Helmet Cams and the integrity of cycle helmets

This sub-forum all discussions about this "lively" subject. All topics that are substantially about helmets will be moved here, if not placed here correctly in the first place.
User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 17178
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: Helmet Cams and the integrity of cycle helmets

Postby [XAP]Bob » 19 Oct 2015, 5:16pm

That's what pjclinch (and I, although less clearly) were saying.

You can't look at a video of an accident, stop it a second before impact and decide whether it would be better to wear a helmet...

What is clear is that they stop minor abrasions, but that's not how they're promoted...
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.

User avatar
pjclinch
Posts: 3872
Joined: 29 Oct 2007, 2:32pm
Location: Dundee, Scotland
Contact:

Re: Helmet Cams and the integrity of cycle helmets

Postby pjclinch » 19 Oct 2015, 7:25pm

TonyR wrote:Its not a clear win. Its a speculative win as the ability of the helmet to do that is anecdotal and unproven.


It's not "anecdotal" that putting crash padding in front of something can lessen the effects of an impact, and it's speculative that an inch of polystyrene padding might lessen the effect of at least some blows about as much as it's speculative that the sun will come up tomorrow largely the same as it did today.

TonyR wrote: It could be that they are walking around saying "ow" because their helmet smacked the pavement hard when their unhelmeted head may not have hit anything,


In some cases, yes, but what I'm saying is that a helmet can be a clear win, and almost certainly has been for at least some riders over time. Are you seriously suggesting that there are not reasonable grounds to suggest any bike helmet has ever benefitted any cyclist wearing it? Can you say "ecological fallacy" without turning in to a toad?

Pete.
Often seen riding a bike around Dundee...

TonyR
Posts: 5390
Joined: 31 Aug 2008, 12:51pm

Re: Helmet Cams and the integrity of cycle helmets

Postby TonyR » 20 Oct 2015, 12:56pm

pjclinch wrote:
TonyR wrote:Its not a clear win. Its a speculative win as the ability of the helmet to do that is anecdotal and unproven.


It's not "anecdotal" that putting crash padding in front of something can lessen the effects of an impact, and it's speculative that an inch of polystyrene padding might lessen the effect of at least some blows about as much as it's speculative that the sun will come up tomorrow largely the same as it did today.


And its definitely not anecdotal that putting plastic padding on your head makes it bigger and more likely to be hit. So not a clear win.


Can you say "ecological fallacy" without turning in to a toad?


Yes. Can you say "exception fallacy" ?

User avatar
pjclinch
Posts: 3872
Joined: 29 Oct 2007, 2:32pm
Location: Dundee, Scotland
Contact:

Re: Helmet Cams and the integrity of cycle helmets

Postby pjclinch » 20 Oct 2015, 3:44pm

TonyR wrote:And its definitely not anecdotal that putting plastic padding on your head makes it bigger and more likely to be hit. So not a clear win.


Deary me. There will have been instances where someone has taken a hit that they would have taken anyway, what with gravity working the way it does, and where the helmet will have mitigated minor injuries as a result and not done anything else to speak of. In such instances the helmet will have been a clear win for the wearer.

TonyR wrote:Can you say "exception fallacy" ?


But I'm not actually trying to argue it's the general case, so that's not really relevant. Bob said, "There are no cases where there is a clear win for the cyclist", and I was pointing out that for some individual values of "the cyclist" that is not always the case.

By way of analogy, if sticking plasters were promoted as a cure for everything and I said that they weren't, but they do actually help with minor cuts, that wouldn't be a good reason to list all the cancers they don't deal with as a way of saying I've missed the point.

Pete.
Often seen riding a bike around Dundee...

User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 17178
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: Helmet Cams and the integrity of cycle helmets

Postby [XAP]Bob » 20 Oct 2015, 3:52pm

In which case you willfully misinterpreted what I said.

There is no case where it is a clear win to don a helmet BEFORE an impact - you cannot know what the outcome delta is likely to be before the event.

And you'd also find yourself hard pressed to find many images on google of helmets that have been "used in anger" and not failed catastrophically - implying that their benefits continue to be limited to be abrasion and other minor soft tissue protection.
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.

TonyR
Posts: 5390
Joined: 31 Aug 2008, 12:51pm

Re: Helmet Cams and the integrity of cycle helmets

Postby TonyR » 20 Oct 2015, 3:58pm

pjclinch wrote:
TonyR wrote:And its definitely not anecdotal that putting plastic padding on your head makes it bigger and more likely to be hit. So not a clear win.


