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

magicbastarder

buffalo wrote: »

Did his helmet save his life?

i don't know if shredders operate fast enough to cause whiplash?

dinneenp

Hi,

My helmet is 20+ years old, feel like I should replace it. Use is for recreational road cycling. Any recommendations, I was going to say keep it under €50 but as it's something that'll last for years, I'm happy to pay up to €100 if it makes a difference. From reading, ones that have MIPS are safer, so I presume better to get one with?

Currently browsing through Cycle Superstore, who have a large selection and here at ones with MIPS. Too many choices almost!
Thanks,
Pa.

Stark

MIPS is a good thing to have in a helmet if you're looking for something to narrow the choice. Offers protection from rotational head injuries, not just direct impact.

dinneenp

Stark wrote: »

MIPS is a good thing to have in a helmet if you're looking for something to narrow the choice. Offers protection from rotational head injuries, not just direct impact.

Tbh I have no idea, just read that's MIPS is safer. I could easily get bogged down with analysis paralysis...

CramCycle

Probably easier to put up a few you like as there are too many options with no real difference at that price.

magicbastarder

from my experience, it was finding the right fit which proved to be the biggest challenge. so what seems like a wide choice may be narrow, if you've a stupid shaped head like me.

wheelo01

^^^^

What he said 100%
I cant for the life of me find a helmet I like the look of on my badly shaped head, if you have it that long, and it's still in decent nick, I'd wait until I could go trying them all on.

magicbastarder

As much would have it for me, the cheapest one I found which was a good fit was €120. I ended up spending €150 on a higher spec version.

Seth Brundle

Not sure how it is triggered but I don't think I'd ever wear one...

https://twitter.com/techvirl/status/1395308304465727494

magicbastarder

it'll be a bleedin' expensive helmet if it goes off every time you tumble.

68 lost souls

There was an interesting study on this and other helmets obviously this was the safest but some other good options in there

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5d0a03b295f37b00018da721/t/5ed69dd223ccb508fbc5c34f/1591123417043/Bicycle+Helmets+2020+Report+FINAL+MAY+2020.pdf

ARX

These ratings from Virginia Tech might be of interest.

Pinch Flat

I'm looking forward to RTEs next primetime radio piece on motoring collisions and the toll they have on people. Maybe they could interview some people with life changing injuries that could have been prevented by a helmet.

Seth Brundle

RSA & AGS show that Ireland can and should do cycling things differently to the Dutch...

https://twitter.com/RSAIreland/status/1559126507531997185

Seth Brundle

Meanwhile in England...

https://twitter.com/roadcc/status/1559148776572571651

magicbastarder

https://slate.com/technology/2023/01/bike-helmets-cyclist-deaths-do-you-need-to-wear.html

...

CramCycle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119476754#Comment_119476754

I have to say the person who replied with the Blackadder GIF is a genius

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119477153#Comment_119477153

Alas the police have pulled the post, with several of the firt few responses along the lines of xenophobia, anti cyclist but one I hadn't even guessed would come was the sexual deviancy towards the police officer, FFS people, be better.

magicbastarder

to continue the theme of 'the medical report stated that the head injury would have been less severe if the person in question had been wearing a helmet' - yes; this is almost a trivial thing to point out, and is possibly relevant.

but the issue is responsibility; would there be a case where a woman (or a man!) slipping on an oily floor would potentially have their payout reduced because they were wearing high heels? a judge could point out 'well, you know there would be greater chance of injury wearing heels'?

in the case in question, there was no question about culpability, the driver of the truck was in the wrong. but the 'you suffered greater injuries than you possibly would have done had you been wearing a non-mandatory piece of plastic' is not a million miles from 'you froze instead of ducking when you saw someone swinging a hammer at you'.

Paddigol

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120161342#Comment_120161342

Maybe someone from the Legal section on Boards could provide some guidance as to how the law of evidence works. You'd love for the Plaintiff's team to arrive in Court with a freshly peer reviewed academic report dismissing the Defendant's suggestion that lack of helmet = contributory negligence and a pre-eminent medical expert in the field of cycling head injuries to call to give evidence. But in the absence of that, we get what we see in this case.

