Helmets - the definitive thread.. ** Mod Note - Please read Opening Post **

droidus

tomasrojo wrote: »

As mentioned before (I think in this thread), the cycle helmet probably could do with a fundamental re-think. The only really radical departure I can think off is the Hövding, which probably should be mentioned in this thread, seeing as it's the definitive helmet thread. Frequently derided, including by me, it has performed considerably better in standard linear impact tests than the standard helmet. Maybe will turn out to have its own unexpected safety issues. Who knows.

This is great news. A helmet that doesn't inconvenience the rider in any way and actually provides proper head and neck protection in the event of an accident.

Spook_ie

Dermot Illogical wrote: »

At what speed do you think these cyclists are to be thrown off their bicycles then? If it's to be the same speed that expels occupants from vehicles then perhaps Strava better put the lawyers on a retainer.

Would assume that the speed they get thrown off at would be proportionate as people exiting a car via a window usually stop halfway out before the end of the bonnet. So as said in general someone not wearing a seatbelt is only risking themselves when alone, which is where I came in

Originally Posted by Dermot Illogical View Post
It is for their safety, and that of anyone else they may be catapulted into on impact.
Whereas wearing (or not) a helmet on a bike doesn't affect anyone else but the cyclist. Not that you would think that from the amount of people who seem determined to interfere. I can only guess they possess the potent cocktail of pathetic skills with a dash of belief that those skills are as good as it gets, and as such are projecting their perception of risk onto others.
Wobble off the lot of you.

AstraMonti

droidus wrote: »

This is great news. A helmet that doesn't inconvenience the rider in any way and actually provides proper head and neck protection in the event of an accident.

Having your whole neck covered is really inconvenient! Maybe it's ok in the really cold part of the winter, but outside that, it's really terrible idea.

droidus

AstraMonti wrote: »

Having your whole neck covered is really inconvenient! Maybe it's ok in the really cold part of the winter, but outside that, it's really terrible idea.

More inconvenient than a helmet??

What if they built it into shoulders or backpack straps? Or a smaller collar?

If it offers the level of safety it seems to offer, anyone who now wears a helmet would be mad not to wear one.

smacl

droidus wrote: »

If it offers the level of safety it seems to offer, anyone who now wears a helmet would be mad not to wear one.

Mad, Ted? Substituting a cheapo piece of styrofoam that may or may not help in the case of an accident with an expensive unproven blow up yoke based on accelerometers and gyros that also may or not work. I don't think so. Maybe after it's been in use by a few hundred thousand people for a few years and shown to have some benefit.

droidus

smacl wrote: »

Mad, Ted? Substituting a cheapo piece of styrofoam that may or may not help in the case of an accident with an expensive unproven blow up yoke based on accelerometers and gyros that also may or not work. I don't think so.

Yeah, lets not substitute an unproven piece of technology that may or may not work (and certainly doesnt work at speeds where it would actually help prevent serious injury) for another unproven technology that might actually help prevent injury at those speeds.

Maybe after it's been in use by a few hundred thousand people for a few years and shown to have some benefit.

Im assuming you're joking here considering that one of the main conclusions so far on this thread is that the effectiveness and benefits of helmets is questionable.

Spook_ie

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

replacing the drivers airbag with a harpoon would improve the safety of other road users.

Likewise replacing the handlebar nut on a cycle with a spike would put manners on some cyclists or even making cyclehelmets like this compulsory would put manners on some pedestrians

CramCycle

Spook_ie wrote: »

or even making cyclehelmets like this compulsory would put manners on some pedestrians

Needs go faster stripes and some air holes for breathability,

AstraMonti

droidus wrote: »

More inconvenient than a helmet??

What if they built it into shoulders or backpack straps? Or a smaller collar?

If it offers the level of safety it seems to offer, anyone who now wears a helmet would be mad not to wear one.

