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

AstraMonti

MajesticDonkey wrote: »

You sound very much like you have a large chip on your shoulder regarding this.

I have problems with anything that presents itself like the ultimate truth without any real evidence behind it, and helmets just ticks this box. I am sorry if my response sounded aggressive towards you, that was not my intention.

Yeah, seeing as you brought it up, let's inject some of that group thinking. No (club) cyclist I know would go cycling without a helmet. I'm simply giving MY experience. I already asked someone to break down to me how it does the contrary. Tell me:

1. Do you think the selling of helmets is just a big marketing stunt?
2. If not, why are they being sold and promoted as "safety equipment"?

As far as I know, clubs are obliged for insurances reasons to have their riders wear helmets, but I am open to correction on that.
1) I think a huge part of helmet sales is ruthless marketing, wear this hat or ll die miserably.
2) McDonalds sell their stuff as good for your kids too, do you believe them? 100% irish beef after all.

Again, my argument comes to the presentation and wording. A helmet can potentially be helpful under very certain circumstances and under other very explicit situations it can be counterproductive. We don't have the data to support that helmets are indeed a "significant safety improvement".

smacl

AstraMonti wrote: »

1) I think a huge part of helmet sales is ruthless marketing

FYP.

MajesticDonkey

AstraMonti wrote: »

I am sorry if my response sounded aggressive towards you, that was not my intention.

No problem.

AstraMonti wrote: »

As far as I know, clubs are obliged for insurances reasons to have their riders wear helmets, but I am open to correction on that.

Yes, you're right in that - which I didn't think of. I suppose the question to ask after that is why does insurance cover state that you must wear a helmet?

doozerie

smacl wrote:

So basically what you are saying is that there are so many variables in play that the potential benefit, or potential extra danger, in wearing a helmet is extremely difficult to determine.

Yes, with current evidence available that I am aware of I am not convinced by either of the arguments that helmets are necessary or that they are outright dangerous. I do believe that either could apply in any particular situation, but I don't accept either as a valid generalisation.

What bothers me more than the shortage of reputable scientific study on the topic though is the apparent reluctance of many people to question the assumed benefits of helmets. In my view we should be asking whether the existing safety standards are adequate, or even appropriate, and whether there is even a willingness amongst helmet manufacturers to invest in further study into "safer" helmets. Where everyone is free to make their own choice about wearing a helmet then it's down to each of us to reason for ourselves whether we trust the cycle helmet industry and the standards they are obliged to meet. But where we are all being actively urged to wear a helmet due to the *assumed* protection it provides then we really should be calling for more information before we basically have helmets foisted upon us by those whose faith in them is based on nothing more than fear of imagined dangers and ignorance of what helmets are actually capable of.

magicbastarder

biggest problem i ever had with a cycle helmet is that the guys i was in school with didn't consider the fact it was vented when they poured lighter fluid on it and set it alight. while i was wearing it.

droidus

MajesticDonkey wrote: »

Yes, you're right in that - which I didn't think of. I suppose the question to ask after that is why does insurance cover state that you must wear a helmet?

Because insurance is all about reducing risk, not balancing costs and benefits of safety equipment.

BTW, Im not a huge fan of their work, but there was a good bit in freakanomics 2 about the utility of child car seats. Worth a look for anyone interested in how 'the obvious and unproven' is sometimes completely wrong.

MajesticDonkey

droidus wrote: »

Because insurance is all about reducing risk, not balancing costs and benefits of safety equipment.

So, from that statement, it can be said that, in general, wearing a helmet reduces risk of injury while cycling?

droidus

MajesticDonkey wrote: »

So, from that statement, it can be said that, in general, wearing a helmet reduces risk of injury while cycling?

No, you can conclude that Insurance companies like ticking boxes and avoiding being sued for negligence.

The one place where a helmet will definitely NOT help is when crashing headfirst during a 60kmph descent.

smacl

droidus wrote: »

The one place where a helmet will definitely NOT help is when crashing headfirst during a 60kmph descent.

Helped a guy out of the ditch on the Military road last weekend, who said he'd been doing 70kph, though he may have inflated the speed. Back wheel buckled and saddle snapped off and new Giant MTB, though God knows how he managed that on a bog road. He seemed pretty much in tact, and I've no idea whether or not the helmet he was wearing contributed to that.

