I should have been wearing my helmet

[Edwards]

Oh, I see, a joke. Sorry for missing it. How does the joke relate to your "massaging figures" accusation? Was that a joke too. Sorry for my lack of humour.Neither Bob nor myself did any counting of head injuries or of brain injuries. Does it matter. The point is that the number of cases of brain injuries is tiny in relation to the brain damage produced by strokes. Or have I missed another joke?

If you only count serious cyclists then that leaves out most children and leisure cyclists, thus bringing down the number of cyclists being counted.
The alternative is to only count the ones with a serious look and not those who look happy.
Then we can really bring down the cycling injuries and show cycling to be extremely safe.

[[XAP]Bob]

Oh, I see, a joke. Sorry for missing it. How does the joke relate to your "massaging figures" accusation? Was that a joke too. Sorry for my lack of humour.Neither Bob nor myself did any counting of head injuries or of brain injuries. Does it matter. The point is that the number of cases of brain injuries is tiny in relation to the brain damage produced by strokes. Or have I missed another joke?

If you only count serious cyclists then that leaves out most children and leisure cyclists, thus bringing down the number of cyclists being counted.
The alternative is to only count the ones with a serious look and not those who look happy.
Then we can really bring down the cycling injuries and show cycling to be extremely safe.

But the dour (serious if you like) cyclists are already wearing lids...

Boris bikes, with their near zero helmet wearing rate (and relatively risky urban use?) see virtually no injuries - but lots of smiles.

[Mick F]

Does anyone remember my experiment?
Am I a "material scientist"?

I had an old helmet and put a bag of sand and gravel into it. I'd weighed my head and made the bag of sand and gravel to the same weight.

I then repeatedly dropped my hemet onto a solid concrete surface to see what happened.
viewtopic.php?f=41&t=79382&start=75

This is one of the real problems with helmet tests - the "ideal situation" where they know it will perform.

It is howener not related to reality where the impact will be far more complex. Take "snag points" and their proable cause in rotational injuries or the helmet being ejected from the head......... A simpl drop test will never be able to reproduce his type of impact

Yes, I agree ........... and I'm sure most people would too, given the info.

This is what we're all discussing, isn't it?
Question:
Does a helmet help or not?

It helps if you bang your head - simply and basically, but not help because maybe you bang your head because you are wearing a helmet.
It helps because it reduces the total number of cyclists, therefore reducing the total number of head injuries.
It may not help because you may rotate your brain and/or neck because you are wearing a helmet.
It may not help because other road users give you less room and take more risks with you because they perceive you as "competent".
It may not help because the helmet wearer rides faster in the belief that he's invulnerable.
The list goes on.

All I did, was to show that a cycle helmet was far stronger than I expected. For that, it was a good experiment.

[[XAP]Bob]

Yes - and with an acknowledgement that the research was limited.

As evidenced again

[Mick F]

Yes - and with an acknowledgement that the research was limited.

Yes, but isn't it all?

The only evidence worth anything is evidence produced from the full facts.

Trouble is, what are the full facts?
Who says that facts are facts?
Do we believe the facts?

We can't even agree on the Big Bang, let alone banging one's head when falling off a bicycle.

[Steady rider]

A couple of opinions
http://www.wharf.co.uk/2014/03/dont-mak ... ompul.html

http://yorkshiretimes.co.uk/article/A-C ... -Harmful-3

the ref to http://www.ta.org.br/site/Banco/7manuai ... helmet.pdf
provides a comparison between a bare head profile and one helmeted.

[TonyR]

* I've not got stats to hand, but on the basis of the very low number of serious cyclist head injuries it would take a virtually negligable increase in stroke rate to make an absolute increase in brain injury.

And recent research has shown that cycling (and other regular exercise) is the single best way to prevent both dementia and age related reductions in cognitive functions.

[Cunobelin]

Yes - and with an acknowledgement that the research was limited.

Yes, but isn't it all?

The only evidence worth anything is evidence produced from the full facts.

Trouble is, what are the full facts?
Who says that facts are facts?
Do we believe the facts?

We can't even agree on the Big Bang, let alone banging one's head when falling off a bicycle.

This is one of the big unanswered questions about helmets....and their sale

Helmets have to pass a standard test that they will function under a series of impacts.

In the UK / EU this is the EN1078 standard, however it is almost laughable in the level it sets. Some standards are higher than others (more rigorous, greater impacts etc) and in turn reply greater protection

In the US you are not allowed to use them in competition, and even in the UK some organisers also don't recognise EN1078 as adequate

UK Cycling event states in its terms (my emphasis)

t is mandatory that all riders wear a safety approved cycling helmet complying with latest ANSI Z90/4 or SNELL standards. Any rider not wearing a helmet will not be covered by the event insurance and will be disqualified from the event and could be liable for damages if involved in an accident on that basis. The rider must accept this as a condition of entry.

It never amazes me that we have a cadre of people supporting and advocating a device that is demonstrably unfit for purpose and offers inadequate protection. A bit like the Emperor's new clothes

I f there is to be promotion of helmets then at lest promote something effective and campaign for the abolition of EN1078 and the introduction of a tougher standard that will not be laughed at