Helmet maximum safety protection risk assesment/compensation 2021
Helmet maximum safety protection risk assesment/compensation 2021
I would love to ask and really know the reason why do cyclists "choose" to wear the bare minimum cycle helmet protection on public roads beside cars.
But not full face helmets for maximum protection for the face?
(yes your not going as fast but your beside 2,871lbs of metal on the road)?
I just dont understand the logic.
But not full face helmets for maximum protection for the face?
(yes your not going as fast but your beside 2,871lbs of metal on the road)?
I just dont understand the logic.
Re: Helmet maximum safety protection risk assesment/compensation 2021
Steve300 wrote:I would love to ask and really know the reason why do cyclists "choose" to wear the bare minimum cycle helmet protection on public roads beside cars.
But not full face helmets for maximum protection for the face?
(yes your not going as fast but your beside 2,871lbs of metal on the road)?
I just dont understand the logic.
Off the top of my head and without any data or statistics:
1. Sweat build-up and fogging of the visor: cyclists are making more effort and sweat than motorbikers.
2. Weight
3. Expense although I suspect that a top of the range cycling helmet could cost more than a cheap MB helmet
However, downhill MTBers do use visored helmets that look like MB helmets to me.
Re: Helmet maximum safety protection risk assesment/compensation 2021
I think the first point is the main one. Also, for a cyclist, hearing what vehicles around you are doing is important. And I don't see how the peripheral vision could be helped by full-face.
As it is, the focus in promoting helmets is on how comfortable, light and ventilated they are, far more than on which design gives the most (claimed) protection. That tells you where consumers' concerns lie - even the many who choose to wear helmets are not looking for something that will cook their brains.
In cycling, full-face helmets are designed for downhill racing, where there are no vehicles around to watch out for, gravity is doing a lot of the work in moving the bike along, and there's a high chance of crashing, not least owing to the surfaces. It's a matter of using appropriate equipment.
Also, you're opening up discussions of how effective helmets actually are. In general terms, it's better to focus on avoiding crashes in the first place.
As it is, the focus in promoting helmets is on how comfortable, light and ventilated they are, far more than on which design gives the most (claimed) protection. That tells you where consumers' concerns lie - even the many who choose to wear helmets are not looking for something that will cook their brains.
In cycling, full-face helmets are designed for downhill racing, where there are no vehicles around to watch out for, gravity is doing a lot of the work in moving the bike along, and there's a high chance of crashing, not least owing to the surfaces. It's a matter of using appropriate equipment.
Also, you're opening up discussions of how effective helmets actually are. In general terms, it's better to focus on avoiding crashes in the first place.
-
- Posts: 2749
- Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm
Re: Helmet maximum safety protection risk assesment/compensation 2021
The safer option is generally not to wear one.
Clarke CF, Evaluating Cycling Fatality Risk with a Focus on Cycle Helmet Use Dec. 2018. https://trid.trb.org/view/1635854 , https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... se_revised.
Clarke CF, Gillham C, Effects of bicycle helmet wearing on accident and injury rates, GB National Road Safety Conference, November 2019. https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... jury_rates
Clarke CF, Evaluating Cycling Fatality Risk with a Focus on Cycle Helmet Use Dec. 2018. https://trid.trb.org/view/1635854 , https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... se_revised.
Clarke CF, Gillham C, Effects of bicycle helmet wearing on accident and injury rates, GB National Road Safety Conference, November 2019. https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... jury_rates
Re: Helmet maximum safety protection risk assesment/compensation 2021
The other thing is that helmets aren't designed to provide protection against 2781lb of metal. The designs and tests are all about falling off at low speed, in what amount to single-vehicle accidents. There really has to come a point at which further protection is provided by measures of all kinds that prevent the accidents from happening in the first place.
Re: Helmet maximum safety protection risk assesment/compensation 2021
Yes. The odds on this thread remaining constructive and polite can't be great from previous experiences.drossall wrote:Also, you're opening up discussions of how effective helmets actually are.
Sticking to the specific question asked is probably a good idea.
Jonathan
Last edited by Jdsk on 27 Feb 2021, 12:23pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Helmet maximum safety protection risk assesment/compensation 2021
rotavator wrote:1. Sweat build-up and fogging of the visor: cyclists are making more effort and sweat than motorbikers.
2. Weight
drossall wrote:Also, for a cyclist, hearing what vehicles around you are doing is important. And I don't see how the peripheral vision could be helped by full-face.
Those all contribute to my decision.
But it's also about where my brain is. I don't fancy the idea of my face being damaged but there's a fair bit of distance to my brain from the extra bits that would be protected with a full-face helmet.
Jonathan
Re: Helmet maximum safety protection risk assesment/compensation 2021
1. Heat stress. Even in the UK, imagine climbing Snake Pass or any other hill in 25 degrees C. It is said that we lose much heat through our heads, so why encase it further.
2. Weight adding to potential for neck injuries.
3. Vision restricted by fogging (ask any motorcyclist) and limits to peripheral vision.
4. Hearing is very useful on a pedal cycle.
It seems to me that posts like this come from those with very narrow experience or usage or pace of pedals cycles. An example - a number of years ago somebody posted an opinion that cyclists should use cameras to record every ride - just in case. I asked how a tourist, away from home for a month might be expected to cope with yet another (optional) device that needs daily charging. The answer came back "I only commute so that is all I care about".
2. Weight adding to potential for neck injuries.
3. Vision restricted by fogging (ask any motorcyclist) and limits to peripheral vision.
4. Hearing is very useful on a pedal cycle.
It seems to me that posts like this come from those with very narrow experience or usage or pace of pedals cycles. An example - a number of years ago somebody posted an opinion that cyclists should use cameras to record every ride - just in case. I asked how a tourist, away from home for a month might be expected to cope with yet another (optional) device that needs daily charging. The answer came back "I only commute so that is all I care about".