I would much prefer to have a helmet on my head rather than this thing. My helmet weighs 190gr. This is not a viable solution for anyone apart from a very small amount of commuters. You really can't race with a thing like that in your neck.

smacl

droidus wrote: »

Im assuming you're joking here considering that one of the main conclusions so far on this thread is that the effectiveness and benefits of helmets is questionable.

Nope. Being an early adopter of a piece of unproven safety equipment just doesn't appeal to me for some reason, can't think why. I continue to wear my €20 lid from lidl as it keeps the wife happy, is unlikely to do me any harm, and doesn't inconvenience me in any way.

As for conclusions, so far all I'm seeing is that cycling may or may not be dangerous but probably isn't. If cycling were dangerous, a helmet may or may not help you but probably wouldn't, but that doesn't really matter because it probably isn't dangerous anyway. But if it was dangerous, there's this new funky gyroscopic airbag thingy that may or may not help you more than a helmet.

I think I might hang fire before rushing out to buy one of these...

Dermot Illogical

Spook_ie wrote: »

Would assume that the speed they get thrown off at would be proportionate as people exiting a car via a window usually stop halfway out before the end of the bonnet. So as said in general someone not wearing a seatbelt is only risking themselves when alone, which is where I came in

They do, do they? It's not Eastenders you know. In real life when someone exits a car during a high speed collision they can go a long way past the bonnet. 50-60 meters wouldn't be uncommon. But that's in real life, where they don't conveniently stop half way out to make things easy for everyone.

You're trying to equate a cyclist falling off a bike at max 50km/h with someone crashing a vehicle at anything up to 240km/h. But hey, if it makes sense to you then good luck with it.

Spook_ie

Dermot Illogical wrote: »

They do, do they? It's not Eastenders you know. In real life when someone exits a car during a high speed collision they can go a long way past the bonnet. 50-60 meters wouldn't be uncommon. But that's in real life, where they don't conveniently stop half way out to make things easy for everyone.

You're trying to equate a cyclist falling off a bike at max 50km/h with someone crashing a vehicle at anything up to 240km/h. But hey, if it makes sense to you then good luck with it.

Yeay yeah yeah, in a front end collision even without doors your not going out sideways, you are more than likely to be stopped by the steering wheel/dashboard windscreen, as in real life different accidents have different results but still comes back to a complete rejection of your argument ( even when you start posting about 2x the motorway speed limit to try and justify yourself and there's likely to be no car left to be ejected from!)

Originally Posted by Dermot Illogical View Post
It is for their safety, and that of anyone else they may be catapulted into on impact.
Whereas wearing (or not) a helmet on a bike doesn't affect anyone else but the cyclist. Not that you would think that from the amount of people who seem determined to interfere. I can only guess they possess the potent cocktail of pathetic skills with a dash of belief that those skills are as good as it gets, and as such are projecting their perception of risk onto others.
Wobble off the lot of you.

Airbag+Belted v. Neither

Whats left of a car after a 160Kph (100mph) collision into a solid wall and ( 2 x 50 mph )into another car

Spook_ie

Back to helmets or no helmets rather than seatbelts

Likely sequence of events if you get doored

Likely sequence for various scenarios involving kiddie seats and trailers

Dermot Illogical

Spook_ie wrote: »

Yeay yeah yeah, in a front end collision even without doors your not going out sideways, you are more than likely to be stopped by the steering wheel/dashboard windscreen, as in real life different accidents have different results but still comes back to a complete rejection of your argument ( even when you start posting about 2x the motorway speed limit to try and justify yourself and there's likely to be no car left to be ejected from!)

Great. Let's only have front end collisions where people never drive beyond speed limits (they never would, right?). Perhaps we can stop vehicles rolling as well, just to make sure the results amount to a "complete rejection" of any points I might make. I'm going to assume you've never been at the result of a high speed collision and put your argument down to naivety. See? I can be charitable sometimes.

Here. You know how to use Google, so you should have no problem finding more. There are a lot.

