"Denialism" and 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.
Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 17924
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: "Denialism" and cycle helmets

Postby Vorpal » 29 Oct 2018, 6:46am

Cunobelin wrote:The other difference between equestrian helmets is that equestrian head gear was first fashion driven,,,, Bowler and top hats, then became more protective

Cycle helmets are the opposites as they started off "safe" and became less "safe" and protective due to fashion

Actually, it wasn't. A military helmet manufacturer thought it was a good way to sell more helmets...

https://www.themarylandequestrian.com/h ... ng-helmet/
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom

User avatar
Mick F
Spambuster
Posts: 48255
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Tamar Valley, Cornwall

Re: "Denialism" and cycle helmets

Postby Mick F » 29 Oct 2018, 8:12am

Vorpal wrote:A military helmet manufacturer thought it was a good way to sell more helmets...


PIC_2-151.jpg
Mick F. Cornwall

User avatar
pjclinch
Posts: 3875
Joined: 29 Oct 2007, 2:32pm
Location: Dundee, Scotland
Contact:

Re: "Denialism" and cycle helmets

Postby pjclinch » 29 Oct 2018, 8:59am

Cunobelin wrote:The other difference between equestrian helmets is that equestrian head gear was first fashion driven,,,, Bowler and top hats, then became more protective

Cycle helmets are the opposites as they started off "safe" and became less "safe" and protective due to fashion


I'm not convinced of this. Not so much fashion as a driver, but the conflicting requirements of protecting in a fall and being as light and comfortable as possible. Cycle helmets were originally developed from hairnets in a sporting context, and sporting riding remains a driver. Sporting riding is a bit like hard work and thus a preference for lighter, better vented designs is understandable. And since the perception is that an EN1078 hat is Magically Protective in any case, why use anything heavier?

Marketing of helmets is mainly done on things like weight and venting in part because the legal departments of the companies concerned aren't going to go on much about safety benefits because that would put them on potentially rocky ground. And if you're wearing to race and racing is more fun with a lighter helmet, you'll have a lighter helmet. That's all pragmatic rather than fashion.

There is a line from parts of the pro-helmet lobby that helmets are "stylish and comfortable" in some objective sense, though oddly when I see folk out on the town in their party suits on a Saturday night nobody there seems to have got that particular message.

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

User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 17179
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: "Denialism" and cycle helmets

Postby [XAP]Bob » 29 Oct 2018, 10:51am

Flinders wrote:
[XAP]Bob wrote:Given the force required to fracture a skull... the protection it offers would be in a very limited range indeed.

That makes no sense at all. It depends on where your skull is hit, as some parts of skulls are a lot thinner than others, and some people have thicker skulls than others, and there will always be some level of force for any given section of a given skull where the helmet makes the difference between a cracked skull and a skull that stays intact. A member of my family got a fractured skull just from a swing door swinging back on him - he nearly died. AFAIK he didn't even have a specially thin skull, either, as some people do.



It makes perfect sense.

It is fairly clear that the ability of a few ounces of polystyrene are limited - there is only so much force/energy that can be absorbed.
The only time a helmet can stand a chance of preventing a fractured skull is if the force/energy of the collision are in the range "just cracked skull" to "just cracked skull+helmet protection".

The limited protection available from a magic hat, combined with the rather well designed skull, means that those two numbers are rather closer than people imagine.
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.

Airsporter1st
Posts: 564
Joined: 8 Oct 2016, 3:14pm

Re: "Denialism" and cycle helmets

Postby Airsporter1st » 30 Oct 2018, 7:00pm

Flinders wrote:
[XAP]Bob wrote:Given the force required to fracture a skull... the protection it offers would be in a very limited range indeed.

That makes no sense at all. It depends on where your skull is hit, as some parts of skulls are a lot thinner than others, and some people have thicker skulls than others, and there will always be some level of force for any given section of a given skull where the helmet makes the difference between a cracked skull and a skull that stays intact. A member of my family got a fractured skull just from a swing door swinging back on him - he nearly died. AFAIK he didn't even have a specially thin skull, either, as some people do.

I'm aware that my helmet will not help significantly if my head gets a direct hit from an oncoming truck doing 60mph, but it may well make the difference between brain damage or not if I end up falling off and hitting my head on a kerb. Because something doesn't work in all cases, it doesn't follow that it can't help in any. Which is why I wear one. But I wouldn't make it compulsory for other people, as so far there isn't the sort of evidence there was in favour of biking helmets or seatbelts, but I suspect that's partly because so many cycling helmets don't meet the best standards they could do. Unfortunately there is a significant amount of active resistance to better helmet design and legals standards for helmets from those who don't want to wear them. That's tough on those of us that do want to wear them.