Point being that crashing at 60kph does not equate to impacting a hard surface at 60kph. Many of the 60kph direct impacts on cyclists could as easily be when the combined speed with an oncoming vehicle is 60kph, where the cyclist speed might be less than 20kph to that total speed. As per Doozeries post, it's a bit dangerous to speculate what type of scenario is most common for high impact accidents. Listing the scenarios where a helmet will or won't help you isn't of much benefit until you can show that those scenarios are a common occurrence. The same could of course be said for wearing a helmet in the first place. I've stopped wearing a helmet for the short commute / shopping type trips, but continue to do so for the long leisure spins. Every possibility that I've got this the wrong way around.

droidus

I agree. Helmets are not designed for high speed impacts full stop, regardless of whether another vehicle is involved.

"The foreword to BSI Standard
6863:1987 read as follows:
‘It (the standard) specifi es
requirements for helmets
intended for use by pedal cyclists
on ordinary roads, particularly by
young riders in the 5 years to 14
years age group, but which may
also be suitable for off the road. It
is not intended for high-speed or
long distance cycling, or for riders
taking part in competitive events.
The level of protection offered is
less than that given by helmets for
motorcycle riders and is intended
to give protection in the kind
of accident in which the rider
falls onto the road without other
vehicles being involved."

So I'm simply making the point that the one place where a cyclist is compelled to wear a helmet is one place where they are less likely to be effective as (presumably) the majority of accidents will be at higher speeds. (unless someone falls over at the starting line or cycles into a lampost at low speed.)

CramCycle

MajesticDonkey wrote: »

No problem.


Yes, you're right in that - which I didn't think of. I suppose the question to ask after that is why does insurance cover state that you must wear a helmet?

droidus wrote: »

Because insurance is all about reducing risk, not balancing costs and benefits of safety equipment..

MajesticDonkey wrote: »

So, from that statement, it can be said that, in general, wearing a helmet reduces risk of injury while cycling?

Reducing the risk to the company not the cyclist as any legal egg head will assure you. If it goes to court, you are at the whim of the judge or jury. Typical question "why no helmet?" Plantiff: "Insurance company never mentioned it/said it was not necessary".

Regardless of the facts, the judge/jury would generally find for the plantiff, nothings to do with protecting the cyclist, just covering the insurance company.

Capt'n Midnight

droidus wrote: »

The level of protection offered is
less than that given by helmets for
motorcycle riders and is intended
to give protection in the kind
of accident in which the rider
falls onto the road without other
vehicles being involved.

cycling helmets just aren't designed to offer significant protection from motorists

Capt'n Midnight

steamengine wrote: »

+1............it's like being on a sinking ship and refusing to wear a lifejacket because by jumping into the water from the deck one could snap one's neck, or one could choke using the whistle. !

Actually it's more like the old lifejackets that got watersoaked after a few hours and sank and/or had too much buoyancy at the back which would force the face of an unconcious person into the water. A lot of people have died because of them. given the choice use a modern lifejacket before an antique one.


if you want to protect your head from motorists wear a motorbike helmet

Beasty

rollingscone wrote: »

Ahem,

Which would you prefer - this thread being kept open, or new ones being started on the same subject going over exactly the same points every 3-4 months?

This way, if you've had enough of helmet threads, you just have the one to ignore

Sarz91

I remember reading on this sub section about people giving out about the standards to which helmets have to adhere to. In short the tests are conducted under quite slow speeds. Which people believe is completely unrealistic and I agree.

Having said this however, how is this any different to any other standards for other products? In my line of work, scaffolding, I design all platforms with a factor of safety of 4. This sounds really impressive until you realise that all tests are conducted with ccompletely static loads.

Look at crash tests for cars as another example. Most tests are conducted at sub 60 kmh.

enas

Sarz91 wrote: »

I remember reading on this sub section about people giving out about the standards to which helmets have to adhere to. In short the tests are conducted under quite slow speeds. Which people believe is completely unrealistic and I agree.

Having said this however, how is this any different to any other standards for other products? In my line of work, scaffolding, I design all platforms with a factor of safety of 4. This sounds really impressive until you realise that all tests are conducted with ccompletely static loads.

Look at crash tests for cars as another example. Most tests are conducted at sub 60 kmh.

I think, but I could be wrong, that the main issue with those tests is not so much about the slow speed than the fact the don't really test situations that realistically happen. Crash tests for cars try to simulate as closely as possible different types of accidents. I'm not aware that any helmet has been tested in an environment that tries to recreate the common types of cycling accidents. For that matter, I don't even know what are the common types of cycling accidents, how are head injuries most likely to happen, etc.

Capt'n Midnight

Sarz91 wrote: »

Look at crash tests for cars as another example. Most tests are conducted at sub 60 kmh.

Some estimates are up to 90% of pedestrians would be killed if hit at 60 kmh.

Only a proper motorbike helmet would offer significant protection.

