Stop Headway

[Steady rider]

2009, 13 cyclist deaths in London and 88 pedestrian deaths.

UK 2007, approx 193000 deaths due to circulatory disease, including 53000 from stroke.

"The new London Cycle Hire scheme could be putting the lives of its users at risk, according to the national charity that helps people rebuild their lives following brain injury"

Cycling helps to avoid stroke and circulatory disease and the figures suggest it may be more important to get people cycling than the risk they may face on the roads.

Erke and Elvik19 (Norwegian researchers) 2007 stated: "There is evidence of increased accident risk per cycling-km for cyclists wearing a helmet. In Australia and New Zealand, the increase is estimated to be around 14 per cent."
Erke A, Elvik R, Making Vision Zero real: Preventing Pedestrian Accidents And Making Them Less Severe, Oslo June 2007. page 28
http://www.toi.no/getfile.php/Publikasj ... 7-nett.pdf

The current, very minimal advice given by TfL to 'consider wearing a helmet' is woefully inadequate and may indirectly lead to more people being killed or seriously injured on London's roads and it will be Headway that will be left to pick up the pieces."

The advice should include helmet use may increase the accident risk by 14% or helmet use may result in doubling your head impact rate. Any mention of helmets focuses on danger rather than people saving time and probably helping to control their weight and reducing their risk of heart disease. Promoting helmets can also put people off cycling, so Headway may well do more harm than good. London could have more mobile speed cameras to detect any dangerous drivers and the Government could lower the drink drive limit to improve safety and control the risk from HGV type vehicles.

[Per purum tonantes]

The 'Yes' & 'No' debate is REALLY doing my head in!! Having a bad experience on a motorbike at a lowly 25 miles an hour, and with my head impacting the ground, I was so happy wearing a helmet (Snell certified), so my feelings are generally the same for when I`m on my self powered wheels. HOWEVER - I`m just about to buy...or not buy another cycle helmet....

HEADWAY!(in case you are here!) If you want to promote the wearing of cycle helmets, don't forget you are PROMOTING the 'helmet' itself..so start yelling at manufacturers to supply decent cycle helmets that MAY help to protect in a crash...I might then go and buy one in case I stumble on diesel at speed going downhill on my local commute, or pop me head on a tree trunk during me next picnic. At the moment, I can't see me finding a comfortable and secure helmet for all my riding, and will probably only ride one where I FEEL it appropriate, like getting me helmet out if I FEEL the ride could do with some extra protection. Don't work to FORCE me to wear the rubbish that is out there (I'm just a leisure cyclist so neither do I want to spend near GBP200.00 for a decent helmet for both my on-road/off-road jaunts), cos' I'll just ride illegaly..or go onto motorised two/four wheel transport. Nuff said.

[Cunobelin]

Saddest thing is that many of the helmets you are allowed to wear here in the UK (and promoted by ill informed organisations such as Headway) are banned from some rides and events in the States as they are considered not to offer sufficient protection!

You cannot race in the US with an EN1078 helmet!

[downfader]

Saddest thing is that many of the helmets you are allowed to wear here in the UK (and promoted by ill informed organisations such as Headway) are banned from some rides and events in the States as they are considered not to offer sufficient protection!

You cannot race in the US with an EN1078 helmet!

Thats a skater's helmet aint it?



Have seen a couple of "broken" noses on kids from wearing those. That was just a casual observation when I used to fill vending machines in an A&E, not a medical one obviously.

[SilverBadge]

Saddest thing is that many of the helmets you are allowed to wear here in the UK (and promoted by ill informed organisations such as Headway) are banned from some rides and events in the States as they are considered not to offer sufficient protection!

You cannot race in the US with an EN1078 helmet!

Are they really different helmets? or are CPSC-compliant helmets certified to EN1078 in Europe and badged as such?

[irc]

Saddest thing is that many of the helmets you are allowed to wear here in the UK (and promoted by ill informed organisations such as Headway) are banned from some rides and events in the States as they are considered not to offer sufficient protection!

You cannot race in the US with an EN1078 helmet!

Are they really different helmets? or are CPSC-compliant helmets certified to EN1078 in Europe and badged as such?

