safety levels of helmets.

crispy1980

quick question, how much difference is there between helmets with regards to the protection they offer? ie would a cheap helmet still offer the same protection as a dearer one providing both are fitted correctly? does the extra cost buy any additional protection ? cheers, chris

bails87

All the same. More £=better ventilation and less weight.

crispy1980

thats kinda what i thought. i guess they all have to pass some sort of standard test. stick with my cheapy for now then. cheers, chris

Northwind

They all pass the same test, doesn't mean they're all the same protection wise. Unfortunately though because the test is really undemanding, you can't really tell how good a helmet is, without smashing them. It doesn't follow that cheap ones are unprotective or expensive ones are better though.

Still, fit is very important- a loose helmet is less protective. And coverage varies too, there's relatively few cheap helmets with a deep back like is now common (I had my bike fall on the back of my head right at the base of my Flux, smashed it in properly and left me with a brutal headache for days but if I'd been wearing my old cheapo XC helmet, there'd have been no helmet there at all and the bike would have landed straight on the skull. Ow.)

bikaholic

As others have alluded, there is no accurate real world scientific data that helmets provide any protection at all. You can pick and choose evidence to support whichever side of the argument you stand on in the helmet debate, but there will always be an equally valid counter argument.

A helmet may reduce head impact injuries, but what good is it if it also affects your balance, impedes your natural self-preservation reflexes and increases the risk of a broken neck?

In over 100 years of cycling history, it's only been in the last decade that people have become paranoid about helmets. I think it began when a rider got himself killed in a professional road race...

So, you could say that a cheap helmet is as good as an expensive helmet - which are both as good as not wearing one.

I don't really care whether people wear helmets or not - the simple fact that someone takes up cycling is already contributing towards my safety.

But, if you do, then be sure to get a proper fitting one and to secure it firmly onto your head using the chin straps.

Also practice falling off the bike wearing a helmet so you will know instinctively what to do when it happens for real. The sensations and reflexes are different for helmet vs no helmet.

DF33

Aldi helmets £10, fit most people really well and as safe as an expensive helmet.

Anonymous

Bike helmets are generally tested to a certain degree of safety for road use and basic collisions.

What's on offer out there goes way beyond road use but there are no reliable safety standards or tests for off road.

A helmet may reduce head impact injuries, but what good is it if it also affects your balance, impedes your natural self-preservation reflexes and increases the risk of a broken neck?

Never come across a standard bike helmet that is anything like this and they are generally unnoticeable when wearing them. If anything they are insufficient protection for some mountain biking (given the big whack in the back of my head where the helmet didn't come down enough to cover it).

In over 100 years of cycling history, it's only been in the last decade that people have become paranoid about helmets. I think it began when a rider got himself killed in a professional road race...

It's only been some 20 odd years where mountain biking has become popular however.

The desire to wear a helmet doesn't just come from deaths though. Had enough impacts now and seen enough of them with others to feel *personally* that there's no way I'd MTB without one, at least to reduce the affects of serious head impacts (less blood and fractured skulls to deal with), and I'd personally not want to be the one dealing with friends who've smashed up their head without one. I don't really get what the problem is with them really. Is the 'anti' helmet attitude just about vanity? Again I don't get that. Look at skiing and snowboarding. Helmets are starting to become 'cool'. In the US more so and in some parts you look a prat without one.

I say if they do nothing other than make you confident, go for it. Some argue that the confidence is dangerous (same argument has been said with skiing), but that makes little sense considering skills courses are all about confidence making you able to tackle challenges safely. Without confidence people tend to crash badly in my experience (talking myself especially).

diy

Some helmets cover more of your head and offer slightly better protection and roll off resistance.

Almost all open face helmets are compromised by the lack of a chin bar which stops the lid from rolling off.
As with all helmets Its a balance between weight and strength. Heavy helmet means more load on the neck, light helmet means less room for impact absorption.

Fit is everything. Ideally you want a lid which can grip your head below the occipital bone. most of the cheapos don't do this.

Northwind

deadkenny wrote:

Never come across a standard bike helmet that is anything like this and they are generally unnoticeable when wearing them.

Weeellll... There is some evidence that bike helmets can increase the risk of some injuries. The suggestion is that they increase leverage on the head in some crashes, which can result in both higher rotational forces (spinning the brain around inside its jar can be just as harmful as breaking the jar) and more torque on the spine. Not a bit stretch really. But the evidence is no stronger than the evidence for significant protection, and there's a lot less of it.

Risk perception is more well documented... It affects different people differently, some people not at all but the link between feeling protected and taking risks is pretty well accepted.

It's Complicated. But, though it's not been reliably proven that they're effective IMO, since it relies on synthetic tests, and the real world data is weak, equally it's not been reliably disproven either, and the onus is on disproof IMO. If someone's going to hit you on the head with a bat, would you choose not to wear a bike helmet because nobody's proved it'll be effective?