Deary me. There will have been instances where someone has taken a hit that they would have taken anyway, what with gravity working the way it does, and where the helmet will have mitigated minor injuries as a result and not done anything else to speak of. In such instances the helmet will have been a clear win for the wearer.

TonyR wrote:Can you say "exception fallacy" ?


But I'm not actually trying to argue it's the general case, so that's not really relevant. Bob said, "There are no cases where there is a clear win for the cyclist", and I was pointing out that for some individual values of "the cyclist" that is not always the case.

By way of analogy, if sticking plasters were promoted as a cure for everything and I said that they weren't, but they do actually help with minor cuts, that wouldn't be a good reason to list all the cancers they don't deal with as a way of saying I've missed the point.


The BIG difference being you can differentiate between a cancer and a cut before you decide the treatment. Until you have developed 20/20 foresight you cannot predict what sort of accident you are going to have and therefore whether you are that one special case where it might have saved a minor injury or the typical case where it did nothing or made it worse. What you are doing is as useful as pointing out that not everyone that smokes heavily dies early or gets cancer. Indeed invoking the ecological fallacy you could well say that all the work showing the dangers of smoking may not apply to some individuals who may benefit. Other than an academic argument point, it doesn't have much relevance as to whether you should smoke or not.

User avatar
pjclinch
Posts: 3872
Joined: 29 Oct 2007, 2:32pm
Location: Dundee, Scotland
Contact:

Re: Helmet Cams and the integrity of cycle helmets

Postby pjclinch » 20 Oct 2015, 4:16pm

Oh {FFE - family-friendly edit }, I am not saying anything other than there have been cases where helmets have actually helped a liitle bit. This is not really controversial unless you're at the paranoia level of us all being in a computer simulation so we can't be sure of anything. This in line with Bob's comment about useful as proof against some abrasions.

This is damning them with remarkably faint praise, it isn't suggesting in any way, shape or form that anyone ought to go and get one Just In Case and will surely be ahead of the odds against serious injury if they come off.

[XAP]Bob wrote:In which case you willfully misinterpreted what I said.
There is no case where it is a clear win to don a helmet BEFORE an impact - you cannot know what the outcome delta is likely to be before the event.


I think you'll find we're in Furious Agreement, and rather than "willful misrepresentation" simply a case of dialogue development and clarification over the course of the last page.

Tony, OTOH, seems to be afraid of admitting a helmet might ever have done anything good under any circumstances until he's seen a copper-bottomed peer-reviewed paper written by the Right Hand Of God to prove it. Which just sets us up to be labelled "anti-helmet zealots" because it's pretty ridiculous.

Pete.
Often seen riding a bike around Dundee...

User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 17178
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: Helmet Cams and the integrity of cycle helmets

Postby [XAP]Bob » 20 Oct 2015, 10:47pm

Sorry - read that as being written by another poster... Mea culpa.

We are indeed in "furious agreement"
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.

AgitatorofPeople
Posts: 4
Joined: 20 Oct 2015, 9:05pm

Re: Helmet Cams and the integrity of cycle helmets

Postby AgitatorofPeople » 22 Oct 2015, 10:16am

Cycle Helmets are no good at all for adding stuff like mounts for lights and cameras, here are a few points why:

Straps: On just about every Cycle helmet for sale, the straps goes "under" the chin between jaw and neck, cycle helmet straps are designed to stop the helmet falling off when you do, and are the wrong design to hold additional weight on the outer surface of the helmet under rotational G force.

Mounting Points: there are no mounting points on a cycle helmet (unless you find a manufacturer that makes such a helmet) putting straps or fittings through vent holes or drilling the helmet is just dangerous in the event of an accident.

Helmet Construction: A cycle helmet is a polystyrene crush zone with a very thin plastic layer to protect the polystyrene in day to day use and offers no structural integrity or protection from piercing by small diameter hard objects, the helmet safety test measures the deceleration of the head mass inside the helmet in an impact on a flat or large radiused surface, not what it will stop externally, there is no requirement under the test criteria for penetration of objects (only Japan has a requirement in this area http://www.bhsi.org/stdcomp.htm).

The only type of helmet I could see been suitable,(but not tested by cycling governing bodies) would be this type designed for cams and torches:-

Image