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

tomasrojo

Shep_Dog wrote: »

Are such devices tested/approved by the RSA?

I think that helmets are only tested by the EN standards people, and that's just the standard anvil drop test. So it wouldn't involve the back of the helmet, and they don't do any measurements; they just look to make sure the helmet doesn't crack after the drop (1.5m drop).

galwaycyclist

Shep_Dog wrote: »

Even if they are built into the straps, I'd be wary of the damage such devices could cause in an accident as you'd never know what way the helmet, straps and anything attached would be yanked and in what direction.

There are many places to attach lights on a bike and to clothing. I'd avoid embedding or attaching devices to helmets. A bright coloured finish and some effective reflective material would be the best approach. If you feel the need to wear a helmet, then you should be cautious too about creating additional risks.

Are such devices tested/approved by the RSA?

I support this observation - there is already concern that helmets might increase angular acceleration or "twisting" forces in the event of a crash.

It seems intuitive to me that if you add cameras and lights and so on that this would increase the chances of rotating the helmet and anything it is strapped to.

seamus

Traumadoc wrote: »

Actually there why don't they give the percentage of Irish cyclists killed who were wearing helmets? What percentage of the spinal injuries were wearing helmets?
If the RSA was serious about cyclist mortality and morbidity, they would be concentrating on minimum passing distance rather than forcing cyclists to wear a helmet?

Most of those running the RSA are professional board members with no qualifications to discuss road safety. This is why the RSA's attitude to road safety is more Helen Lovejoy than Elon Musk.

The only ones with any passing resemblence to "qualified" are a former traffic Garda, a doctor of rehabilitation and a civil engineer.

The rest are politicians and arts graduates.

tomasrojo

Exacerbation of rotational acceleration was brought up when Michael Schumacher was badly injured, as there was a GoPro or something like that on his helmet.

Seems possible, for sure, but I don't think it's been investigated at all.

The inbuilt helmet light doesn't protrude though.

CramCycle

tomasrojo wrote: »

Exacerbation of rotational acceleration was brought up when Michael Schumacher was badly injured, as there was a GoPro or something like that on his helmet.

Seems possible, for sure, but I don't think it's been investigated at all.

The inbuilt helmet light doesn't protrude though.

That was the claim by his medical team, that the camera added severe (I presume rotational) force that would otherwise not have happened.

I have no idea whether this is true or not but its a reasonable postulation, but I wouldn't read into it without further study.

The lights that are built in are part of the design, so I can't see any increased risk for them but a light stuck onto the helmet or a camera, its a theory, worth investigating fi nothing else but then, in the real world, how much would it cost and does it happen regularly enough to justify it?

check_six

Shep_Dog wrote: »

Even if they are built into the straps, I'd be wary of the damage such devices could cause in an accident as you'd never know what way the helmet, straps and anything attached would be yanked and in what direction.

The big polystrene hat strapped to your head is going to be doing most of the yanking if you have a spill, never mind any LED with a button battery built into the fitting-dial. If you are wary of any helmet having this kind of rotational effect that's okay, if you are only wary of a helmet if there is something else on it, then maybe you need to readjust your sights.

Shep_Dog wrote: »

There are many places to attach lights on a bike and to clothing. I'd avoid embedding or attaching devices to helmets. A bright coloured finish and some effective reflective material would be the best approach. If you feel the need to wear a helmet, then you should be cautious too about creating additional risks.

In your place, I'd consult the helmet designers with your concerns. They are bound by pretty loose regulations, so maybe they just haven't seen this danger you have pointed to.

The useful part of the light on a helmet is that it aids lighting up small kids on bikes that have limited scope for good light positioning at the back. (The seat post is very short, the seat stays are at a low angle, etc.).

Shep_Dog wrote: »

Are such devices tested/approved by the RSA?

If it's not a hi-vis jacket with non-reflective reflective stripes produced by the fella down the road, then no.

Shep_Dog

check_six wrote: »

The big polystrene hat strapped to your head is going to be doing most of the yanking if you have a spill, never mind any LED with a button battery built into the fitting-dial.

It's not that such a device will contribute to the rotational force, but that the device will itself cause injury if pulled towards the neck or skull during an impact.

tomasrojo

check_six wrote: »

If it's not a hi-vis jacket with non-reflective reflective stripes produced by the fella down the road, then no.

You have a long memory!

check_six

tomasrojo wrote: »

You have a long memory!

Well, if I didn't remember, how would I know who to maroon on Rockall when the revolution comes?

I'm sure a number of names spring to your mind immediately.

By the way I'm still hiring for someone to deliver good solid kicks up the backside to the prospective maroonies as we load them onto a ferry as a parting gift from the good people of Ireland.

CramCycle

Shep_Dog wrote: »

It's not that such a device will contribute to the rotational force, but that the device will itself cause injury if pulled towards the neck or skull during an impact.

The built in ones? I am not sure how it would happen but any force that would cause that to happen will most likely have killed the wearer regardless.

If you are talking about where people stick on lights (or cameras) to their helmets, then maybe, there is a possibility of making an impact worse.

tomasrojo wrote: »

You have a long memory!

Its hardly that long ago since those non reflective strips were shared out by the AGS and the RSA.

tomasrojo

check_six wrote: »

Its hardly that long ago since those non reflective strips were shared out by the AGS and the RSA.

Well, over two years ago. I have small children. Seems like ages ago.

RainyDay

seamus wrote: »

Most of those running the RSA are professional board members with no qualifications to discuss road safety. This is why the RSA's attitude to road safety is more Helen Lovejoy than Elon Musk.

