£195 for a bl**dy helmet
Comments
-
paul64 wrote:There's another serious question about the wearing of helmets, responsibility...
Yes, this is the key issue with trying to force cyclists to wear polystyrene hats, in that the the promotion of helmets is symptomatic of a culture that tries to place as much responsibility as possible onto the victims of bad and aggressive drivers, rather than addressing the core problem of bad driving itself.
It is much the same psychology as used to see women blamed when they were victims of rape of sexual assault if they were 'irresponsible' enough to venture out alone or wore 'provocative' clothing. As with victim blaming in the case of sexual assault, such attitudes reflected a power imbalance between the perpetrators and their victims, and cyclists are most certainly at the very bottom of the 'road user hierarchy'.
One might as well argue that everyone should walk around in a stab-proof vest, and that anyone who is stabbed whilst not wearing is should be held to be responsible for their injuries and denied compensation, and at least a stab-proof vest would probably do the job it is intended to do effectively, unlike polystyrene hats for cyclists!
Whatever, I am sure that however minimal the protection offered by cycle helmets might be, many cyclists will continue to see cycle helmets as being more-or-less indispensable, even if the main reason for this is the wearing a helmet allows the wearer to feel that they are more in control of the risks they face in what is a recognisably dangerous environment."an original thinker… the intellectual heir of Galileo and Einstein… suspicious of orthodoxy - any orthodoxy… He relishes all forms of ontological argument": jane90.0 -
meanredspider wrote:BenderRodriguez wrote:Thirdly, surely a discussion of why a helmet costs £200 is justified in asking whether or not is offers more protection than a £20 one. After all, that is supposed to be their primary function!
My admiration for continuing to try to derail the thread
And he's not giving up!
Admittedly paul64 is encouraging him so there's two of them at it now.............Faster than a tent.......0 -
Rolf F wrote:meanredspider wrote:BenderRodriguez wrote:Thirdly, surely a discussion of why a helmet costs £200 is justified in asking whether or not is offers more protection than a £20 one. After all, that is supposed to be their primary function!
My admiration for continuing to try to derail the thread
And he's not giving up!
Admittedly paul64 is encouraging him so there's two of them at it now.............
It would be good if there was something new to the discussion but helmets have been done to death so many times that most of us could write a book on the topic (but no-one would buy it because everybody knows it all...) :roll: ROAD < Scott Foil HMX Di2, Volagi Liscio Di2, Jamis Renegade Elite Di2, Cube Reaction Race > ROUGH0 -
except POC perhaps... mind their lids are very light as well. not cheap and look awful...BenderRodriguez wrote:dread_i1 wrote:What is your head worth? if people believe that £195 will buy better protection than £100 what's the problem.
The fact that no matter how much you pay, any helmet you buy will almost certainly only offer the same pitiful level of 'protection' as something that costs twenty quid in Decathlon, and quite possibly less?
The whole purpose of a helmet is supposedly to offer protection, but you never see any manufacturer selling any of their products on the basis that they offer a greater level of protection than another helmet.0 -
philbar72 wrote:
except POC perhaps... mind their lids are very light as well. not cheap and look awful...BenderRodriguez wrote:The whole purpose of a helmet is supposedly to offer protection, but you never see any manufacturer selling any of their products on the basis that they offer a greater level of protection than another helmet.
Thanks for that, not seen them before. Can't seem to see any quantified claims being made about the sort of impact that they are designed for though, or what sort of g-forces are generated in those impacts (Current tests standards allow for the brain to experience 400g, which is probably too high to prevent injury in any case.)
Whatever, it remains the case that the main issue in a high impact crash is the way the brain 'sloshes' around inside the skull, being lacerated by bony protrusions, ridges and other supporting structures, especially when rotational loads are generated, as happens in most high-impact crashes involving a motor vehicle. Unfortunately no helmet can prevent the brain 'sloshing' around in this way and the size and mass of a helmet can actually make such injuries more likely. The bare head does limit such loads somewhat by virtue of the way the scalp slides over the skull, and the Phillips head protection system, developed for motorcycle use, attempts to duplicate this effect.
http://www.phillipshelmets.com/
It would be great if cycle helmet manufacturers tried to take such technology on board and developed a helmet that actually offered a meaningful level of protection. Currently, the test standards are so low that even a helmet made of cardboard can pass them!
http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/c ... sts-35999/"an original thinker… the intellectual heir of Galileo and Einstein… suspicious of orthodoxy - any orthodoxy… He relishes all forms of ontological argument": jane90.0 -
Cheaper helmets have more helmet and less air.
both provide the same level of protection from scumbag lawyers who will try on the "contributory negligence" trick if you are helmetless.0 -
MichaelW wrote:Cheaper helmets have more helmet and less air. both provide the same level of protection from scumbag lawyers who will try on the "contributory negligence" trick if you are helmetless.