Anonymous

Was referring more to the affect on your balance really. I don't find it does anything at all to the balance. The self preservation reflex thing, as I say the counter argument is it increases confidence which actually makes your actions safer in the first place rather than hesitating to do something risky out of self preservation. Though a standard helmet is barely noticeable so maybe you don't change your attitude to risk anyway.

But yeah, maybe there's a point on the spinal injury side. Again, the evidence isn't there. When I bust my back, the x-ray guy suggested the helmet may have contributed to the fractures, but that's just his theory. Theory I'd guess is shockwaves down the spine caused it. That said the head injury I got resulting in being unconscious for nearly a couple of days, makes me feel I'd rather have the helmet.

Full face helmets are another matter. I'm getting used to them and current find they do get in the way somewhat and restrict things.

Daz555

Northwind wrote:

They all pass the same test, doesn't mean they're all the same protection wise. Unfortunately though because the test is really undemanding, you can't really tell how good a helmet is, without smashing them. It doesn't follow that cheap ones are unprotective or expensive ones are better though.

This.

The cycling industry bangs on about helmets but to be honest they clearly don't care about anything other than selling them. Cycle helmets are not sold on safety, and this tells us a lot about them.

It is about time the big bike mags started testing a wide variety of helmets to determine which ones are the best and which ones barely pass the minimum standards. The motorcycle industry has been doing this for years.

cooldad

Daz555 wrote:

Northwind wrote:

They all pass the same test, doesn't mean they're all the same protection wise. Unfortunately though because the test is really undemanding, you can't really tell how good a helmet is, without smashing them. It doesn't follow that cheap ones are unprotective or expensive ones are better though.

This.

The cycling industry bangs on about helmets but to be honest they clearly don't care about anything other than selling them. Cycle helmets are not sold on safety, and this tells us a lot about them.

It is about time the big bike mags started testing a wide variety of helmets to determine which ones are the best and which ones barely pass the minimum standards. The motorcycle industry has been doing this for years.

What is this monolthic cycling industry you are banging on about?
The 'motorcycle industry' is different to 'bike mags'. But I think you will find that it is the helmet manufacturers who comply with various international standards -TUV etc, not the motorcycle industry as such.

Bike helmets do have to comply with standards as well.

How would a bike magazine test them?
I suppose we could stick Supersonic in them and whack him over the head with a hammer.
Maybe he'll volunteer.

Northwind

cooldad wrote:

How would a bike magazine test them?

Same way a motorbike mag does- put them on a headform, whack them with an anvil, measure the impact.

For the industry, it's long past time to have a multi-level CE mark IMO, same as we have with back protectors.

There was an excellent article in a US motorbike mag a few years back... Arai always make a point of saying how they exceed the US standards, and the mag decided to pull them up on it and see what happened. Result was that they compared a top-end Arai with an assortment of other helmets, and it gave the best impact test results. But then they repeated the impact test 10 times in a row- bearing in mind it's a destructive test, if you hit your head like that you'd replace the helmet- and the Arai still passed the test on the 10th blow, by more than some of the others could manage the first time.

OTOH, over here we introduced SHARP, which is supposed to be a more informative test standard, and unfortunately we made a total arse of it- testing areas which aren't normally subject to major impact, among other things. So we ended up with a safety test that's driven some manufacturers to make helmets that are less good than they would be otherwise, in order to pass a poor test.

cooldad

All very well, but there would be no standardisation so might as well just use SS as a guinea pig.

Northwind

I don't think there's any counterargument I can produce that will tempt you away from hitting Supersonic with a hammer, so I'll just call the police instead I reckon.

cooldad

How about if it's only a little hammer? I think he once wrote he has a thick skull.

chez_m356

Northwind wrote:

cooldad wrote:

How would a bike magazine test them?

Same way a motorbike mag does- put them on a headform, whack them with an anvil, measure the impact.

For the industry, it's long past time to have a multi-level CE mark IMO, same as we have with back protectors.

There was an excellent article in a US motorbike mag a few years back... Arai always make a point of saying how they exceed the US standards, and the mag decided to pull them up on it and see what happened. Result was that they compared a top-end Arai with an assortment of other helmets, and it gave the best impact test results. But then they repeated the impact test 10 times in a row- bearing in mind it's a destructive test, if you hit your head like that you'd replace the helmet- and the Arai still passed the test on the 10th blow, by more than some of the others could manage the first time.

its all well and good that the motorcycle helmet survived a test like that, but if someone had of been wearing it, and they whacked it with an anvil, they'd probably have been dead after the first go

Northwind

Eh, don't know if that's a joke or not but the anvils are small (10kg IIRC) controlled weights not blacksmith's anvils. Think you've got an image of wile coyote going on maybe?

chez_m356

Northwind wrote:

Eh, don't know if that's a joke or not but the anvils are small (10kg IIRC) controlled weights not blacksmith's anvils. Think you've got an image of wile coyote going on maybe?

i don't see whats funny about it,would you put your head in a motorcycle helmet and let someone drop a 10kg anvil on it? it might amuse any onlookers,but i doubt you would be laughing

diy

+1 that SHARP was a total load of bol*** Still at least it wasn't paid for by tax payers money.. Oh hang on...

