nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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

Felloffmebike

I'm sure this has been discussed before but I'm interested in a lot of recent comments about wearing or not wearing a helmet. It never occurred to me not to wear one but recently I'm picking up a lot of people who seem to have a different view. Why is that? Does wearing a helmet not make it safer if you fall, even a little bit? And those who advocate not wearing one, is it a safety thing or a style thing or a macho man thing or what? Or is there some evidence that a helmet doesnt actually give you any protection or even that wearing one could be dangerous in itself.

I'm not looking to start an argument, just interested in the different views.

Mod note

Title changed - this can hopefully be considered the definitive helmet thread that can be pointed to whenever anyone wants to start another discussion on the subject - I'll put a link from the FAQs to it also

Find more posts tagged with

cycling

safety

myths

helmet

helmets

henry marsh

Quick Links

Comments

ustazjoseph

I enjoyed this- itsnot the helmet debate but its very interesting on the subject of the helmet debate
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2016/feb/04/vulpine-bike-clothing-company-models-without-helmets-dont-hate-us

seamus

Didn't the ASAI uphold a complaint recently enough that an advertisement in Ireland featured people - shock! - riding bikes without helmets?

Or was that the RSA having a whinge about it?

buffalo

seamus wrote: »

Didn't the ASAI uphold a complaint recently enough that an advertisement in Ireland featured people - shock! - riding bikes without helmets?

Or was that the RSA having a whinge about it?

The ASAI upheld the complaint, after seeking the advice of the RSA.

IrishCycle covered it pretty comprehensively... http://irishcycle.com/2013/08/12/cycling-ads-banned-but-illegal-driving-reflects-heritage/

Carawaystick

Whereas the asai rejected a complaint about taxis driving in mandatory cycle lanes after the rsa said 'ah sher it's grand, and despite the law clearly saying it's illegal, our secret legal advise says it's not illegal'

Qualitymark

Funny Guardian piece about cycling helmets

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2016/feb/04/vulpine-bike-clothing-company-models-without-helmets-dont-hate-us

Sensible too, though:

The big problem is cycling is considered unsafe by thousands who might otherwise have taken it up. Pushing a black and white agenda that helmets and hi-viz are vital says, “BE CAREFUL OUT THERE! CYCLING IS DANGEROUS!” For the most part it isn’t. But a sedentary lifestyle? Now that’s dangerous.

Nobody is offering images of sofa-dwellers surrounded by life support machinery and surgeons on standby. This is closer to the reality of risk. Human perception is terribly unreliable.

CatFromHue

An American company has come up with a new energy absorbing design for an AFL helmet.

http://www.solidsmack.com/design/zero1-helmet-design-prevents-head-trauma-in-football-players/

http://vicis.co/zero1/

I don't know what standards AFL helmets have to meet compared to bike helmets but I think we're going to start to see more innovation in this area over the next few years.

I remember reading about the MIPS guys when they first started looking into this area and they were saying that companies weren't interested in improving the energy absorption/safety of the helmets. What a difference a few years makes.

tomasrojo

CatFromHue wrote: »

An American company has come up with a new energy absorbing design for an AFL helmet.

Interesting, but there doesn't seem to be anything about rotational acceleration in the article, or neck projection protection. If players keep using their heads as battering rams, this may not make that much difference.

Eamonnator

Auto correct strikes again.... I think!

tomasrojo

This recent paper seems quite reminiscent of another Canadian paper, the one that David Spiegelhalter and Ben Goldacre wrote the BMJ editorial about a few years back. Similar conclusion anyway.

Bicycling injury hospitalisation rates in Canadian jurisdictions: analyses examining associations with helmet legislation and mode share

Results: In Canada, over the study period 2006–2011, there was an average of 3690 hospitalisations per year and an estimated 593 million annual trips by bicycle among people 12 years of age and older, for a cycling hospitalisation rate of 622 per 100 million trips (95% CI 611 to 633). Hospitalisation rates varied substantially across the jurisdiction, age and sex strata, but only two characteristics explained this variability. For all injury causes, sex was associated with hospitalisation rates; females had rates consistently lower than males. For traffic-related injury causes, higher cycling mode share was consistently associated with lower hospitalisation rates. Helmet legislation was not associated with hospitalisation rates for brain, head, scalp, skull, face or neck injuries.

http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/11/e008052.full.pdf

Mercian Pro

Glad I was wearing it this morning. Sore neck and shoulders but nothing broken (other than the helmet).

Jawgap

The disposable helmet!!

10438924_1062588243782744_5287282580560743437_n.jpg?oh=77c65e5cdbd0182f3893f15861666129&oe=5750CFF9

smacl

Mercian Pro wrote: »

Glad I was wearing it this morning. Sore neck and shoulders but nothing broken (other than the helmet).

Probably a silly question, but does the fact that the helmet have a carbon shell make it significantly stronger or better at protecting your head than a cheaper helmet?

Seweryn

smacl wrote: »

Probably a silly question, but does the fact that the helmet have a carbon shell make it significantly stronger or better at protecting your head than a cheaper helmet?

It makes it more expensive for sure. A construction type helmet cost only a few Euro while providing the same or better protection.

Mercian Pro

Can't say for certain but that's the advice I was given when I bought it. I would think the main function of the shell is to maintain the integrity of the foam liner in the event of a severe collision. It certainly did that in my case even though the liner was quite compressed in places.