"Cycle helmets sold in the UK
today generally offer a lower level
of protection than those sold in
the early 1990s. This is due in
the main to the introduction of
the European EN1078 standard,
which is weaker than the Snell
standards then used (see below).
In the early 1990s, market
research suggested that in excess
of 90% of the cycle helmets sold
in the UK were certifi ed to the
Snell B-90/95 standards, at that
time the most stringent cycle
helmet standard in the world. In
1998,"

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/papers/c2023.pdf

"The CPSC and EN1078 standards are lower than the Snell B95 (and B90) standard; Snell helmet standards are externally verified, with each helmet traceable by unique serial number. EN 1078 is also externally validated, but lacks Snell's traceability. The most common standard in the US, CPSC, is self-certified by the manufacturers. It is generally true to say that Snell standards are more exacting than other standards, and most helmets on sale these days will not meet them (currently, Specialized is the only bicycle helmet brand in the world to meet the Snell standard. All of their helmets are Snell certified.)"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_he ... _standards

Perhaps if you are going to ear a helmet it should be a Specialized.

[Cunobelin]

US manufacturers of helmets for racers produce the thinnest helmets you are going to find that meet the CPSC impact standard, and provide the minimum impact performance to be sold as a bike helmet in this country. You could look on the Internet for one of the CEN standard euro models that does not meet CPSC. Those are thinner. But they are not legal for triathlete events even though they are accepted by USA Cycling for racing events here in the US until January 1, 2010. They offer less protection, and when it comes to preventing brain damage, you may be in a world of hurt when you hit. That could end your riding or your triathlete career, and possibly your life or your ability to eat unassisted and tie your shoes. So it's not recommended, and even racers who have been permitted to use them in USA Cycling events will be required to use CPSC helmets after January of 2010

Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute (US)

[Steady rider]

From
http://www.ctcyorkshirehumber.org.uk/US ... t_laws.pdf
Health and safety assessment of state bicycle helmets laws in the USA

Rotational acceleration levels
Testing for rotational accelerations involving both vertical and lateral movement relates more directly to a cyclist falling from a moving bicycle. A slight difference in the size of helmet has resulted in major difference in the level of rotational acceleration, a major factor in brain injury. StClair and Chinn 2006 report, Table 4.9, provides test results for helmet sizes E and J, 54cm and 57cm respectively. Average rotational acceleration for size E were 5333 rad./sec 2 compared to J size of 13505 rad./sec.2 A small difference of just 3 cm resulted in the rotational levels increasing by 250% and the difference between a helmeted and non-helmeted head is approximately 18 cm.

Helmets are not generally tested for their rotational characteristics, so it is not possible to say any helmet is actually safe and they could incur an impact that otherwise would have been a near miss for bare head. Over the past 25 years, 1985 to 2010, the basic research showing impacts to helmets could have estimated for how many would have been near misses but I am not aware of any such details except provided by Clarke. Is helmet research really designed to find out the true facts or just to support helmet promotion and sales?

[George Riches]

Rotational acceleration levels
[...] Average rotational acceleration for size E were 5333 rad./sec 2 compared to J size of 13505 rad./sec.2 A small difference of just 3 cm resulted in the rotational levels increasing by 250%

An increase from 5333 to 13505 is a 150% increase not a 250% one.

[Cunobelin]

To a certain extent this may be true....

The EN1078 and others all allow self-certification by the manufacturers and are not independent like Snell, and the gradual deterioration in standards is perhaps a symptom of being more modern , stylish, easier and cheaper to manufacture at the cost of protection.

[Steady rider]

http://www.calculatorslive.com/PercentageIncrease.aspx

changes - good point about the percentage increase

[Steady rider]

As a starting point in helmet design you could assume a materal with X compression stiffness and assume Y thinkness is acceptable. From there you would travel along typical helmet design considerations and testing. A second stage would be considering the size increase, head + (2 x Y). From here you could consider the extra impacts that will occur to the larger size and the rotational aspects. However the standards and testing have focused on the first stage and only later started to consider rotation.

Worth a read, http://tinyurl.com/26dwn2s


The second stage process of design consideration of the extra impacts is virtually missing from all reports, except Clarke. The standards started off by not giving a maximum weight but later included one. Which magazine tested 24 helmets and only 9 passed all tests, debate continues if they are a reliable safety products or worthwhile safety products at all. The design process failed to fully consider compression and rotation and missed the extra impact element, so it has been flawed and still is.

Debate over stiffness of form, discussion about strap arrangement, discussion about providing helmet shells or not, discussion about how various standards influence the helmet's preformance. Lack of discussion about helmet effects on balance and lack of discussion about the increase accident rate from wearing helmets. Debate over level of acceptable rotational levels. Debate over enforcmenet and reduced level of cycling activity. Debate if helmets provide any benefit. Debate over legislation, 31 papers I favour and 32 against RSRR 30 reported.