The only ones with any passing resemblence to "qualified" are a former traffic Garda, a doctor of rehabilitation and a civil engineer.

The rest are politicians and arts graduates.

In fairness, board members don't need to be functional experts. The functional experts should be on staff, not in the boardroom.

CramCycle

RainyDay wrote: »

In fairness, board members don't need to be functional experts. The functional experts should be on staff, not in the boardroom.

Completely agree but the question then is, are they? And if so, do they place popular opinion above their reputation?

galwaycyclist

RainyDay wrote: »

In fairness, board members don't need to be functional experts. The functional experts should be on staff, not in the boardroom.

Agreed. But the manner in which the RSA conduct themselves creates the impression of staff who have little knowledge of, or professional interest in, analysing crashes.

On the contrary they give the impression of simply picking out random facts designed to support specific commercial and.political goals.

tomasrojo

Certainly I feel the RSA's research falls often into "policy-based evidence-making."

Something about the life expectancy and cycling in the Netherlands here:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34498871

Just saw on Twitter; continuing on from tangent earlier in thread.

tomasrojo

Our lone RSA-clad representative at the European summit on cycling reappears here:

http://idonotdespair.com/2015/10/11/a-president-said-it-and-19-ministers-agreed-nothing-compares-to-the-simple-pleasure-of-a-bike-ride/

(Commentary a bit harsh actually.)

Seweryn

tomasrojo wrote: »

Our lone RSA-clad representative at the European summit on cycling reappears here:

http://idonotdespair.com/2015/10/11/a-president-said-it-and-19-ministers-agreed-nothing-compares-to-the-simple-pleasure-of-a-bike-ride/

Hmm, he really must have felt as out of place as he looked.
Or just should have offered the "safety gear" to other ministers too

RainyDay

tomasrojo wrote: »

Our lone RSA-clad representative at the European summit on cycling reappears here:

http://idonotdespair.com/2015/10/11/a-president-said-it-and-19-ministers-agreed-nothing-compares-to-the-simple-pleasure-of-a-bike-ride/

(Commentary a bit harsh actually.)

So our own Pascal is the hi-vis dork then?

tomasrojo

RainyDay wrote: »

So our own Pascal is the hi-vis dork then?

No, not him.

ht @cosaingalway on twitter

RainyDay

Ah tks, one of the Irish officials then, I guess?

tomasrojo

Guess so. Imagine if it's one of the Dutch delegation!!

Capt'n Midnight

Jawgap wrote: »

I like that the definition of low speed is less than 50 km/hr :eek:

Vincenzo Nibbly wrote: »

"Some 83 per cent of cycling accidents occur when there is a vehicle such as a car or a lorry involved.

Traumadoc wrote: »

Any fatal cycling injuries I have been involved, with a cycle helmet would not have saved them.( in fact they were all wearing helmets).

Just a reminder that cycling helmets are not designed to handle vehicle impacts.
They are not designed for speeds reached in downhill descents.

They are only designed for falling off your bike at typical commuter speeds.

If protection at typical vehicles is needed then you need a motorbike helmet.

Just to re-iterate that.

Bicycle helmets are not designed for vehicular impacts.

tomasrojo

Here is an article about a radio interview with Gilchrist. Relatively moderate attitude, more so than I would have expected. Pro-wearing, as you might expect, but not pro-compulsion, and willing to admit that his research showed potential downsides to wearing.
http://irishcycle.com/2015/10/12/rsa-funded-researcher-admits-helmets-could-increase-risk-of-brain-injury/

schemingbohemia

RainyDay wrote: »

Ah tks, one of the Irish officials then, I guess?

Just because they're wearing an RSA hi-viz doesn't necessarily make them an RSA official or a Departmental official.

Carawaystick

schemingbohemia wrote: »

Just because they're wearing an RSA hi-viz doesn't necessarily make them an RSA official or a Departmental official.

You're right, they might work for a foreign govt....

:rolleyes:

tomasrojo

It's Mikael Colville-Andersen working undercover, in the style of The Saint.

Chips Lovell

The Guardian weighs in on the helmet debate

In Seattle, helmets have been mandatory for 12 years – but many cycling advocates argue such laws discourage cycling while doing nothing to improve road safety. Should cyclists in London be fined if they don’t wear a helmet?

tomasrojo

Not sure the Seattle bike share scheme is as successful as they're making out in the article.

Seattle is working on a city takeover and expansion of the underused Pronto Cycle Share network

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/seattle-plans-to-take-over-expand-pronto-bike-sharing-network/

It's quite a new scheme, to be fair. And annual membership is $85.

How Randy Swart managed to get himself regarded as an expert on anything is beyond me.

galwaycyclist

tomasrojo wrote: »

Here is an article about a radio interview with Gilchrist. Relatively moderate attitude, more so than I would have expected. Pro-wearing, as you might expect, but not pro-compulsion, and willing to admit that his research showed potential downsides to wearing.
http://irishcycle.com/2015/10/12/rsa-funded-researcher-admits-helmets-could-increase-risk-of-brain-injury/

I have it on good authority that the cycle campaigner brought in as a counterpoint to Prof Gilchrist was also disarmed by the apparent reasonableness of the Profs position.

tomasrojo

More on Seattle's bike share scheme on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/modacitylife/status/653761568186875904

Not sure that constitutes "proof", as Seattle is only doing a little worse than Denver, but having visited Seattle, I would say that Seattle, though a bit hilly, probably should be doing a bit better than that. Pretty suitable for cycling around, I thought.

Anyway, Seattle's scheme certainly isn't strong evidence that a bike-share scheme can do just fine with a helmet law in place.