used in typical children's playground structures.
I wonder if the same parent that insists his/her children wear a helmet, remembers to teach them to take it off whenever they dismount...0 -
Kiblams wrote:UndercoverElephant wrote:There are even some who claim that these injuries may be worse if you are wearing a cycle helmet, as the helmet may cause extra purchase, causing more rotation.
Yeah, cus skin and hair has less grip than a plastic coated helmet...
Seriously, is because your scalp is not inseparably glued to your skull.
Infact, it is because of that finding that helmets now have a smooth outer shell.0 -
CiB, I know it's not a dig at me, but thanks for saying so anyway!
I tend to ignore the people who lecture, they're never going to change my mind on this issue so why bother reading it? And people who insult you aren't worth listening to in the first place.
It seems to me (from the evidence I've seen) that, while the additional protection afforded to one's melon.... er.... head by a helmet may be questionable or minimal, and indeed sometimes irrelevant, there's no real evidence that they make you less safe.
Still not wearing one though. Don't like 'em. They mess with my hair.
0 -
Kiblams wrote:UndercoverElephant wrote:There are even some who claim that these injuries may be worse if you are wearing a cycle helmet, as the helmet may cause extra purchase, causing more rotation.
Yeah, cus skin and hair has less grip than a plastic coated helmet...
Lots of helmets have pointy-out bits , also presumably there's potentially more leverage as the distance between the point of contact with the ground and your neck is greater0 -
MrChuck wrote:Kiblams wrote:UndercoverElephant wrote:There are even some who claim that these injuries may be worse if you are wearing a cycle helmet, as the helmet may cause extra purchase, causing more rotation.
Yeah, cus skin and hair has less grip than a plastic coated helmet...
Lots of helmets have pointy-out bits , also presumably there's potentially more leverage as the distance between the point of contact with the ground and your neck is greater
Your head becomes 5% heavier on the outside too, augmenting centrifugal acceleration during rotation.
It also makes it more difficult for your shoulders and arms to protect it.0 -
UndercoverElephant wrote:Right, I've done a small-scale test.
I took a grape (largest fruit in the kitchen at work) and dropped it. It looked fine.
I then popped a acorn shell on the top of another grape and dropped it too. Also looked fine.
I then took a hammer and smashed the first grape. Not fine.
I then took a hammer to the grape with the helmet on. Also not fine.
I think this conclusively proves what CiB has been saying all along.
As well as this, if you put a raspberry on to a grape in the manner of a Benny From Crossroads hat, you'll laugh at it for no apparent reason. You will.
Be sure to wear a helmet during the exercise in case something unexpectedly bad happens.0 -
fnegroni wrote:Kiblams wrote:UndercoverElephant wrote:There are even some who claim that these injuries may be worse if you are wearing a cycle helmet, as the helmet may cause extra purchase, causing more rotation.
Yeah, cus skin and hair has less grip than a plastic coated helmet...
Seriously, is because your scalp is not inseparably glued to your skull.
Infact, it is because of that finding that helmets now have a smooth outer shell.
I think it's because of the ridge of foam around the bottom, especially the ones which look like a proper, big mushroom, when tied to the base of your chin. I'm not sure.
I guess the test would be to smack the underside of your helmet and see if your head moves.0 -
UndercoverElephant wrote:They're tested for straight impacts against a curb at, if I remember correctly 17 mph.
It's quite a bit lower than that, I think.
I haven't got a copy of the standard, but BS EN 1078:1997 includes "Impact velocity" tests in the range 5.42-5.52 m/s (about 12mph) according to Bicycle helmets: review of effectiveness (No.30) from the DfT.0 -
lost_in_thought wrote:UndercoverElephant wrote:lost_in_thought wrote:Yeah, I'm aware of that study, it's 4 years old and no further work has been done after the initial findings.
But, it's not really what I meant. What I'm trying to find out is whether, in the event of a collision, there's any real evidence that you could come off worse as a result of wearing a helmet.
I think that the general view is that helmets are actually pretty good in a straight collision, which is what they're designed for. They're tested for straight impacts against a curb at, if I remember correctly 17 mph.
What they're supposedly not so good at are "rotational" injuries, when the angle of strike isn't head on. Motorcycle helmets are good at this, as they hold your neck still. There are even some who claim that these injuries may be worse if you are wearing a cycle helmet, as the helmet may cause extra purchase, causing more rotation.
Either way, small studies aren't likely to find a good correlation in this, and nobody is going to pay for a larger one, as there's no financial gain to it.
This 'rotational injury' thing is the type of thing I mean, as well as the idea that you're more likely to hit your head if you wear a helmet.