And as for "Back to helmets or no helmets rather than seatbelts", how about not derailing in the first place? Particularly with an argument which couldn't have been designed better if it's purpose was to epitomise cluelessness.

CramCycle

MOD VOICE: Let's not get uncivil or I start handing out cards, attack the post, not the poster, those are the rules, remember them

Spook_ie

MOD VOICE: There is a mod warning right above this, if the thread is being derailed, report the post, don't attack the poster

Capt'n Midnight

A reminder that there is no problem getting hard evidence that shows that motorcycle helmets protect motorcyclists. And this even when you take into account road improvements and other factors.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080612162240.htm

Pennsylvania motorcyclists suffered large increases in head injury deaths and hospitalizations in the two years following the repeal of its motorcycle helmet law, according to a University of Pittsburgh study. Even after accounting for increases in motorcycle registrations that occurred during this period, study authors noted a 32 percent increase in head injury deaths and a 42 percent increase in head injury-related hospitalizations, raising concerns about motorcyclists' safety and the impact of this trend on health care costs.

Capt'n Midnight

If safety was really the goal then are better ways of doing it.

First keep motorists away from cyclists since that's how ~77% of the deaths occur

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/02/130220131744.htm

North American cyclists are eight to 30 more times likely to be seriously injured while cycling than their counterparts in Germany, Denmark and The Netherlands. Harris says one explanation could be the availability of segregated bike lanes in those countries.
...
The researchers also found that painted and shared bike lanes commonly found in Toronto offered no significant protection for cyclists.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121018162207.htm

In contrast, infrastructure designed for cyclists -- including bike lanes on major streets without parked cars, residential street bike routes, and off-street bike paths -- carries about half the risk, while cycle tracks (physically separated bike lanes) carries the lowest injury risk for cyclists, at about one-tenth the risk.

Next upgrade the visual clues on the infrastructure to reduce the single cyclist collisions. This should be relatively cheap. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121012074657.htm

What the authors found was that in those crashes where a single cyclist collided with a bollard, narrowed road or other obstacle, or rode off the road altogether, poor visibility and especially poor visual contrast played a significant part. Schepers and den Brinker also investigated how issues with a cyclist's 'focal' vision (seeing the 'far' road ahead to plan for future hazards) and 'ambient' vision (seeing the 'near' road to correct the bicycle's current position) can contribute to a crash.

As a result of their study, the authors question the common assumption that cyclists 'can do without a minimal level of guidance and conspicuity of (design-related) obstacles'.

They state that 'the visibility of critical information in the visual periphery is indeed important for safe cycling' and make several recommendations, including applying edge lines to the curves on bicycle paths, especially on those with high levels of cycling, no street lighting or a risk of glare from oncoming vehicles.

Schepers and den Brinker also suggest that adding warning centre lines to two-way cycle paths, increasing the visibility of bollards with contrasting colours, and using 'profiled' markings to alert a cyclist riding behind another to dangers ahead could all help prevent crashes.

If more of the journey is safe then you can afford to take more time at critical junctions. For example you can turn right by going straight through the junction and stopping in front of the traffic to the left and waiting for the lights to change. It would take forever if you did that at every junction though.

galwaycyclist

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

If safety was really the goal then are better ways of doing it.

First keep motorists away from cyclists since that's how ~77% of the deaths occur
<snip>

With respect this is not the place to kick off a rehash of the debate over cycling infrastructure.

The methodology used by Harris and her colleagues has been criticised in a response to their paper.

http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/early/2013/02/13/injuryprev-2012-040561.full/reply#injuryprev_el_9940

It is probably better to explore this by re-opening one of the cycle lane threads.

Spook_ie

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

If safety was really the goal then are better ways of doing it.

First keep motorists away from cyclists since that's how ~77% of the deaths occur

Or you could keep cyclists away from cars, it's always me, me, me with cyclists

CramCycle

galwaycyclist wrote: »

It is probably better to explore this by re-opening one of the cycle lane threads.