Does anyone know what evidence was actually produced by the two sets of legal teams? And why the Defendant's Report was accepted by the Plaintiff? I can only assume they felt the expense of forcing the expert to come to court and then challenging his report was not worth it even with the chance of a reduction in damages?

cletus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120161342#Comment_120161342

The judge didn't point out that 'if the person was wearing a helmet...'.

The judge took a piece of evidence, submitted by an expert, and agreed to by both parties, and used it in determining his judgement. I don't think they had a choice in this.

This court case wasn't to decide whether helmets are required, or the safety effects of helmets, or whether they offer protection from concussion. All of that is beyond the remit of the judge in this case.

All of the scenarios about pedestrians and helmets in cars don't really have anything to do with the case. It wasn't a group of people having a philosophical discussion.

CramCycle

More technically, it was a significant sum of money and by making a reduction, which won't greatly affect the person as most payouts are extortionate, it's reasonable to assume the judge was stopping the defendants from coming back again and wasting months more time before payout. A legal friend once told me this was common as it stopped one side being stupid and complaining as if it went back it would potentially cost more and in other cases it stopped appeals in criminal cases as it could actually end up far worse second time around. I am not a lawyer and had a few beers on board when he explained it to me so am probably missing a bit. This does not make me feel better about the terminology used. To all of us it sounds bad, in layman's terms, the judge awarded him 3M, and told a story to stop it getting cut back later.

magicbastarder

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120161699#Comment_120161699

The judge took a piece of evidence, submitted by an expert, and agreed to by both parties, and used it in determining his judgement. I don't think they had a choice in this.

possibly? would be curious about that.

LeoD

Don't know if these were covered elsewhere but f**k me, helmet companies are clearly prepared to do anything to sell their wares. Surprising and disappointing to see a Dutch team pushing this nonsense, especially when last year they were partnering with Swapfiets.

https://road.cc/content/news/jumbo-visma-wear-brain-design-helmets-paris-roubaix-300463

https://road.cc/content/news/endura-designs-worlds-most-graphic-cycle-helmets-299895

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120465261#Comment_120465261

They got absolutely slaughtered on Twitter for their efforts.

CramCycle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120465933#Comment_120465933

You have to wonder who is in charge of the social media for these guys, TJV don't care about brain injuries, they care about sponsorship, sponsors care about positive feedback mainly from amateur racers who wil pay stupid money for a lid that protection wise does nowt much more than a Lid from LIDL for 25euro. Someone there should have said, they want the most aero and / or stylish, because that's the market. There are no atypical casual commuter cyclists paying attention to the lids they are wearing so don't market to them.

Even that soundbite, we don't care if they buy someone else's helmet so long as they buy one, only the foolish believe that.

LeoD

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120465933#Comment_120465933

That's good to hear (I'm not on Twitter anymore so not up to speed with that universe) but there have been a few helmet wearing initiatives coming from The Netherlands in the last couple of years which is a worrying trend and quite bizarre.

Cabaal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120465933#Comment_120465933

It hasn't stopped them, i've seen them responding to numerous helmet debates and doubling down.

LeoD

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/113730471#Comment_113730471

The same gobdaw is now looking for everyone to get €50 off their tv license fee over the GAAGO mess. A great man for the populism it would seem.

https://www.buzz.ie/news/politics/gaago-app-alan-dillon-rte-29940403

magicbastarder

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120984569#Comment_120984569

any reliable source for this? if there is, i will be quoting it ad nauseam at people i suspect.

Chips Lovell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120984629#Comment_120984629

There's a bunch of studies on the prevalence of alcohol as a factor in head injuries. For example:

"TBI has long been closely associated with acute alcohol intoxication. Most studies estimate that between 30% and 50% of patients treated for TBI were intoxicated at the time of injury"

If alcohol is a factor in up to half of all head injuries, surely we should be focusing our efforts on mandatory drinking helmets?

Having said that, the gold standard would be a risk per/hour of activity type study. That's hard to do and complicated by the fact that there can be more than one risk factor. Like someone could be drinking and driving a car.

But it is a reminder that often risk is assessed on perception rather than numbers. People perceive cycling as dangerous and therefore think wearing a helmet is a no brainer (to pardon the pun). There are plenty of other activities where there is a non-zero risk of a TBI that are seen as safe.