I personally don't buy the leverage angle, they don't weigh anything like as much as a motorbike helmet and its almost like saying having hair increases the friction.

concorde

bikaholic wrote:

As others have alluded, there is no accurate real world scientific data that helmets provide any protection at all. You can pick and choose evidence to support whichever side of the argument you stand on in the helmet debate, but there will always be an equally valid counter argument.

A helmet may reduce head impact injuries, but what good is it if it also affects your balance, impedes your natural self-preservation reflexes and increases the risk of a broken neck?

In over 100 years of cycling history, it's only been in the last decade that people have become paranoid about helmets. I think it began when a rider got himself killed in a professional road race...

So, you could say that a cheap helmet is as good as an expensive helmet - which are both as good as not wearing one.

I don't really care whether people wear helmets or not - the simple fact that someone takes up cycling is already contributing towards my safety.

But, if you do, then be sure to get a proper fitting one and to secure it firmly onto your head using the chin straps.

Also practice falling off the bike wearing a helmet so you will know instinctively what to do when it happens for real. The sensations and reflexes are different for helmet vs no helmet.

What the fuck rubbish is all that! Have a word with yourself for god sake!

cooldad

How do you practice falling off?

concorde

cooldad wrote:

How do you practice falling off?

Hahaha bloody brilliant. One minute speaking about how a helmet interferes with your natural protection instincts the next saying to practice falling off, what is natural about pretending to fall off?! Some people need to exercise common sense and not believe every bit of bullshit they read.

Northwind

cooldad wrote:

How do you practice falling off?

Judo. Or as Brian Lopes says in his book, "fall off lots of climbing frames when you're 8 years old".

Northwind

diy wrote:

I personally don't buy the leverage angle, they don't weigh anything like as much as a motorbike helmet and its almost like saying having hair increases the friction.

The leverage isn't related at all to weight- it's just the fact that they stick out the sides.

bikaholic

Concorde wrote:

cooldad wrote:

How do you practice falling off?

Hahaha bloody brilliant. One minute speaking about how a helmet interferes with your natural protection instincts the next saying to practice falling off, what is natural about pretending to fall off?! Some people need to exercise common sense and not believe every bit of bullshit they read.

Pretend fighting is called sparring, and is training for the real main event. It's a way to practice something inherently dangerous in a relatively safe environment. It's no different for cycling or any other physical activity.

Judo. Or as Brian Lopes says in his book, "fall off lots of climbing frames when you're 8 years old".

Brian Lopes's method is sound and is the best one. Judo is also good - as the fundamentals in judo, like every other martial art, is learning about and utilizing the power of the Earth (ie gravity) to increase fighting potency.

Most people fear going over the handlebars, so practice that by inducing a front wheel wheelie (fww) using a hard front braking action. Obviously, you'd want to do it on a soft surface like grass, sand or even on some old mattreses.

What you want to do is develop a feeling for the "trigger" or the "uh-oh" moment when you semi-instinctively know when something is not right (maybe it's your balance, the handling of the bike or the wind rushing past your ears/skin/hair etc).

Once you get the trigger, either bail or attempt a recovery. For the fww, before you approach the point of equilibrium of the front wheel, a recovery will be possible if you quickly push your weight backwards or by putting your foot/feet onto the ground (but, beware as your thighs may be trapped by the handlebars, the toptube will rise upwards and the saddle will hit you in the back).

Past the point of equilibrium and you will definitely tip over and superman.

The natural instinct here would be to protect the head and upper torso by using (mainly) the arms. You'd be surprised at how many helmeted riders (especially mollycoddled youngsters that I've seen) tend not to do this: they hold onto the bars with a death grip and end up face planting.

Once the superman is imminent, follow through with the bike's momentum or better yet, launch yourself forwards (because the bike will be chasing up behind you), keep your body loose and use your hands/arms/legs to minimise impact with the ground. Myself, I've tendend to use my left arm to alter my falls into a roll onto my left side - other people can actually clear the bars and hit the ground running. With a helmet on, I find it more difficult to roll...

Ahh, but all of this is an expected fww - most accidents are unexpected. True - but you will have developed a sense for the trigger and will get a better idea on how to minimise damage to yourself.

Sounds like common sense to me.

cooldad

Er OK.
But I'll practice staying on thanks.

Northwind

Yeaaaahhhhh. I crash pretty well, tuck and roll comes pretty naturally to me and I've got a wee bit of muscle memory from being thrown onto crashmats in martial arts (15 years ago!)... but balls to practicing crashes frankly.