MOD VOICE: Excellent point, this is a general thread for Helmet discussion, if everyone can try and keep it to this topic, I have slipped myself, from now on, posts not directly/indirectly related to helmets will be deleted.

If something comes up not related please start a new thread and ask me to copy over related posts.

Thanks

doozerie

Spook_ie wrote: »

Likely sequence for various scenarios involving kiddie seats and trailers

Not speaking the language in that video I don't know what point it is trying to make, as the person who posted it perhaps you can elaborate. It's of particular interest to me because my wife and I have been using a child trailer for 3 years or so now, and the video seems to focus on child trailers and the impression the video leaves (in the absence of a translation of the dialogue) is that trailers are somehow dangerous, or something.

The idea that child trailers are dangerous is a misconception that we have encountered directly amongst a minority of people who have approached us about our trailer and invariably it is a view fueled by ignorance (e.g. "is that child not wearing a helmet in there? *swoon*" while completely ignoring the significant safety features of the trailer itself) and/or obnoxiousness (e.g. "you'll kill your child by taking her around in *that*!" as yelled by a woman driver who had almost driven my wife and daughter off the road only moments before in an attempt to overtake them against oncoming traffic). It is a view that doesn't stray far from the notion that a helmet is essential, even for someone enclosed in a roll cage and held in place by a 5-point harness. For its part, the video shows a kid wearing a helmet in a trailer, which is a complete no-no for many trailers as it would force the child's head forward creating some serious potential problems. The most extreme examples of hysteria around the "helmets are essential" debate tend to extend to include everything in sight, seeming to suggest that absolutely everything cycle related is voluntary suicide. That video appears to convey that attitude, but perhaps you can clarify.

CramCycle

doozerie wrote: »

Not speaking the language in that video I don't know what point it is trying to make, as the person who posted it perhaps you can elaborate.

Don't speak the language either but it looks like* trailers are far safer than those seats on the back. Kid on the back seat seems to have the weight of his helmet tugging his neck sideways in the side drop. In the rear hit, the kid gets slammed in the seat by his parent and the car, the trailer seems to hold together, although I presume it is at "legal" city speeds, and not the speeds I expect in Dublin city centre.

*My view, I'd love the stats, details etc.

Spook_ie

doozerie wrote: »

Not speaking the language in that video I don't know what point it is trying to make, as the person who posted it perhaps you can elaborate. It's of particular interest to me because my wife and I have been using a child trailer for 3 years or so now, and the video seems to focus on child trailers and the impression the video leaves (in the absence of a translation of the dialogue) is that trailers are somehow dangerous, or something.

The idea that child trailers are dangerous is a misconception that we have encountered directly amongst a minority of people who have approached us about our trailer and invariably it is a view fueled by ignorance (e.g. "is that child not wearing a helmet in there? *swoon*" while completely ignoring the significant safety features of the trailer itself) and/or obnoxiousness (e.g. "you'll kill your child by taking her around in *that*!" as yelled by a woman driver who had almost driven my wife and daughter off the road only moments before in an attempt to overtake them against oncoming traffic). It is a view that doesn't stray far from the notion that a helmet is essential, even for someone enclosed in a roll cage and held in place by a 5-point harness. For its part, the video shows a kid wearing a helmet in a trailer, which is a complete no-no for many trailers as it would force the child's head forward creating some serious potential problems. The most extreme examples of hysteria around the "helmets are essential" debate tend to extend to include everything in sight, seeming to suggest that absolutely everything cycle related is voluntary suicide. That video appears to convey that attitude, but perhaps you can clarify.

