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

Chips Lovell

Weepsie wrote: »

Fractured an elbow coming off a bike a few years ago. Was asked was I wearing a helmet....

You could have strapped it on your elbow I suppose.

magicbastarder

Andy From Sligo wrote: »

well - I really cannot get my head around why making them compulsory increases the odds of having an accident

i'm going to quote figures that i may have misremembered.
when they introduced a mandatory helmet law in australia, the level of cycling fell by about 45%, and the level of head injuries fell by about 45%. i.e. even though everyone was now wearing helmets, there was no extra fall in the level of head injuries.

Andy From Sligo

Not saying the UK is superior (always have to ad this line when describing UK because some people take offence) but the UK is our nearest neighbours after all and we are similar in a lot (not all) ways - but how do we fare here in Ireland with wearing helmets when cycling compared to UK? - is it compulsory in UK to wear helmets when cycling? - I think its a requirement if you ride a moped upwards but what about cycling?

tomasrojo

Andy From Sligo wrote: »

Not saying the UK is superior (always have to ad this line when describing UK because some people take offence) but the UK is our nearest neighbours after all and we are similar in a lot (not all) ways - but how do we fare here in Ireland with wearing helmets when cycling compared to UK? - is it compulsory in UK to wear helmets when cycling? - I think its a requirement if you ride a moped upwards but what about cycling?

Why don't you read some of this thread?

tomasrojo

rubadub wrote: »

The point was made that if a doctor who studies the overall good of the population was asked if he thinks if it is safer to wear helmets or if they should be made mandatory, then he will likely have read the studies and say could say no. I cannot remember the name of this type of doctor, could be related to pandemics or something.

Epidemiologist, I think. Such as Ben Goldacre, who, along with David Spiegelhalter, world-renowned statistician and Winton Professor for the Public Understanding of Risk at Cambridge, wrote in the BMJ that the direct benefit of helmet wearing appeared to be too modest to capture (in normal English, pretty small to very small).

doozerie

Andy From Sligo wrote: »

Not saying the UK is superior (always have to ad this line when describing UK because some people take offence) but the UK is our nearest neighbours after all and we are similar in a lot (not all) ways - but how do we fare here in Ireland with wearing helmets when cycling compared to UK? - is it compulsory in UK to wear helmets when cycling? - I think its a requirement if you ride a moped upwards but what about cycling?

Some questions to counter your questions:

* Does wearing a helmet make you safer while cycling? The answer is that no-one can answer this definitively for all people for all cases, not even "experts". Generalisations in this area basically suck.

* Are you happy with the safety standard that helmets sold in the EU are obliged to comply with? Do you know what those standard are (what they measure, etc.)? Are you aware that the minimum safety standards differ in different areas of the world, and do you wonder why?

* If you use a helmet do you replace it if you accidentally drop it, as recommended by helmet manufacturers? Do you replace it after it reaches a certain age on the basis that polystyrene degrades and do you wonder why some helmet manufacturers adopt a view/recommendation on this while others seem not to? Shouldn't they all have a consistent view on a piece of safety equipment that many would like you to believe is essential to survival?

* How many cyclists die in Ireland each year? How many of them died while wearing a helmet? Of those that died while not wearing a helmet, how many would have survived had they been wearing a helmet?

* Are you aware that wearing a helmet can itself be a source of danger in certain circumstances (e.g. kids in a playground, where strangulation is a real and unfortunately demonstrated risk)?

Etc.

Many, and perhaps all, of these questions (and many more besides) have been raised and discussed in this thread already. Many of those questions have no easy answers, some can't really be answered reliably at all. If you take nothing else from that, you should take away the knowledge that this is not a simple topic, there are no simple answers.

It's not a simple case of helmet = good, no helmet = bad, or vice versa. And no matter how hard we try we can't shoehorn this topic in that nice tidy category.