RSA free speed surveys are scary reading, on some routes the vast majority of motorists exceed the speed limit

CramCycle

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

RSA free speed surveys are scary reading, on some routes the vast majority of motorists exceed the speed limit

I imagine that bar places with Gatso vans on a consistent basis that exceeding the limit is common on all Irish roads bar a couple of bohreens that are impossible to hit the 80kmph.

check_six

Headline on Yahoo website: "Van crash teen cyclist left in coma after he refused to wear a helmet because 'it would mess up his hair'"
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/ryan-smith-cyclist-crash-brain-damage-hospital-hair-mark-lincolnshire-120235065.html#01zuS4c

We can all have a lot of sympathy for this poor lad and his family, but why is the reason he is in a coma claimed to be the lack of a helmet? He was involved in a collision with a van which had enough ferocity to put him in a coma. No helmet is going to mitigate against that, surely? I don't like the implication that it was the boy's fault due to his hat choice that he is in this state, rather than what the van driver did, or what choice he made while cycling.

MajesticDonkey

check_six wrote: »

Headline on Yahoo website: "Van crash teen cyclist left in coma after he refused to wear a helmet because 'it would mess up his hair'"
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/ryan-smith-cyclist-crash-brain-damage-hospital-hair-mark-lincolnshire-120235065.html#01zuS4c

We can all have a lot of sympathy for this poor lad and his family, but why is the reason he is in a coma claimed to be the lack of a helmet? He was involved in a collision with a van which had enough ferocity to put him in a coma. No helmet is going to mitigate against that, surely? I don't like the implication that it was the boy's fault due to his hat choice that he is in this state, rather than what the van driver did, or what choice he made while cycling.

We don't know the speed the van (or he) was doing, so it's impossible to comment whether or not a helmet would have saved him - so there's no point arguing about it.

doozerie

check_six wrote:

Headline on Yahoo website: "Van crash teen cyclist left in coma after he refused to wear a helmet because 'it would mess up his hair'"
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/ryan-smith-...5.html#01zuS4c

We can all have a lot of sympathy for this poor lad and his family, but why is the reason he is in a coma claimed to be the lack of a helmet? He was involved in a collision with a van which had enough ferocity to put him in a coma. No helmet is going to mitigate against that, surely? I don't like the implication that it was the boy's fault due to his hat choice that he is in this state, rather than what the van driver did, or what choice he made while cycling.

Some media sources are tabloid tripe and there is nothing that will ever change that, and the way this story is reported exactly in that mould. It is clearly disrespectful and offensive to the victim of a collision to suggest that responsibility for their circumstance lies with them for a choice (not to wear a helmet) that was entirely valid for them to make. They might just as well report that responsibility lies with the van driver for choosing to drive that day rather than, for example, walk or cycle or take the bus - but in the absence of any investigation into the incident by the police which might give a clue as to the cause of the collision, a report like that would just as ridiculous and equally offensive.

But the article is clearly designed to tug at peoples' heart-strings and it'll most likely succeed in that, and as most of the comments on that page clearly demonstrate it will in some cases at least elicit animosity towards other cyclists that make the same valid choice of not wearing a helmet. Lazy people like simple scenarios, and lazy people will jump on any bandwagon that tries to simplify a complex area into: good people wear helmets whilst cycling, bad people don't. Lazy people seem to love tabloids telling them how to think, they probably see no contradiction in letting their sympathy for the unfortunate teenager fuel their animosity towards him by blaming him for his circumstances - tabloids tell them it's perfectly okay to live with such a contradiction, therefore it must be okay.

Lumen

doozerie wrote: »

Some media sources are tabloid tripe and there is nothing that will ever change that, and the way this story is reported exactly in that mould.

Seriously injured cyclist, 16, did not wear helmet because he 'did not want to mess up his hair'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/transport/10257278/Seriously-injured-cyclist-16-did-not-wear-helmet-because-he-did-not-want-to-mess-up-his-hair.html

doozerie

Lumen wrote:

Seriously injured cyclist, 16, did not wear helmet because he 'did not want to mess up his hair'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...-his-hair.html

I'm not entirely sure what to make of The Telegraph generally. That article certainly falls into the tabloid category, that's for sure, but they've put a veneer of responsible reporting around it by including some of the facts. Their emphasis on the lack of a helmet is all the more insidious for that, as is their emphasis on the emotive quotes of parents who must surely be grieving and therefore currently not well placed to inform any debate on the benefit, or not, of helmets and yet they are reported as apparently seeking helmet use as mandatory. If I was in their shoes I'd be distraught too and might well blame everything and everyone for the circumstances my family found ourselves in, however irrational. A responsible media source wouldn't exploit that fairly understandable hysteria for its own gain (either to sell print copies or to push its own agenda) though.