The horse-riding community has a far more accepting view of helmets, which is surprising in a lot of ways, given the demographic and risk factors involved. That means that good design is encouraged, and standards have risen a lot over time.


I trust that you and the rest of your family now wear helmets whenever in close proximity to doors?

User avatar
Cunobelin
Posts: 10188
Joined: 6 Feb 2007, 7:22pm

Re: "Denialism" and cycle helmets

Postby Cunobelin » 31 Oct 2018, 6:12am

Vorpal wrote:
Cunobelin wrote:The other difference between equestrian helmets is that equestrian head gear was first fashion driven,,,, Bowler and top hats, then became more protective

Cycle helmets are the opposites as they started off "safe" and became less "safe" and protective due to fashion

Actually, it wasn't. A military helmet manufacturer thought it was a good way to sell more helmets...

https://www.themarylandequestrian.com/h ... ng-helmet/



Not sure about what this is saying

The bowler and top hats were the first riding hats, and fashion items rather than protective, then there were cork helmets and after that:

By the latter half of the twentieth century, those who partook in the more dangerous riding disciplines, such as show jumping and racing, began to require headgear that also served a protective function. In 1986, the United States Pony Club asked the ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials) to develop a helmet for equestrians. The first ASTM/SEI certified helmet was developed in 1990.


The article seems to confirm unequivocally the transition from fashion item to protective gear that I posted.

Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 17924
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: "Denialism" and cycle helmets

Postby Vorpal » 31 Oct 2018, 6:43am

Cunobelin wrote:
Vorpal wrote:
Cunobelin wrote:The other difference between equestrian helmets is that equestrian head gear was first fashion driven,,,, Bowler and top hats, then became more protective

Cycle helmets are the opposites as they started off "safe" and became less "safe" and protective due to fashion

Actually, it wasn't. A military helmet manufacturer thought it was a good way to sell more helmets...

https://www.themarylandequestrian.com/h ... ng-helmet/



Not sure about what this is saying

The bowler and top hats were the first riding hats, and fashion items rather than protective, then there were cork helmets and after that:



In 1911, Charles Owen began manufacturing cork helmets in London for the military. By 1928, the cork helmet was being covered with a hard exterior and became the first motorcycle helmet. Ten years later, Owen developed its first racing helmet, and the equestrian world was changed forever.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom

User avatar
Cunobelin
Posts: 10188
Joined: 6 Feb 2007, 7:22pm

Re: "Denialism" and cycle helmets

Postby Cunobelin » 31 Oct 2018, 7:25pm

Vorpal wrote:
Cunobelin wrote:
Vorpal wrote:Actually, it wasn't. A military helmet manufacturer thought it was a good way to sell more helmets...

https://www.themarylandequestrian.com/h ... ng-helmet/



Not sure about what this is saying

The bowler and top hats were the first riding hats, and fashion items rather than protective, then there were cork helmets and after that:



In 1911, Charles Owen began manufacturing cork helmets in London for the military. By 1928, the cork helmet was being covered with a hard exterior and became the first motorcycle helmet. Ten years later, Owen developed its first racing helmet, and the equestrian world was changed forever.



Sorry, still can't see how the article fails to prove that equestrian helmets did not develop from fashion to safety

Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 17924
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: "Denialism" and cycle helmets

Postby Vorpal » 1 Nov 2018, 9:15am

Cunobelin wrote:
Vorpal wrote:
Cunobelin wrote:

Not sure about what this is saying

The bowler and top hats were the first riding hats, and fashion items rather than protective, then there were cork helmets and after that:



In 1911, Charles Owen began manufacturing cork helmets in London for the military. By 1928, the cork helmet was being covered with a hard exterior and became the first motorcycle helmet. Ten years later, Owen developed its first racing helmet, and the equestrian world was changed forever.



Sorry, still can't see how the article fails to prove that equestrian helmets did not develop from fashion to safety


It 'proves' nothing. But neither does your assertion that it is fashion driven. A helmet manufacturer began pushing equestrian helmets in 1938. Equestrian helmets didn't really develop any differently than cycling helmets.

I will concede that the fashion aspect is likely the biggest reason that equestrians are more accepting of them than cyclists.

The other aspect of equestrian helmets is likely class/money. Keeping and riding horses is expensive, and more likely to be done be people who can not only afford the horses and feeding them, but equipment. The cost of a riding helmet is peanuts compared to the costs of buying and feeding horses.

A bike on the other hand can be got for free.