If I understood German possibly but the videos were posted as stated to show the likely sequence of events involved in various collisions involving doors, child trailers and child seats

Spook_ie wrote: »

Back to helmets or no helmets rather than seatbelts

Likely sequence of events if you get doored
<snipped video>
Likely sequence for various scenarios involving kiddie seats and trailers
<snipped video>

Did find this under google translate which may specifically be of interest to you though.
http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?act=url&depth=1&hl=en&ie=UTF8&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=de&tl=en&u=http://www.adac.de/infotestrat/tests/fahrrad-zubehoer-sport/kinderfahrradanhaenger-test/kinderfahrradanhaenger_2010/default.aspx%3FComponentId%3D25150%26SourcePageId%3D31911&usg=ALkJrhhvniVYqOIBZRIZky4in-bYDM_M1w

CramCycle

Spook_ie wrote: »

If I understood German possibly but the videos were posted as stated to show the likely sequence of events involved in various collisions involving doors, child trailers and child seats

In my opinion (and I know I could be horrifically wrong) the video with the dooring was not reliable, I realise the best you can do without getting a guy in a padded suit to cycle around a line of parked cars and have someone door him at random.

Reactions by the cyclist are not taken into consideration. I imagine in a typical dooring it would be very different, I have met guys who have got stuck in the window, went over the door, fell into traffic, a dummy with no reactions is not reliable and therefore makes any data relating to the helmets unreliable at best.

Spook_ie

CramCycle wrote: »

In my opinion (and I know I could be horrifically wrong) the video with the dooring was not reliable, I realise the best you can do without getting a guy in a padded suit to cycle around a line of parked cars and have someone door him at random.

Reactions by the cyclist are not taken into consideration. I imagine in a typical dooring it would be very different, I have met guys who have got stuck in the window, went over the door, fell into traffic, a dummy with no reactions is not reliable and therefore makes any data relating to the helmets unreliable at best.

Quite possible because there are too many variables to account for, height of the door, weight of the cyclist, type of cycle, Window open/closed, speed etc. but none the less still an effective demonstration of what can happen when the unexpected strikes without the chance to react as in this real life situation ( don't watch if you're not keen on real life crashes, but nothing gory )

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqZno0NiR7g

doozerie

Spook_ie wrote:

If I understood German possibly but the videos were posted as stated to show the likely sequence of events involved in various collisions involving doors, child trailers and child seats

I still don't understand what point(s) you are trying to make through posting those videos, hence my asking that you clarify what you are trying to convey.

swansea

For those not wearing a helmet, would you have a max speed you would go? Or does that not matter?

galwaycyclist

swansea wrote: »

For those not wearing a helmet, would you have a max speed you would go? Or does that not matter?

At a personal level I try to go at a speed where I am confident of my ability to stop in the space available.

At a broader level it does not matter. Many of the cyclists who would prefer not to wear helmets will likely wish to travel at a speed where they do not start sweating or getting their clothes messed up, say if cycling to work, cycling to the shop, going to town for a meal etc

Capt'n Midnight

CramCycle wrote: »

Don't speak the language either but it looks like* trailers are far safer than those seats on the back.

You also have to factor in the greater target area, especially if the trailer is hidden behind the bonnet of another car. Swings and roundabouts depending on the collision.

CramCycle wrote: »

In my opinion (and I know I could be horrifically wrong) the video with the dooring was not reliable,

the dooring was at 40Km/h

my guess is that in most cases the cyclist will have braked somewhat
and there are also the doorings where the door is opened as the cyclist passes and so pushes them into traffic



And speaking of brakes, about half of motobike collisions are below ~25mph, and the vertical drop is usually the biggest force. Something about the Hurt survey finding that every motorcyclist who died wearing a helmet would have died of other injuries anyway.

Which brings me back to , why is it so hard to prove cycling helmets improve safety when it's an open and shut case for motorcycle helmets ?

Could it be that cycling helmets aren't fit for purpose / worn incorrectly or is it that cycling is so intrinsically safe that the benefit is so marginal that it isn't statistically significant ? Or is it that cycling is so dangerous / bicycles have so little momentum that a helmet isn't much use ? Anyone have stats on moped drivers vs. motorcyclists to see if that sheds any light ?