Are there not studies on this then? You'd think helmet companies would fund studies in order to either a)prove that such things are bunkum, or b) promote a re-design so everyone has to buy a new helmet...
Exactly- it's a fairly new proposition. I suspect it's come about partly through people speculating on why a big increase in helmet-wearing doesn't cause a corresponding drop in KSI rates and also generally because of people looking closer at better data.
The KSI rates are pretty low and incidents generally have many complicating factors, so it's very difficult to draw conclusions.
There are obvious moral issues setting up experiments and the data gathered from real events may not be comprehensive.
Cheers,
W.0 -
-
-
This is an interesting one! Cycling can't really be that dangerous, i think the scale on the right is fatalities per BILLION km cycled!
Again if you want some hard and fast scientific discussion just read a little from the CTC website. It's reliable organisation, unlike transport for london, BBC, etc....
http://www.ctc.org.uk/desktopdefault.aspx?tabid=46880 -
I prefer KSI Vegas, but KSI Miami is good too.lost_in_thought wrote:What's a KSI?
What's your star sign?0 -
Although I can understand people using the example of an accident they had when wearing a helmet apparently saving their life, did it really?
A few years ago I was walking home at night, when I was run over by a cyclist with no lights, going the wrong way down a one way street. My head hit the road very hard (I can still remember the feeling of it striking the tarmac- not very nice!). Had I been wearing a helmet I wouldn't mind betting that it would have been pretty badly damaged and I'd be thinking how lucky I was. OK, I had a bit of a sore head, but I was otherwise fine.
In 25 years of cycling I've been knocked off my bike 3 times, but my head has never gone near the road surface. In that same period I've been knocked over once as a pedestrian and hit my head on the road. Should pedestrians start wearing helmets incase they are involved in an accident?!0 -
Always Tyred wrote:
I prefer KSI Vegas, but KSI Miami is good too.lost_in_thought wrote:What's a KSI?
What's your star sign?
Capricorn!
OMG are you, like, a Capricorn too? NO WAY!0 -
squired wrote:In 25 years of cycling I've been knocked off my bike 3 times, but my head has never gone near the road surface. In that same period I've been knocked over once as a pedestrian and hit my head on the road. Should pedestrians start wearing helmets incase they are involved in an accident?!
That's exactly the point.
Risk mitigation is the key.
Of course someone might argue that a brain injury is the worst kind of injury.
But I still wouldn't say that to people who have lost limbs.
Matter of fact is, is not about just accepting risk, it is about accepting the right amount of risk.
So brain injury is very low in my priority order when I wake up in the morning.
To those who argue we should wear a cycle helmet, I ask: would you start wearing a motorcycling helmet while cycling now? if not, why?0 -
squired wrote:Should pedestrians start wearing helmets incase they are involved in an accident?!
Maybe not, but motorists and their passengers should.0 -
Mark Elvin wrote:On the basis that helmets are not proven to do anything, why wear then on motorcycles?
because they tend to travel at much higher speeds.0 -
I don't know about sticking your melon in a helmet, but how about the other way round?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pljpg3Bgv6I- - - - - - - - - -
On Strava.{/url}0 -
the actual facts of the helmet / no helmet safety question are not, and probably will never be, known. really how would you study it?
there are so many variables involved that any proper analysis is impossible. people very regularly say that a helmet saved their life but to know that they would have to also have the exact same accident, in every detail, without the helmet. which requires a lot of dedication.
and it's not something you can easily simulate - much as we may love to launch melons at the world we have to remember that a melon is designed to break open when falling from a tree, whereas a head is designed not to. if you've ever seen someone fall off a bike then you know the gymnastics that the body's automatic programming goes through to keep the head safe, and this is a huge factor in the low speeds of cycle falls, and something that a helmet MAY get in the way of.
car safety devices were much more easily provable since the velocity of impacts made things more black and white. they also used cadavers when gathering data, something we don't do now.
so there is no answer to the question of helmet safety, but you can be happy with your decision to wear one or not to wear one. just please don't think of cycling without a helmet as being dangerous and cycling with a helmet as being safe - i see society moving this way and it irks the logician in me. feeling safe is often very dangerous.0 -
A well cited article in the BMJ a few years ago found absolutely no evidence that jumping out of a plane with a parachute prevents death or trauma; but you'd still wear one wouldn't you?
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/327/7429/1459
The bike helmet argument is bigger than than a bunch of cyclists moaning about the merits of wearing a helmet - it's an age old argument about evidence-based medicine.0 -
Don't know if anyone else saw it, but they just broadcast an apology on BBC London News saying that they were wrong stating it was now illegal.0
-
Time for my 2p methinks.
