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

tomasrojo

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2014/jan/31/bike-blog-cycling-campaign-asa

An aghast Cycling Scotland pointed out that cycle helmets are not compulsory, and that police and the highway code specifically advise cyclists that it is safest to position themselves some way into their lane. The ASA conceded a likely error over the latter point and withdrew its ruling pending an independent review. However, it appeared to stay firm over the helmet, which it argues should be shown in advertisements as their use, while not compelled under law, is recommended by the highway code.

I suspect the ASA will hold firm on the helmet part of their ruling.

Still, some campaigners are having a bit of pointed fun, drawing attention to adverts that contravene other strategies recommended in the UK highway code:

It is a scene familiar from many a TV advert for lager: a group of laughing young men walk down the pavement for an evening pint in their local pub. But this time, rather than being dressed in casual shirts they're kitted out in bright, building site-style fluorescent jackets.

LeoD

There was an interesting piece with Dr. Pete Lunn on Newstalk's Breakfast Show this morning about how we perceive risk. Cycling isn't discussed but you can see how the psychology applies.

buffalo

tomasrojo wrote: »

I suspect the ASA will hold firm on the helmet part of their ruling.

Still, some campaigners are having a bit of pointed fun, drawing attention to adverts that contravene other strategies recommended in the UK highway code:

Some wag pointed out that the ASA are contravening their own policies, and should censor themselves:

doozerie

I've moaned before about the seeming lack of interest by helmet manufacturers in improving the effectiveness of helmets, in my more cynical moments I'm convinced they are more interested in simply selling stock than truly addressing the risks that they'd have you believe necessitate the wearing of their helmets - so long as people buy their product they don't seem too pushed about pursuing innovation in helmet design.

So I'm interested to read that apparently Kali Protectives are one manufacturer that are really trying to address helmet effectiveness, or so they claim anyway:

“Would you rather get hit in the head with a pillow or a hammer?”

Kali Protectives’ Bryan Mason asked that rather daft question last week to prove a highly salient point: though most would quickly pick the pillow, Mason believes that many accidentally pick the hammer during a helmet purchase.

It’s not totally our fault; the marketing machines of helmet manufacturers don’t use protection bywords like “low-density foam,” “low-speed impact,” or for that matter, “safety.” And the reason they don’t is simple: talking about saving our brains when we crash isn’t sexy; we don’t want to hear about, and it doesn’t sell helmets. We want low weights, cooling, and good looks.

Whatever the outcome, whether it's really a more effective helmet(s) or not, it's good that at least one manufacturer is questioning whether current helmet design is adequate.

Beasty

On that point there's some interesting stuff here by former F1 doctor Gary Hartstein where he highlights the amount of research that has gone into developing F1 helmets, and suggests other sports (notably skiing in light of the Schumacher accident, but he mentions others including cycling) should target more the types of injuries typically suffered in those sports and adapt the helmet accordingly. I for one find it strange that the suggestion is that cycle helmets are only designed to offer protection at relatively low impacts, while they are being promoted as a requirement for racing where any impact is likely to be much more forceful

tomasrojo

Well, they're definitely only tested for low-speed impacts: put a 5kg headform into the helmet, let it drop 1.5m onto an anvil and make sure the foam compresses but doesn't break up. Something like that anyway. It's not very rigorous, and not all that representative of either falls during races or collisions with motor vehicles.

buffalo

http://road.cc/content/news/111258-chris-boardman-helmets-not-even-top-10-things-keep-cycling-safe

Government encouragement to wear helmets was therefore “a big campaign to get people to wear body armour, by the people who should be stopping the shooting.”

Widespread use of helmets, he said, sends the wrong message.

“Once you see somebody wearing body armour, even if there’s no shooting, you think ‘Christ I’m not going down there if they’re wearing body armour to go down that street.’ It scares people off.”

I concur. </Carl>

Iwannahurl

tomasrojo wrote: »

Well, they're definitely only tested for low-speed impacts: put a 5kg headform into the helmet, let it drop 1.5m onto an anvil and make sure the foam compresses but doesn't break up. Something like that anyway. It's not very rigorous, and not all that representative of either falls during races or collisions with motor vehicles.

And very flimsy, apparently. I got a new helmet for Senior Infant yesterday. The instructions include the following warning: "do not ... add stickers to decorate the helmet, as this can make the helmet ineffective in an accident." :eek:

Capt'n Midnight

Iwannahurl wrote: »

And very flimsy, apparently. I got a new helmet for Senior Infant yesterday. The instructions include the following warning: "do not ... add stickers to decorate the helmet, as this can make the helmet ineffective in an accident." :eek:

It's because the solvents used in the glue for the sticker might weaken the plastic used in the helmet.

That applies to all helmets including those designed to offer protection in a road traffic accident as well as cycling helmets.

doozerie

On the fragility, or not, of cycling helmets, something else to consider is whether you should automatically replace it regularly. Here is the Snell Foundation's take on it, for what it's worth:

Why should you replace your helmet every five years?

The five-year replacement recommendation is based on a consensus by both helmet manufacturers and the Snell Foundation. Glues, resins and other materials used in helmet production can affect liner materials. Hair oils, body fluids and cosmetics, as well as normal "wear and tear" all contribute to helmet degradation. Petroleum based products present in cleaners, paints, fuels and other commonly encountered materials may also degrade materials used in many helmets possibly degrading performance. Additionally, experience indicates there will be a noticeable improvement in the protective characteristic of helmets over a five-year period due to advances in materials, designs, production methods and the standards. Thus, the recommendation for five-year helmet replacement is a judgment call stemming from a prudent safety philosophy.