-
- Posts: 2749
- Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm
Re: Helmet maximum safety protection risk assesment/compensation 2021
People cycle for a number of reasons, convenience, enjoyment, exercise etc. I often set off with a cap or beanie and quite often within 5 miles I may remove it to help keep cooler. They easily fold up and store away. Helmets would be less convenient and a full faced helmet even more inconvenient. It this really hard to understand why cyclists in general do not wear full faced helmets?
Re: Helmet maximum safety protection risk assesment/compensation 2021
drossall wrote:The other thing is that helmets aren't designed to provide protection against 2781lb of metal. The designs and tests are all about falling off at low speed, in what amount to single-vehicle accidents. There really has to come a point at which further protection is provided by measures of all kinds that prevent the accidents from happening in the first place.
you'll still want something that will protect your face and teeth aswell if you fall onto concrete. So its covenience over protection? ok im just wondering because I wear a downhill helmet for commuting i guess im used to having it on at all times.
Re: Helmet maximum safety protection risk assesment/compensation 2021
Steve300 wrote:I would love to ask and really know the reason why do cyclists "choose" to wear the bare minimum cycle helmet protection on public roads beside cars.
But not full face helmets for maximum protection for the face?
(yes your not going as fast but your beside 2,871lbs of metal on the road)?
I just dont understand the logic.
The last time I came off a bike and hit my head was in 2003. I was wearing a helmet but took it on the chin, so that didn't help. You can, if you look closely, see a very minor scar there.
So, had I worn an uncomfortable and inconvenient lump (and a full face helmet is those things) every trip I'd made for the last 30 odd years (the time over which helmets have been widely available, and that'd be of the order of 10,000 trips), I might have avoided a very small scar and a couple of days discomfort. Not really worth my while.
These days I usually ride without a helmet. The main danger remains, as when I'm in pedestrian mode, collisions with cars, but since cycle helmets aren't specced for those it's really a case of avoiding them. That this may be seen as irresponsibly dangerous is far more to do with culture than actual risk.
Pete.
Often seen riding a bike around Dundee...
Re: Helmet maximum safety protection risk assesment/compensation 2021
Steve300 wrote:drossall wrote:The other thing is that helmets aren't designed to provide protection against 2781lb of metal. The designs and tests are all about falling off at low speed, in what amount to single-vehicle accidents. There really has to come a point at which further protection is provided by measures of all kinds that prevent the accidents from happening in the first place.
you'll still want something that will protect your face and teeth aswell if you fall onto concrete. So its covenience over protection? ok im just wondering because I wear a downhill helmet for commuting i guess im used to having it on at all times.
You seem to be rather overly-worried about landing face first. It's not common, unless you're going out of your way to ride in a way that generates lots of over-the-bars falls. If it were common the Dutch and Danes would be stereotypically characterised by facial scarring.
Pete.
Often seen riding a bike around Dundee...
-
- Posts: 7898
- Joined: 7 Mar 2009, 3:31pm
Re: Helmet maximum safety protection risk assesment/compensation 2021
pjclinch wrote: That this may be seen as irresponsibly dangerous is far more to do with culture than actual risk.
Pete.
The enduring popularity of helmets as a proposed major intervention for increased road safety may therefore lie not with their direct benefits—which seem too modest to capture compared with other strategies—but more with the cultural, psychological, and political aspects of popular debate around risk.
https://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.f3817.full?ijkey=I5vHBog6FhaaLzX&keytype=ref
It's the same the whole world over
It's the poor what gets the blame
It's the rich what gets the pleasure
Isn't it a blooming shame?
It's the poor what gets the blame
It's the rich what gets the pleasure
Isn't it a blooming shame?
-
- Posts: 2749
- Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm
Re: Helmet maximum safety protection risk assesment/compensation 2021
I am concerned about helmets and discussions because it may well be the focus turns to highlighting dangers and risks, that the public takes to mean cycling is dangerous, whereas without helmet promotion the focus could be on enjoyment, exercise, protecting the environment/improved health etc. Over time cycling becomes to be seen as more dangerous due to helmet promotion, than perhaps the statistics alone would show and children are discouraged with a negative image and being persuaded or insisted on having the wear a helmet. The focus could also be on making cycling conditions safer, rather than adding questionable protection. 'Helmet maximum safety protection risk assesment'. This would be looking for the most protection when falls occur, not looking to minimise risk from avoiding falls or accidents. Researching 'Helmet maximum safety protection and any adverse helmet effects on accident involvement' could go some way to providing balance research.
Re: Helmet maximum safety protection risk assesment/compensation 2021
Steve300 wrote:[
you'll still want something that will protect your face and teeth aswell if you fall onto concrete. So its covenience over protection? ok im just wondering because I wear a downhill helmet for commuting i guess im used to having it on at all times.
I used to wear a helmet when I took risks with some of my off road riding. I did come off a couple of times but never on my face and never banged my head either.
I used to and still can wear a helmet on some club rides and some social rides even with an odd touch of wheels I’ve yet to fall off.
After 30 years of riding, a couple of years ago, I fell off on a patch of ice. I wasn’t wearing a helmet. I wore a hole in my tights and scuffed my gloves but my beanie was completely undamaged.
Based on my experience I consider wearing a full face helmet a little over the top for me. However if you are happy to wear one and feel that it is necessary then I don’t have a problem with that. It is your choice.
Whatever I am, wherever I am, this is me. This is my life
https://stcleve.wordpress.com/category/lejog/
E2E info
https://stcleve.wordpress.com/category/lejog/
E2E info