CramCycle

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRed2YNYZoQ

Andy From Sligo

tomasrojo wrote: »

Why don't you read some of this thread?

yes i should do .. apologies

HugoMyBoss

Just seen a discount store offering cycling helmets for 15 euro.

Is ther any difference between these ones and the ones you pay bigger money for?

CramCycle

HugoMyBoss wrote: »

Just seen a discount store offering cycling helmets for 15 euro.

Is ther any difference between these ones and the ones you pay bigger money for?

The more expensive ones will probably be more aero, better ventilated, maybe MIPS and typically look more stylish. For bare bones what it is meant to do, nope, very little difference.

doozerie

I’d add to that that some helmet manufacturers take a (claimed) different approach to their helmet design that they’d have you believe makes their helmets better/safer/more magical (delete as appropriate, depending on your point of view).

Lazer certainly used to include the info in their blurb (can’t recall the details off-hand but I have a vague memory of some internal sub-structure within the polystyrene or something), Catlike had/have some other approach, I think that POC claim great things for whatever “technology” they use, and Kali helmets have a different take too. Etc. This is all to do with the basic function/design of the helmet as something that absorbs shock “more effectively” (claimed) than competing brands, they all also have other differing traits of course such as different mechanisms for adjusting fit (Lazer use a dial, which I like personally), etc.

All of these self-proclaimed safety “differentiators” tend to add a premium to the helmet cost. Good luck to anyone trying to distinguish between the marketing nonsense and the real benefit (or not) of such different approaches though.

I read some interesting stuff about/by Kali recently though (LINK) which to my mind marks them out as perhaps being more honest than other manufacturers about the shortcomings of current helmet safety standards. That doesn’t guarantee that they produce “better” helmets of course, but as an approach I think it’s a step in the right direction.

tomasrojo

I haven't seen any Which?-style comparisons in a while, but manufacturers are pretty competitive and they manufacture to meet the EN 1078 standard (think that's the code for it) and probably not much further, since that's the only criterion they have to meet to be a "bicycle helmet" in the Single Market. So that's still, after all these years: 5kg headform in the helmet, drop it 1.5m, make sure the liner doesn't crack (pretty much; they test the buckle too).

coolbeans

Andy From Sligo wrote: »

Not saying the UK is superior (always have to ad this line when describing UK because some people take offence) but the UK is our nearest neighbours after all and we are similar in a lot (not all) ways - but how do we fare here in Ireland with wearing helmets when cycling compared to UK? - is it compulsory in UK to wear helmets when cycling? - I think its a requirement if you ride a moped upwards but what about cycling?

Let me Google that for you...actually, how about doing some research?

tomasrojo

Actually, I'll answer the UK question, since I know off-hand. The UK has no mandatory bicycle helmet law for any age, and neither does Ireland. There are a few adult laws in Europe, not many, and more child-age helmet laws in Europe, but I think most countries still have no laws either way, and some of the laws carry no penalty (Finland, and I think Austria).

Steoller

Andy From Sligo wrote: »

well - I really cannot get my head around why making them compulsory increases the odds of having an accident ... well OK maybe I get what I could call a theory that if people wear a helmet that it might make them feel a bit safer so they can try out different stunts or put too much confidence in a helmet protecting their whole bodies so it would cause them to take more risks ...er but then I think thats idiotic then  - is this really what happens when people start to wear helmets they get more dangerous on bikes????