Iwannahurl

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

It's because the solvents used in the glue for the sticker might weaken the plastic used in the helmet.

That applies to all helmets including those designed to offer protection in a road traffic accident as well as cycling helmets.

I thought the plastic was just a decorative skin. What are its intrinsic protective properties?

With regard to other substances, such as "body fluids", causing damage, I remember a motorcyclist (unfortunately deceased) whose cat p:ssed in his helmet. He had no choice but to wear it, and to add insult to injury it was a male cat so the hormonal content was particularly rank.

doozerie

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I thought the plastic was just a decorative skin. What are its intrinsic protective properties?

If I remember some of the blurb correctly, the plastic shell helps to hold the helmet together on impact while the polystyrene supposedly does the job of absorbing the force of the impact.

Iwannahurl

Sort of like a crumple zone, perhaps?

doozerie

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Sort of like a crumple zone, perhaps?

The shell? The shell itself doesn't crumple, it just keeps the potential fragments of polystyrene together. So a bit like sellotape on broken pottery. Or tits on a bull. Depending on your view on the efficacy of helmets.

tomasrojo

buffalo wrote: »

http://road.cc/content/news/111258-chris-boardman-helmets-not-even-top-10-things-keep-cycling-safe



I concur. </Carl>

Chris Boardman does not yearn for the quiet life, does he? He'll be inundated after this. Very ambitious, trying to move the debate on. Be very nice if it suceeded.

CramCycle

tomasrojo wrote: »

Chris Boardman does not yearn for the quiet life, does he? He'll be inundated after this. Very ambitious, trying to move the debate on. Be very nice if it suceeded.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyQ-0JOF1Qk

It was between this and Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech

doozerie

tomasrojo wrote: »

Chris Boardman does not yearn for the quiet life, does he? He'll be inundated after this. Very ambitious, trying to move the debate on. Be very nice if it suceeded.

I agree. He has been vocal in other (cycling) areas too, and hopefully he'll have a positive impact there too.

Chips Lovell

Chris Boardman wrote:

Evidence and statistics were bypassed in favour of opinions and anecdotes on sideline topics.

It's not just MPs who are guilty of this. It's endemic in almost every debate about cycling safety, even among cyclists.

monument

This is from the latest 'a helmet saved my life threads (aka the sheep thread)...

NBar wrote: »

Lucky lucky, speedy recovery...was having this discussion earlier today to a teenager who didn't want to wear his bike helmet, needeless to say the bike went back into the garage, no lid no cycle

Fairly clear (and a sad) example of helmets stopping people from cycling and how teenagers will pick no cycling over having to wear a helmet.

Chips Lovell

CramCycle

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

PIC

Disapproving look from a guy with no brakes on his bike :pac:

Cabaal

monument wrote: »

Fairly clear (and a sad) example of helmets stopping people from cycling and how teenagers will pick no cycling over having to wear a helmet.

Its ok, he'll play console games instead and prefer to stay inside doing that instead of being outside in the fresh air.

Sure its not like obesity etc is a big deal :eek:

tomasrojo

Bikesnobnyc linked to this:
http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/the_kids/2014/05/helmets_for_kids_they_won_t_protect_your_children_from_concussions_and_other.html

Quite good addition to growing media attention on helmet use among minors and the failure to address concussion. Some stuff about rotational acceleration and diffuse axonal injuries. Doesn't mention the theory that some helmets make rotational acceleration worse.

(Also contains a claim that sports helmets "definitely" save lives, by preventing skull fractures, which, while it's a common claim, I've yet to see strong statistical evidence of. Possibly because skull fractures aren't a common cause of death? I read that somewhere, but I don't have a citation. Also, claims in article about sports helmets addressing "high impact" linear accelerations seems exaggerated for bicycle helmets, given the standard 20km/h drop test.)

Inquitus

I crashed recently and the helmet took the impact and defo saved me from worse had it been my skull in contact with Stamullen's finest tarmac.

AstraMonti

The helmet is twice the size of your head though so it will be impacted in places your head wouldn't.

Inquitus

AstraMonti wrote: »

The helmet is twice the size of your head though so it will be impacted in places your head wouldn't.

I hit the ground head first, it definitely prevented my head having direct contact with the road, imho that was a good thing.

tomasrojo

I'm really talking about statistical evidence based on large numbers of people collected methodically. Such as "death rate due to head injuries goes down as helmet wearing ges up". That would adequately meet the requirement for saying, as the Salate journalist did for sports helmets, that helmets definitely save lives.

It seems probable that they ameliorate some injuries, and your fall might very well fall into that catehory, but it's not quite what I'm talking about.

Capt'n Midnight

tomasrojo wrote: »

(Also contains a claim that sports helmets "definitely" save lives, by preventing skull fractures, which, while it's a common claim, I've yet to see strong statistical evidence of. Possibly because skull fractures aren't a common cause of death? I read that somewhere, but I don't have a citation. Also, claims in article about sports helmets addressing "high impact" linear accelerations seems exaggerated for bicycle helmets, given the standard 20km/h drop test.)

What they don't mention is that the number of accidents for things like off-piste skiers have gone up probably because of improved safety gear.

And of course bike helmets aren't designed for the sort of speeds that skiers go at.

CramCycle

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

And of course bike helmets aren't designed for the sort of speeds that skiers go at.

They're not designed for the speeds most cyclists go at.

boege

Apologies if this covered already but if your travelling abroad I suggest you check the fine print of your travel insurance.

Any accident on a bike may require a helmet to be worn or cover is invalid. Unfortunately I know this from a very sad case.