Pedestrians wore top hats, and then bowlers, as well. Why aren't there fashion-driven pedestrian helmets?
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom

User avatar
Cunobelin
Posts: 10188
Joined: 6 Feb 2007, 7:22pm

Re: "Denialism" and cycle helmets

Postby Cunobelin » 1 Nov 2018, 7:34pm

Vorpal wrote:
Cunobelin wrote:
Vorpal wrote:



Sorry, still can't see how the article fails to prove that equestrian helmets did not develop from fashion to safety


It 'proves' nothing. But neither does your assertion that it is fashion driven. A helmet manufacturer began pushing equestrian helmets in 1938. Equestrian helmets didn't really develop any differently than cycling helmets.

I will concede that the fashion aspect is likely the biggest reason that equestrians are more accepting of them than cyclists.

The other aspect of equestrian helmets is likely class/money. Keeping and riding horses is expensive, and more likely to be done be people who can not only afford the horses and feeding them, but equipment. The cost of a riding helmet is peanuts compared to the costs of buying and feeding horses.

A bike on the other hand can be got for free.

Pedestrians wore top hats, and then bowlers, as well. Why aren't there fashion-driven pedestrian helmets?



No idea at all....

Still doesn't change the fact that equestrian helmets have increased safety over the years whilst cycle helmets have decreased safety

User avatar
Wanlock Dod
Posts: 556
Joined: 28 Sep 2016, 5:48pm

Re: "Denialism" and cycle helmets

Postby Wanlock Dod » 2 Nov 2018, 9:33am

Lack of use of horses for any serious kind of transport by the time riding "helmets" were accepted meant that nobody was equating them with protectiveness against fast moving heavy vehicles. Surely therefore riding "helmets" have been able to evolve to protect against the hazards that are likely to be presented to riders (head hits ground or is kicked by hoof), whereas the hazards faced by transport cyclists (crushed to death by 2 tonnes of steel moving at 100 kph) can't meaningfully be addressed in the same way by a hat. It also occurs to me that although I rode a horse and came across many a horsey personage nobody ever referred to it as a "helmet", rather I think there were riding hats (tight fitting hard hat with a peak), and that they were superseded by the skull cap (as used by racers, had a separate cover with the peak), definitely nobody ever had a "helmet".

It always seems to be the situations where cycle "helmets" are of least benefit, i.e. in amongst high speed motorised traffic that they are considered to be most useful, and even the most enthusiastic "helmet" wearer will often quite happily not wear a "helmet" riding in the Netherlands because it is clear that there is no need for one (despite the fact that the vast majority of potential accidents are just the kind of thing that cycle "helmets" are really useful for, like head-on collisions between cyclists on narrow cycle paths).

Perhaps there is something in the psychology of what we call something that enforces our beliefs in its effectiveness.

User avatar
Pastychomper
Posts: 357
Joined: 14 Nov 2017, 11:14am
Location: Caithness

Re: "Denialism" and cycle helmets

Postby Pastychomper » 2 Nov 2018, 10:21am

landsurfer wrote:One big advantage of bicycles over horses is that once your have come off you bike it doesn't then trample you for good measure ........ :)

On the other hand, some of the "offs" I've had from bikes could have been prevented if the bike had either refused to go as fast as I wanted on a slippery road, or automatically slowed and altered its balance when it felt me losing my grip. Some horses are helpful. :lol:
Everyone's ghast should get a good flabbering now and then.
--Ole Boot

Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 17924
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: "Denialism" and cycle helmets

Postby Vorpal » 2 Nov 2018, 12:08pm

Cunobelin wrote:
No idea at all....

Still doesn't change the fact that equestrian helmets have increased safety over the years whilst cycle helmets have decreased safety

Do you have some evidence for the increased safety?
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom

User avatar
Cunobelin
Posts: 10188
Joined: 6 Feb 2007, 7:22pm

Re: "Denialism" and cycle helmets

Postby Cunobelin » 2 Nov 2018, 6:16pm

Vorpal wrote:
Cunobelin wrote:
No idea at all....

Still doesn't change the fact that equestrian helmets have increased safety over the years whilst cycle helmets have decreased safety

Do you have some evidence for the increased safety?



The same as for cycle helmets..........

ambodach
Posts: 928
Joined: 15 Mar 2011, 6:45pm

Re: "Denialism" and cycle helmets

Postby ambodach » 26 Nov 2018, 6:42pm

Bowler hats were worn by the gaffers in Clydeside shipyards. Partly as a mark of rank but more as protection against an “ accidentally” dropped spanner or similar object from high up on a ship superstructure.