Over my years of cycling, I've had a few accidents and tumbles, I'm sure we all have.
I've low-sided on a slippery road surface (freshly laid pavement with a thin film of sand on top, just as I was turning). I banged my head on the pavement, it hurt a bit, I had a headache for a little while, but I was OK. I was travelling quite slowly, probably within the speed range for which helmets are designed, but I didn't have a helmet on.
I've also been left-hooked by a car. I hit the front wheel arch, flew over the bonnet and landed on my back, in the road on the far side of the car. My head didn't hit anything and I had no head injuries, but I did have bad whiplash, possibly caused by the extra mass of the helmet.
The first accident was what the helmet was designed for and could happen at any time, but is very unlikely (I was young and pay much more attention to the road surface now).
The second accident was probably outside the speed range that a helmet is designed to protect the bonce, but it wasn't needed and possibly made my injuries worse.
In the case of cyclist vs motor vehicle, motor vehicle always wins and a helmet won't save you, but in a minor accident e.g. tyre blowout during a big descent or slipping on a wet manhole, it might make the difference. This is the sort of accident that I wear my helmet for, the unlikely minor ones.
I always wear a helmet, I'd advise parents of little kids to make their little'un wear a helmet (because they have more of the minor accidents), but if an adult chooses not to, their choice.
Maybe they are just saving themselves the nine months of physio I had to have due to the whiplash?FCN 3: Raleigh Record Ace fixie-to be resurrected sometime in the future
FCN 4: Planet X Schmaffenschmack 2- workhorse
FCN 9: B Twin Vitamin - winter commuter/loan bike for trainees
I'm hungry. I'm always hungry!0 -
DVV wrote:Try dropping a melon on the floor, then try dropping another in a helmet
I would also like to know, have you actually done this or not?
My wife is a senior school science teacher and conducts a lesson based around this, pretty compelling really.
I agree that everyone should have the choice, just not sure why you wouldn't use a helmet if its available could save your life!0 -
"feeling safe is often very dangerous"
perhaps we should all strap sharp knives to our handlebars and car steering wheels to make us drive & ride safer.
come on it's a pretty simple equation the hemet spreads the force of impact, less pressure on the head. ok its not going to stop all injuries i mean its not a star powerup, but ive never seen a helmet marketed as an invunerability shield.
i wear one, if you don't want to thats fine....All hail the FSM and his noodly appendage!0 -
YES WAY!lost_in_thought wrote:Always Tyred wrote:
I prefer KSI Vegas, but KSI Miami is good too.lost_in_thought wrote:What's a KSI?
What's your star sign?
Capricorn!
OMG are you, like, a Capricorn too? NO WAY!
0 -
Actually I read it as deaths per billion population per km cycled.nickthetrick wrote:This is an interesting one! Cycling can't really be that dangerous, i think the scale on the right is fatalities per BILLION km cycled!
If so, that could have been made more understandable by putting cyclist deaths, per million population, per 1000km cycled (I don't know whether the "population" mentioned is the actual country population or the statistical population - i.e. the group of all cyclists in the country; given the problems measuring the latter I assume it is the former).0 -
Abacus123 wrote:DVV wrote:Try dropping a melon on the floor, then try dropping another in a helmet
I would also like to know, have you actually done this or not?
My wife is a senior school science teacher and conducts a lesson based around this, pretty compelling really.
I agree that everyone should have the choice, just not sure why you wouldn't use a helmet if its available could save your life!
So you wear a motorcycle helmet? It is available, some cost less than a bicycle helmet.
Surely you have your own considerations as to which one to wear. Guess what, that's exactly why the debate isn't over yet.0 -
... but then I'd be wrong! :oops:
It is as you put - and pkm is "passenger km" - sorry!0 -
bicyclepirate wrote:"feeling safe is often very dangerous" perhaps we should all strap sharp knives to our handlebars and car steering wheels to make us drive & ride safer.
come on it's a pretty simple equation the hemet spreads the force of impact, less pressure on the head. ok its not going to stop all injuries i mean its not a star powerup, but ive never seen a helmet marketed as an invunerability shield.
i wear one, if you don't want to thats fine....
Explain this to me:
From all the reserach papers I found, for the helmet to spread the impact on the most surface must be close fitting and touch the head over a great area.
Yet, from the MET website literature, this causes overheating, so better/more expensive helmets have a very small CS (contact surface) area.
Bear in mind the headform used during tests is much harder than a human cranium (according to studies) and to allow the construction of lighter, better ventilated helmets, manufacturers now use much harder styrofoam, which does not compress as much as it used to, causing the helmet to potentially lose its cushioning effect.
Why this contradictory trend?0