Whether carbon fibre is better than other shell materials at doing this, I can't really say. In the case of the BBB Falcon, the carbon is mainly confined to the front sections you can see in the photo so it probably didn't have a significant benefit. The bond between the shell and the foam liner is probably more critical.

Mercian Pro

Seweryn wrote: »

It makes it more expensive for sure. A construction type helmet cost only a few Euro while providing the same or better protection.

Really??

If I had been wearing my site helmet when I had my recent collision, I very much doubt that the outcome would have been as favourable. With the shock forces involved, the inner straps would probably have snapped or detached and my skull would have hit the hard shell with virtually no cushioning. A site helmet is fine when you bang your head off some scaffolding while climbing a ladder but not for a serious cycling collision.

tomasrojo

A RISING trauma toll from mobility scooter crashes has led to calls for their aged and disabled riders to be required to wear helmets.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/growing-injury-toll-prompts-call-for-riders-to-wear-helmets-on-mobility-scooters/news-story/8e0b667919c4965c15d84b56d71d6003

If Australia ever follows New Zealand and investigates a new national-flag design, someone should submit one based on a helmet.

tomasrojo

Might be on interest to some.

Australia had a senate inquiry into "nanny state" laws and regulations. Bicycle helmet laws were the subject of more subscriptions than any other topic, with e-cigarette regulations second.

The "interim" report (issued because elections interrupted the inquiry) was rather inconclusive (in effect, it came down on the side of maintaining helmet laws but setting up a database to investigate how effective they are), because they couldn't agree on a consensus recommendation of how to proceed.

There is an interview with the one senator who was most against helmet laws:

http://www.cycle-helmets.com/leyonhjelm-helmets.html

He wrote an article about his concerns regarding his experience during the enquiry, and also how he feels in general about public health lobbying.
http://www.afr.com/opinion/columnists/what-the-senate-nanny-state-inquiry-taught-me-about-public-health-lobbyists-20160511-got377

I don't know what this senator is like in general.

tomasrojo

Leyonhjelm was returned to the Australian Senate, by the way. He may try to continue the senate committee, presumably.

magicbastarder

Mercian Pro wrote: »

If I had been wearing my site helmet when I had my recent collision, I very much doubt that the outcome would have been as favourable.

forgive my ignorance re site helmets - but from memory, they hold the shell whose job it is to take the knocks, away from your head, yes? whereas with bicycle helmets, the shell is separated from your head by thin foam cushions whose job is primarily comfort.

Tenzor07

DFB say always wear a helmet: http://irishcycle.com/2016/08/08/dublin-fire-brigade-recommends-a-helmet-after-tweeting-about-a-leg-injury/

Jawgap

Tenzor07 wrote: »

DFB say always wear a helmet: http://irishcycle.com/2016/08/08/dublin-fire-brigade-recommends-a-helmet-after-tweeting-about-a-leg-injury/

Where can I get my leg helmet?

Roadhawk

Jawgap wrote: »

Where can I get my leg helmet?

you can get one here:

http://www.chainreactioncycles.com/nl/en/body-armour

:):)

2RockMountain

I haven't had time to go digging out the actual paper as yet;

http://metro.co.uk/2016/09/22/wearing-a-bike-helmet-reduces-risk-of-serious-head-injury-by-almost-70-says-study-6144333/

Dermot Illogical

2RockMountain wrote: »

I haven't had time to go digging out the actual paper as yet;

http://metro.co.uk/2016/09/22/wearing-a-bike-helmet-reduces-risk-of-serious-head-injury-by-almost-70-says-study-6144333/

I tried, but you can't without paying. It's a meta-analysis, but the abstract doesn't say which helmet manufacturers were behind the original studies.

alexinkildare

It's a matter of choice but I chose to wear a good helmet. Nothing macho about not wearing a helmet.

NiallBoo

magicbastarder wrote: »

whereas with bicycle helmets, the shell is separated from your head by thin foam cushions whose job is primarily comfort.

The outer shell is there to help the helmet slide along the road.

Earlier helmets without them were found to sometimes grip the road and result in a broken neck.

*different for bmx helmets with a hard shell of course.

shamrock2004

The abus helmet I have is about 18 months old and has developed a small (about 1.5 inch) crack in it, even though it's never been involved in a crash at all and is now compromised. Should I bring it back and ask for a refund? I thought a helmet would last longer than this?

magicbastarder

2RockMountain wrote: »

I haven't had time to go digging out the actual paper as yet;

http://metro.co.uk/2016/09/22/wearing-a-bike-helmet-reduces-risk-of-serious-head-injury-by-almost-70-says-study-6144333/

From what I understand, they analysed crashes to determine if helmet use was or could be helpful - and that is a fatal flaw. The crash had already happened. They didn't look into the effect mandatory helmet law might have on bike use or whether it may be a factor in the causation of the crash.

Dermot Illogical

alexinkildare wrote: »

It's a matter of choice but I chose to wear a good helmet. Nothing macho about not wearing a helmet.

Who said it was macho?

Cee-Jay-Cee

shamrock2004 wrote: »

The abus helmet I have is about 18 months old and has developed a small (about 1.5 inch) crack in it, even though it's never been involved in a crash at all and is now compromised. Should I bring it back and ask for a refund? I thought a helmet would last longer than this?

Somehow I doubt it would be still covered by warranty but you could try.