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.
Mike Sales
Posts: 4447
Joined: 7 Mar 2009, 3:31pm

Re: Helmets?

Postby Mike Sales » 22 Jul 2019, 5:05pm

simonhill wrote:Much as I don't want compulsion, it does beg the question, who would enforce it?

When did you last see a Copper on the street?



In Victoria, Australia the fines income from lidless cyclists is thought to be about 1m Dollars.
That must pay for a few Bobbies.
Here is an account of the law's effect there.

https://www.cyclehelmets.org/1108.html

User avatar
Cunobelin
Posts: 10152
Joined: 6 Feb 2007, 7:22pm

Re: Helmets?

Postby Cunobelin » 22 Jul 2019, 5:52pm

There was a woman (Sue Abbot) who successfully appealed on the grounds that wearing a helmet could increase her injuries.

Her objections are based on her belief that wearing a helmet increases the risk of brain damage - and that forcing her to wear one is a breach of her civil liberties.
When she tried that argument in the Scone local court, the magistrate would have none of it. He fined her $50 plus costs.

But when she appealed and laid out her view in the District Court in March, she went a long way to persuading the judge that, 19 years after the laws came into force, there is still no clear evidence of their benefit.

Ms Abbott argued that if she fell from her bike while wearing a helmet she would be at greater risk of brain damage from ''diffuse axonal injury'' (see box), an injury similar to shaken baby syndrome, than if she fell on her bare head.

It may seem ridiculous to suggest helmets could do anything other than improve one's chances in an accident and reduce the number of brain injuries, but there is a serious debate under way on the subject in international medical and transport safety journals - and Judge Roy Ellis happily admitted his own doubts about the laws.

''Having read all the material, I think I would fall down on your side of the ledger,'' the judge told Ms Abbott after she had spelt out her case against the laws that exist in few countries other than Australia and New Zealand.

''I frankly don't think there is anything advantageous and there may well be a disadvantage in situations to have a helmet - and it seems to me that it's one of those areas where it ought to be a matter of choice.''

He found Ms Abbott had ''an honestly held and not unreasonable belief as to the danger associated with the use of a helmet by cyclists'', and quashed her conviction,

Mike Sales
Posts: 4447
Joined: 7 Mar 2009, 3:31pm

Re: Helmets?

Postby Mike Sales » 22 Jul 2019, 6:04pm

Cunobelin wrote:There was a woman (Sue Abbot) who successfully appealed on the grounds that wearing a helmet could increase her injuries.



I have followed her campaign for years. She is definitely one of the awkward squad, determined to make her point come what may.
I admired her intransigence, but did not think she would succeed.

Good on ya, Sue.

User avatar
Cunobelin
Posts: 10152
Joined: 6 Feb 2007, 7:22pm

Re: Helmets?

Postby Cunobelin » 22 Jul 2019, 6:50pm

Brucey wrote:
atoz wrote:…. In particular, they never seem to appreciate that it's actually the soft foam pads in helmets that do the job of absorbing shock of impact...


Nope. It is the main part of the shell which absorbs the impact (*). Typically this is made of expanded polystyrene; this compresses when impacted in such a way as it can prevent your skull from fracturing or not; it won't prevent all concussion or injury but it will nearly always very greatly lessen it.

When a helmet has seen a heavy impact of this type the shell is permanently deformed (crushed). Momentarily the shell has probably been compressed to about 3/4 of the remaining thickness and will have partially recovered to whatever thickness remains. The shell can also crack of course; although it provides some scuff resistance, the main function of the outer (micro) shell is to simply hold the main shell together even if it is cracked and broken.

(*) think about it; some brands of helmet adjust for size/fit by varying the thickness of the foam pads from ~10mm to about 2mm. If they 'absorbed impact' they wouldn't be made like this.... Motorcycle helmets work a similar way; a squashy liner (which can have tailored pads to get a good fit if necessary) and about 1" of expanded polystyrene to actually absorb the impact.

cheers



In theory.... the reality is that with modern design, the reduction in the material due to incr4asing ventilation and increased density of the remainder makes cycle helmets far less efficient than 20 years ago

User avatar
mjr
Posts: 15025
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Helmets?

Postby mjr » 22 Jul 2019, 6:52pm

simonhill wrote:Much as I don't want compulsion, it does beg the question, who would enforce it?

When did you last see a Copper on the street?

I seem to see them most weeks. Maybe it's because your area is much less unruly than us in West Norfolk ;)

More seriously, the problem isn't so much that it would be enforced or not, but that it punishes law-abiding cyclists (yet again) and also cyclists would become an easy target any time a police commissioner wants to improve some statistics or be seen to do something about the so-called "scourge of the streets".
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.

User avatar
Cunobelin
Posts: 10152
Joined: 6 Feb 2007, 7:22pm

Re: Helmets?

Postby Cunobelin » 22 Jul 2019, 6:56pm

Bsteel wrote:It's obviously hotter to wear but would there be any significant benefits from wearing a full face MTB helmet. A quick look at the standards and I haven't spotted any that seem much improved over road helmets ?



