Another little nugget for the helmet debate!

1…789101113»

Comments

  • hmbadger
    hmbadger Posts: 181
    WGWarburton wrote:
    hmbadger wrote:
    .............. Thanks for your interest, though.

    Cheers,
    W.


    :D
  • meanredspider
    meanredspider Posts: 12,337
    WGWarburton wrote:
    A helmet with a soft exterior (polystyrene, without a full shell) is more likely to grip the tarmac on impact (like a soft-compound tyre) .

    I love how you make this stuff up, 'Buns.

    Have you ever felt a soft compound tyre? When warm they are very, very, sticky - it's why they work. Polystyrene is anything but sticky. Rubber is very strong under tension (hence pneumatic tyres being made of it). Polystyrene is rubbish (literally) under tension. Picture, if you will, a car or bike fitted with solid polystyrene tyres - how far do you think you'd get? They would shred in seconds.

    It's an interesting theory but hardly stands much scrutiny.
    ROAD < Scott Foil HMX Di2, Volagi Liscio Di2, Jamis Renegade Elite Di2, Cube Reaction Race > ROUGH
  • The Rookie
    The Rookie Posts: 27,812
    As a total aside, my Daughter is going on a cycling holiday with a youth group, they have incremental insurance due to the increased risk of cycling over other forms of transport (including the increased cost of repatriating cycle and equipment for example) BUT their medical cover is nullified (totally) if they have any incident while cycling if they are not wearing a helmet.

    Simon
    Currently riding a Whyte T130C, X0 drivetrain, Magura Trail brakes converted to mixed wheel size (homebuilt wheels) with 140mm Fox 34 Rhythm and RP23 suspension. 12.2Kg.
  • asquithea
    asquithea Posts: 145
    The Beginner wrote:
    As a total aside, my Daughter is going on a cycling holiday with a youth group, they have incremental insurance due to the increased risk of cycling over other forms of transport (including the increased cost of repatriating cycle and equipment for example) BUT their medical cover is nullified (totally) if they have any incident while cycling if they are not wearing a helmet.

    Simon

    My dental insurance doesn't cover me for Kickboxing unless I'm wearing a gum shield, either.

    Both conditions seem reasonable. :D
  • tarquin_foxglove
    tarquin_foxglove Posts: 554
    edited June 2011
    meanredspider wrote:
    WGWarburton wrote:
    A helmet with a soft exterior (polystyrene, without a full shell) is more likely to grip the tarmac on impact (like a soft-compound tyre) .
    Polystyrene is anything but sticky. Polystyrene is rubbish (literally) under tension. Picture, if you will, a car or bike fitted with solid polystyrene tyres - how far do you think you'd get? They would shred in seconds.
    .

    I think you've misunderstood his point.

    I think he's saying a helmet without a full hard shell is more likely to grab the road surface than one with a full hard shell.

    ie thiscatlike-whisper-plus-helmet-white-55539.jpg
    is more likely to snag, than thisitem_35547.jpg

    I linked to the met-analysis of helmet studies earlier in the thread and it found that the studies which showed helmets were beneficial were older, when bike helmets looked like the 2nd one. From the introduction of EN1078 the efficacy of helmets has fallen to their current marginal level.
  • tarquin_foxglove
    tarquin_foxglove Posts: 554
    asquithea wrote:
    The Beginner wrote:
    ... they have incremental insurance due to the increased risk of cycling over other forms of transport ... BUT their medical cover is nullified (totally) if they have any incident while cycling if they are not wearing a helmet."

    My dental insurance doesn't cover me for Kickboxing unless I'm wearing a gum shield, either.

    Both conditions seem reasonable.

    Are you having a laugh?

    'Having specific insurance for teeth invalidated if specific protection isn't worn while partaking in an activity in which someone is actively trying to kick you in the head'

    is the same as

    'Having all medical insurance invalidated if while having a bimbling cycle holiday you fall off on some gravel and cut your knee but you aren't wearing a helmet'

    ??
  • meanredspider
    meanredspider Posts: 12,337
    tarquin_foxglove wrote:
    meanredspider wrote:
    WGWarburton wrote:
    A helmet with a soft exterior (polystyrene, without a full shell) is more likely to grip the tarmac on impact (like a soft-compound tyre) .
    Polystyrene is anything but sticky. Polystyrene is rubbish (literally) under tension. Picture, if you will, a car or bike fitted with solid polystyrene tyres - how far do you think you'd get? They would shred in seconds.
    .

    You've misunderstood his point.

    Nope - understood his point totally. He drew a parallel with the non full- shell helmet with a soft compound rubber tyre which was frankly a nonsense.

    Sure there are helmets that provide better protection - I could wear my fireproof Snell2005 car racing lid but (and this is always a bit rich coming from folk who think risks are too low and the protection too poor so wear no lid at all) it's a balance of risk and
    benefit. None of us lid wearers think that they provide perfect protect nor do we insist that others should wear a lid if they choose not to - but we do think, in the balance of probabilities, that wearing a lid provides more upsides than downsides and that's all there is to it. Almost all things in life are a compromise (my job is to balance risks and benefits of medical devices so I'm acutely aware of this). I've made my own judgement on helmets. You've made yours and 'Buns has made his.
    ROAD < Scott Foil HMX Di2, Volagi Liscio Di2, Jamis Renegade Elite Di2, Cube Reaction Race > ROUGH
  • tarquin_foxglove
    tarquin_foxglove Posts: 554
    I need a rant & don't want to start a new thread...

    A cyclist's ability to go helmetless is constantly being removed without any consultation or due process.

    A local cycling club offers youth coaching on an enclosed site within a public park. My 7 year old daughter wants to join them as it looks like fun. Their licence with the Council insists that all participants wear a helmet. Failure to get participants to wear a helmet is a breech of the licence and could see it being revoked.

    I contacted the Council and they are insisting that it is due to 'Health & Safety' despite having no recorded head injuries in any park in the city due to cycling. In the last three years they have recorded incidents of head injuries following children falling off swings & slides, out of trees etc but not cycling. Obviously they aren't insisting on helmets before you put your child on a swing, as that'd be stupid.

    Forcing children to wear helmets while cycling in safe areas as "cycling is dangerous" is the thin end of the wedge, give it some time & cyclists will be banished from roads with adjacent cycling infrastructure no matter how poor it is, as "it has to be safer than cycling on the road, it's a no brainer".

    Anyway I bought the bloody helmet, £25! to get one with a decent strap system so it can fit & be comfortable without being loose & being a strangling risk.

    Bloody H&S, bloody helmet manufacturers.

Categories