[FatBat]

There is a particularly bad letter from Headway in today's Metro "news"paper. Main points;

A rower who was cycling whilst wearing a helmet suffered a fractured skull - therefore, helmets must work

The recent TRL review of helmet evidence proved they work

Headway has to cope with lots of people who have head injuries caused by cycling without a helmet.

[snibgo]

On Tuesday I did what I sometimes joke about: got on the bike and fell off on the other side, not moving at all, no other traffic. Banged my hip badly on the ashphalt. This was a fast roundabout and I was worried about traffic so quickly removed myself and bike. The hip pain built up. Passers-by called an ambulance. In A&E, the triage nurse kicked off with:

Nurse: Were you wearing a helmet?

Me: Yes.

Nurse: Phew, that was good.

Me: Even better, I didn't hit my head.

Nurse: [Silence.]

She didn't ask about any other pains, so I explained about the hip. Turned out I had the classic broken hip. They screwed it together overnight, I was on crutches on Wednesday, and today learnt to go up and down stairs.

I mustn't put any weight on that leg for 6 weeks. Botheration, shall we say?

I am now a staunch advocate for hip helmets. I reckon three inches of padding should do the trick.

[Steady rider]

Wishing you a full recovery etc, could try a bike with a low cross bar - may help perhaps.

A list of 'why helmet promotion without due warnings is wrong' could be considered;

1
Erke and Elvik19 (Norwegian researchers) 2007 stated: "There is evidence of increased accident risk per cycling-km for cyclists wearing a helmet. In Australia and New Zealand, the increase is estimated to be around 14 per cent."
Erke A, Elvik R, Making Vision Zero real: Preventing Pedestrian Accidents And Making Them Less Severe, Oslo June 2007. page 28
http://www.toi.no/getfile.php/Publikasj ... 7-nett.pdf


2
See Robinson DL; Head injuries and bicycle helmet laws; Accid Anal Prev, 28, 4: p 463-475, 1996, refer Table 5 showing the increased accident rate for children.
http://www.cycle-helmets.com/robinson-head-injuries.pdf
Both Table 2 and 5 in the report shows safety reduced, accident rate increased for children, up approximately 16% and 70%.

3
Two detailed reports have found problems with helmet promotion
a)
Hillman M, 'CYCLE HELMETS the case for and against' Policy Studies Institute, London 1993. After fully considering the issues involved Dr Hillman did not recommend either mandatory helmet wearing or helmet promotion.

b)
The UK's National Children's Bureau (NCB) provided a detailed review of cycling and helmets in 2005 stating "the case for helmets is far from sound" page 46, "the benefits of helmets need further investigation before even a policy supporting promotion can be unequivocally supported" page 46.
"The strong claims of injury reduction made by helmet proponents have not been borne out for fatalities (which this paper argues is the most methodologically sound test of effectiveness) in real-life settings with large populations." page 46.

Gill T, Cycling and Children and Young People – A review, National Children's Bureau, 2005. http://www.cycle-helmets.com/cyclingreport_timgill.pdf


4
The UK consumer magazine Which? independently tested 24 helmets and reported
that only 9 passed all tests and therefore even new helmets may not be reliable.
Which?; Get a head start, p 28 – 31, October, UK, 1998.

5
Helmet promotion can discourage cycling, children expelled from school near Derby, GMTV reported 2 Dec 1997.
Reduced numbers cycling to school in Australia with helmet promotion.

6
The Police rewarding children for wearing helmets contributes to a culture of social discrimination and already some judges are thinking it is warranted to reduce compensation to cyclists not wearing a helmet, compared to pedestrians or indeed motor vehicle occupants.

7
The case for helmets is not conclusive because several reports contain details which raise serious doubts whether helmet wearing improves safety overall. The accident rate can increase by wearing a helmet.

8
The BMA concluded in 2008 that for fatal accidents, the force of impact in such instances is considered so significant that most protection would fail. There are several incidents (overseas) of deaths to children due to strangulation by helmet straps.

9
Moderate cycling has many physical and mental benefits (BMA 1992) by reducing the risk of developing heart disease, diabetes, high blood pressure, colon cancer and depression, and helping to control weight and increase fitness. Dr Hillman from the UK's Policy Studies Institute calculated the life years gained by cycling outweigh life years lost in accidents by a factor of 20 to 1.