Which is exactly the culture that people should be challenging, not meekly acquiescing to by wearing a helmet every time they venture onto 'the motorists' roads.
By the way, I think that helmets do have a place, as when mountain biking when a low speed fall is quite possible. However, even here risk compensation effects probably negate and overall benefit to be derived from helmet wearing. (I am certainly aware that, on the tricky, rocky sections of many descents I know, I will tend to attempt to ride down if I have a helmet on, whereas if I was not wearing one I would usually get off and walk that section.)
Helmets are probably also a good idea for kids who do tend to fall off more than more experienced riders, but even here the teaching of good riding skills will almost certainly do a lot more to keep them 'safe'. Even with kids risk compensation can also be a issue. I once use to work at a skate park and was horrified at the sort of stunts the kids would happily try to pull as long as they were 'safe' because they had a helmet on. Pity that did nothing to avoid the resultant broken bones and bruised organs!
There is also the issue of risk compensation on the part of other road users who might think that, if a cyclist has a helmet on, then they they are pretty much invulnerable and so there is less need to take care when around them. There is good empirical evidence that this happens, with drivers tending to pass helmeted cyclists more closely than a helmet-less ones."an original thinker… the intellectual heir of Galileo and Einstein… suspicious of orthodoxy - any orthodoxy… He relishes all forms of ontological argument": jane90.0 -
meanredspider wrote:Rolf F wrote:meanredspider wrote:BenderRodriguez wrote:Thirdly, surely a discussion of why a helmet costs £200 is justified in asking whether or not is offers more protection than a £20 one. After all, that is supposed to be their primary function!
My admiration for continuing to try to derail the thread
And he's not giving up!
Admittedly paul64 is encouraging him so there's two of them at it now.............
It would be good if there was something new to the discussion but helmets have been done to death so many times that most of us could write a book on the topic (but no-one would buy it because everybody knows it all...) :roll:
To give him credit - he has now successfully completely hijacked the thread away from the slightly more interesting original topic. Pity that the mods spend so much time closing obituary threads and none on these threads. Maybe they need an auto merge button for all helmet whining so it all just becomes one enormous blob of a thread.Faster than a tent.......0 -
Rolf F wrote:To give him credit - he has now successfully completely hijacked the thread away from the slightly more interesting original topic.
Well, me and at least 5 other posters who seem to think that the level of protection actually offered by helmets is a relevant factor when considering whether to spend £200 on one!Rolf F wrote:Pity that the mods spend so much time closing obituary threads and not those threads that challenge what I like to believe, whether it is true or not.
There, fixed that for you. "an original thinker… the intellectual heir of Galileo and Einstein… suspicious of orthodoxy - any orthodoxy… He relishes all forms of ontological argument": jane90.0 -
BenderRodriguez wrote:Rolf F wrote:Pity that the mods spend so much time closing obituary threads and not those threads that challenge what I like to believe, whether it is true or not.
There, fixed that for you.
I think you are overstating the persuasiveness of your posts; they don't challenge my beliefs. You'd have to do a lot better job with your arguments if you are going to do that. But in anycase, you probably don't even know what my opinions are on this topic! Faster than a tent.......0 -
When will people learn, a items worth is decided by what people will pay for it, that goes for Oakley kask rapha assos, and any other perceived expensive brand!!
If you think these companies make these items just to sit on their shelves you're sadly mistakenOne plays football, tennis or golf, one does not play at cycling0 -
Rolf F wrote:meanredspider wrote:BenderRodriguez wrote:Thirdly, surely a discussion of why a helmet costs £200 is justified in asking whether or not is offers more protection than a £20 one. After all, that is supposed to be their primary function!
My admiration for continuing to try to derail the thread
And he's not giving up!
Admittedly paul64 is encouraging him so there's two of them at it now.............
:oops: sorry chaps, unintended. I don't often read threads on the subject so no doubt it has been done to death before. Most topics are rather cyclical (pun unintended)0 -
paul64 wrote:Rolf F wrote:
And he's not giving up!meanredspider wrote:
My admiration for continuing to try to derail the threadBenderRodriguez wrote:Thirdly, surely a discussion of why a helmet costs £200 is justified in asking whether or not is offers more protection than a £20 one. After all, that is supposed to be their primary function! Admittedly paul64 is encouraging him so there's two of them at it now.............[/quote:oops: sorry chaps, unintended. I don't often read threads on the subject so no doubt it has been done to death before. Most topics are rather cyclical (pun unintended)
Don't worry about it. Doesn't do any harm - only gives folk like me something to moan about! Faster than a tent.......0