MajesticDonkey

doozerie wrote: »

parents who must surely be grieving and therefore currently not well placed to inform any debate on the benefit, or not, of helmets and yet they are reported as apparently seeking helmet use as mandatory. If I was in their shoes I'd be distraught too and might well blame everything and everyone for the circumstances my family found ourselves in, however irrational.

I disagree. I think the opinion of most people (how ever right or wrong) is that helmets save lives. It's nothing to do with being distraught or irrational.

check_six

Reading the articles again, it seems to be the dad's quotes that are pushing the helmet agenda. He is a paramedic and I could imagine that he has seen a number of head injuries in his time. However, I can't help feeling that this is colouring his view. It's a bit like the fireman who assumes that all houses are on fire, or all cats are stuck in trees because they are the only houses and cats they see.

doozerie

MajesticDonkey wrote:

I disagree. I think the opinion of most people (how ever right or wrong) is that helmets save lives. It's nothing to do with being distraught or irrational.

I suspect that most people have never put any thought into whether helmets save lives and so have not formed an opinion on that very specific question at all. If you pushed such people to express an opinion then they might well say that helmets probably provide some measure of protection, but I'd guess that few such disinterested people would advocate that everyone *must* wear a helmet though.

That's where the emotional state of the parent(s) in this case is likely to skew their perspective, the father in this case appears to be arguing that helmets should be made compulsory (this is suggested in the Telegraph article), or that everyone *should* wear a helmet at the very least. It is highly unlikely that he could give a well reasoned argument in favour of such a view, his current distress is almost certainly fuelling some or all of that stance, and any media source that makes his stance the cornerstone of their reporting on the situation is taking advantage of his circumstances.

Lumen

doozerie wrote: »

That article certainly falls into the tabloid category, that's for sure, but they've put a veneer of responsible reporting around it by including some of the facts. Their emphasis on the lack of a helmet is all the more insidious for that, as is their emphasis on the emotive quotes of parents who must surely be grieving and therefore currently not well placed to inform any debate on the benefit, or not, of helmets and yet they are reported as apparently seeking helmet use as mandatory. If I was in their shoes I'd be distraught too and might well blame everything and everyone for the circumstances my family found ourselves in, however irrational. A responsible media source wouldn't exploit that fairly understandable hysteria for its own gain (either to sell print copies or to push its own agenda) though.

The newspaper is apparently simply reporting the opinions of the relatives. It's not an editorial piece.

I suspect that what you really feel is "I don't want to read those opinions in my class of newspaper".

doozerie

Lumen wrote:

The newspaper is apparently simply reporting the opinions of the relatives. It's not an editorial piece.

I suspect that what you really feel is "I don't want to read those opinions in my class of newspaper".

No, what I really feel is that the newspaper needs to be more careful about what they print. The quotes are certainly those of the father (and all but one quote is from the father), but the newspaper chose to construct an entire piece consisting largely of those quotes.

They then tagged on a headline that either simply states a fact (he didn't wear a helmet) or casts scorn on the victim (his hair was *so* precious that he didn't wear a helmet), depending on which way you look at it. Whichever way you interpret that aspect of it though that headline immediately ties together the fact that the teenager was seriously injured with the fact that he did not wear a helmet. There is nothing in the article that gives reason to associate those two things into a headline that at its worst encourages people to draw the conclusion that the lack of helmet is reflected in the severity of the injuries.

Overall though I just find it distasteful that a newspaper use a family's grief as reason to print the view of an upset parent which is likely to be controversial (the same page has links to two other Telegraph articles that refer to the controversy around mandatory helmet usage). I'd take the same view if the opinion being expressed were, for example, that road speed limits should be cut in half (which is an opinion that I have some sympathy for).

MajesticDonkey

doozerie wrote: »

They then tagged on a headline that either simply states a fact (he didn't wear a helmet) or casts scorn on the victim (his hair was *so* precious that he didn't wear a helmet), depending on which way you look at it. Whichever way you interpret that aspect of it though that headline immediately ties together the fact that the teenager was seriously injured with the fact that he did not wear a helmet.

I think you're over-analysing it.

doozerie wrote: »

There is nothing in the article that gives reason to associate those two things into a headline that at its worst encourages people to draw the conclusion that the lack of helmet is reflected in the severity of the injuries.

...which would be a fairly reasonable conclusion in my opinion. I'm sorry, I just cannot for a second understand people who think wearing helmets is a bad idea.

Lumen

MajesticDonkey wrote: »

I'm sorry, I just cannot for a second understand people who think wearing helmets is a bad idea.

Nobody think wearing helmets is a bad idea.