There is an element of that psychological phenomenon - that people take more risks when helmeted. There is also the phenomenon whereby drivers in proximity of helmeted cyclists give them less room (increasing risk).
There is also the impact to cyclist numbers. Making helmets compulsory reduces participation whereever it is brought in. This impacts on the herd effect where there is safety in numbers for cyclists. The more cyclists there are, the more road space they are given, the more used to interacting with them drivers become. If you reduce the number of cyclists, this safety in numbers drops. One of the most effective ways to improve cyclist safety is to increase cyclist numbers - compulsory helmet laws act against this. It's also one of the reasons compulsory hi-viz, or cyclist licensing is opposed
I hope you can see the difference between opposing compulsory use and opposing helmets. If i'm racing , or mountain biking, or doing anything where my risk is increased, such as cycling on country roads, I'll wear a helmet, but I shouldn't need one for pootling down to the shop for some milk. Much like if a driver is rallying or, go karting, they'll wear a helmet, but for everyday commuting, they don't need to.

tomasrojo

Steoller wrote: »

I shouldn't need one for pootling down to the shop for some milk

This is a good point I was thinking about the other day. There are a lot of short, local, start/stop journeys that can be done by bike very easily, more easily than any other form of transport, but not if you have to carry extra gear. People, especially policy makers, think about "commutes" all the time, but sometimes you just have some stuff to do locally, and you should be able to just grab a bike and a lock and do them. No more thought than if all the things were within 100m of you and you decided to walk.

I know some people think a few extra things being added to the list of stuff you need to do before leaving doesn't matter, but every little irritant or delay noticeably deters a large fraction of the population, even if you personally don't mind.

Andy From Sligo

Steoller wrote: »

There is an element of that psychological phenomenon - that people take more risks when helmeted. There is also the phenomenon whereby drivers in proximity of helmeted cyclists give them less room (increasing risk).
There is also the impact to cyclist numbers. Making helmets compulsory reduces participation whereever it is brought in. This impacts on the herd effect where there is safety in numbers for cyclists. The more cyclists there are, the more road space they are given, the more used to interacting with them drivers become. If you reduce the number of cyclists, this safety in numbers drops. One of the most effective ways to improve cyclist safety is to increase cyclist numbers - compulsory helmet laws act against this. It's also one of the reasons compulsory hi-viz, or cyclist licensing is opposed
I hope you can see the difference between opposing compulsory use and opposing helmets. If i'm racing , or mountain biking, or doing anything where my risk is increased, such as cycling on country roads, I'll wear a helmet, but I shouldn't need one for pootling down to the shop for some milk. Much like if a driver is rallying or, go karting, they'll wear a helmet, but for everyday commuting, they don't need to.

yeah that makes sense i suppose

Enduro

A good opinion piece on Helmets / victim blaming from a U.S. perspective here

doozerie

Enduro wrote: »

A good opinion piece on Helmets / victim blaming from a U.S. perspective here

These paragraphs are, to me, a very accurate summary of the nonsensical hysteria around helmets:

The bicycle helmet is a VBS sufferer’s dream come true. If cyclists wear helmets, you don’t have to worry about them, and if they don’t, then whatever happens to them is their own fault. This is why we’ve now reached a point where bicycling without wearing a helmet elicits the sort of visceral scorn usually reserved for smoking in a nursery or masturbating at a funeral. Our fixation on the bicycle helmet is completely out of proportion to even the most optimistic analysis of their safety benefits, as well as to the purported dangers of riding a bicycle without one. Really, the only explanation for our helmet fervor is that it’s a manifestation of our deep, VBS-induced contempt for the act of casual cycling.

This isn’t to say helmets are useless or that you shouldn’t wear one, but it is to say that if you find yourself getting angry when others don’t, then you’re kind of being an asshole. And by being an asshole you’re undermining the most important factor in making cycling safe, which is getting more people out there on bikes.

I wonder how many people that preach the "wear a helmet (or you deserve whatever happens to you)" mantra apply the same "logic" so enthusiastically to holding the handrail when descending stairs to avoid death or serious injury by falling, not wearing high heels to avoid damaging your feet and your back, wearing a vest to "avoid catching a cold", limiting your time in front of any screen to avoid damaging your eyes, don't run with scissors or you'll die, etc.

Some of those bits of advice have good scientific evidence to support them, some don't, chances are we just pick the ones that suit us (and that impose the least possible hassle on us personally) regardless of their merits because ultimately we don't care about the welfare of others as we'd like people to believe, we just want to exert our ill-informed influence on them.

doozerie

tomasrojo wrote: »

I haven't seen any Which?-style comparisons in a while, but manufacturers are pretty competitive and they manufacture to meet the EN 1078 standard (think that's the code for it) and probably not much further, since that's the only criterion they have to meet to be a "bicycle helmet" in the Single Market. So that's still, after all these years: 5kg headform in the helmet, drop it 1.5m, make sure the liner doesn't crack (pretty much; they test the buckle too).

I struggle to make sense of the helmet industry. On those occasions that I wear a helmet I want it to be one that offers the greatest chance of helping me should I wallop my head. There are so many variables that in my view it's impossible to be definitive, but last time I read the details of the US safety standard for helmets, several years ago now, I came away believing that helmets meeting that standard are likely to be "better" than those meeting EN1078.

But finding helmets in the EU that also meet the US standard is not easy, or wasn't when I last checked anyway. Some of the helmets I have bought were surrounded by marketing guff that subtly proclaimed them as superior to any other helmets, yet some of them hadn't met the US safety standard by then so, depending on your point of view either their capabilities hadn't been recognised yet or their marketing was full of lies/groundless claims.

I guess, when it comes to safety equipment, you have a challenge when you make similar products at differing price points. You want people to buy your high-end, more expensive, helmets and claiming them to be somehow "safer" is one way to make them more appealing. But you have to be careful that you don't undermine confidence in your low-end helmets by seeming to imply that they are not safe "enough". But you also want to undermine your competitors, and if you seem to imply that their helmets are not "safe enough" you risk undermining faith (in the EU) in EN1078 itself which then also reflects poorly on your own products which may conform only to that same standard. Etc.

At its worst, the safety standard is just a marketing tool. That's the nature of any standard, I guess, but I would expect safety standards to prioritise safety over commercial factors and rightly or wrongly that's not how I perceive the likes of EN1078.

rubadub

So that's why I got those funny looks at that funeral. I thought it was since I didn't wear a suit.

Grassey

rubadub wrote:

So that's why I got those funny looks at that funeral. I thought it was since I didn't wear a suit.

Birthday suit faux pas?

magicbastarder

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p__RZug6NCQ

2m10s in.

Saw these on Euronews the other day . only €299 Imagine these in a pro peleton. Hands up for a new one after a crash lol.

https://hovding.com

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikYFfxpu3I0

Andy From Sligo

Deleted User wrote: »

Saw these on Euronews the other day . only €299 Imagine these in a pro peleton. Hands up for a new one after a crash lol.

https://hovding.com

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikYFfxpu3I0

if you value your brain you would buy one ...

no, come to think of it at that price it negates anything else ...

rubadub

magicbastarder wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p__RZug6NCQ

2m10s in.

mother of god, they were doing so well, I bring up pedestrian helmets a lot with irrational people. But then at the end
"I can't see why you wouldn't wear one"
"no"

did they even bother to research at all! ignorant fcuking morons.

CramCycle

magicbastarder wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p__RZug6NCQ

2m10s in.

rubadub wrote: »

mother of god, they were doing so well, I bring up pedestrian helmets a lot with irrational people. But then at the end
"I can't see why you wouldn't wear one"
"no"

did they even bother to research at all! ignorant fcuking morons.

I thought the obvious one was the US comment about helmet usage decreasing hospital admissions, where they missed the obvious (and as far as I know, shown) correlation that there is a huge decrease in cyclists, the % injuries remain either the same or worse for head injuries.

Silent hunter

Is it a requirement / law to wear a helmet on a bike

Idleater

Silent hunter wrote: »

Is it a requirement / law to wear a helmet on a bike

Where? And when?

Not in Ireland, unless required by for example an event or race, but to varying degrees in other countries.

Macy0161

Idleater wrote:

Not in Ireland, unless required by for example an event or race

Or club spin.