Headway the Pro-Compulsion charity unwittingly supported this!

They chose to misquote some statistics to inflate their point, and when challenged, quoted a paper from the British Dental Association... one that was stating that current helmet design did nothing to prevent facial injury and that Dentists should have a role in promoting better facial protection in helmets!

User avatar
mjr
Posts: 15025
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Helmets?

Postby mjr » 22 Jul 2019, 6:56pm

Cunobelin wrote:[...] the reality is that with modern design, the reduction in the material due to incr4asing ventilation and increased density of the remainder makes cycle helmets far less efficient than 20 years ago

I'm not sure about "efficient" but anyone who doubts that modern helmets are worse than 20 years ago should read up about the 1995 Snell B95 standard and the current required EN1078 standard. The Snell standard is stronger.

Anyway, it doesn't really matter how good helmets are in theory because in reality, the vast majority of users don't use them correctly: dangling straps, rakish tilts or almost covering the eyebrows, even on totally backwards. Some of the ways I've seen them dumped onto children's heads should be classed as reckless endangerment or abuse!
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.

User avatar
Cunobelin
Posts: 10152
Joined: 6 Feb 2007, 7:22pm

Re: Helmets?

Postby Cunobelin » 22 Jul 2019, 7:02pm

mjr wrote:
Cunobelin wrote:[...] the reality is that with modern design, the reduction in the material due to incr4asing ventilation and increased density of the remainder makes cycle helmets far less efficient than 20 years ago

I'm not sure about "efficient" but anyone who doubts that modern helmets are worse than 20 years ago should read up about the 1995 Snell B95 standard and the current required EN1078 standard. The Snell standard is stronger.

Anyway, it doesn't really matter how good helmets are in theory because in reality, the vast majority of users don't use them correctly: dangling straps, rakish tilts or almost covering the eyebrows, even on totally backwards. Some of the ways I've seen them dumped onto children's heads should be classed as reckless endangerment or abuse!


Snell B90 still remains the toughest.

One of the advantages is that they buy stock helmets from shops so test exactly what you are wearing.

Other tests allow the companies to produce batches specifically for the test

I remember the Trek Anthem C scandal.

The Trek Anthem C passed the appropriate US tests and went not production. It was then found out in a consumer test that the production helmet failed every single test and had to be recalled

User avatar
mjr
Posts: 15025
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Helmets?

Postby mjr » 22 Jul 2019, 7:06pm

Cunobelin wrote:I remember the Trek Anthem C scandal.

The Trek Anthem C passed the appropriate US tests and went not production. It was then found out in a consumer test that the production helmet failed every single test and had to be recalled

Wasn't there something similar over here with "Which?" testing and a Met helmet? (I always want to say it was the Met Cantaloupe, but I think it was some other name beginning with C...) But Met refused to recall?
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.

JohnW
Posts: 6301
Joined: 6 Jan 2007, 9:12pm
Location: Yorkshire

Re: Helmets?

Postby JohnW » 22 Jul 2019, 7:38pm

De Sisti wrote:
JohnW wrote:
De Sisti wrote:...............................Seems like you're a bit accident-prone. Ride slower; it may prevent some of the incidents you've been
involved in.


I referred to just two accidents in which I've been involved.

Your comment to one of them may be relevant and appropriate; I wasn't hit by anything - a flat spanner in the road came up with my front wheel and got trapped between mudguard and wheel. My speed may very well have been an element in the amount of injury damage, but certainly not in generating it.

The other 'accident' (referred to by the police as an 'incident') was the action of a motorist who drove into the back of me; my speed had no effect on his behaviour/action. At the time I was climbing at no more than 9 or 10 mph.

I wasn't being serious.


Oh gosh, I'm sorry De Sisti. I had a serious hat on, and it didn't occur that your comment was in jest. I hope you were not offended. I should have known better, because there's been no-one worse than me for making what turned out to be an offensive post, tongue in cheek, when no offence was intended, :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: I do apologise.

As for riding slower - there's not many who ride slower than I do nowadays. :( :( :( :(

jb
Posts: 909
Joined: 6 Jan 2007, 12:17pm
Location: Clitheroe

Re: Helmets?

Postby jb » 22 Jul 2019, 7:55pm

The main reason for not wanting compulsory helmet laws is the same as unsuitable lighting regs. They could provide a get-out loophole for insurers or convictions even though your lit up like a Christmas tree.

So when Joe Blogs removes his helmet for a 3 mile climb at 4 mph and something happens that has nothing to do with helmet wearing he loses his case. Same for the guy who rides 10 yards down the road to test his new brakes out. And don't tell me you run for your helmet when wanting to see if you've eliminated that annoying squeak.
Cheers
J Bro

User avatar
Cugel
Posts: 3161
Joined: 13 Nov 2017, 11:14am

Re: Helmets?

Postby Cugel » 22 Jul 2019, 10:31pm

amediasatex wrote:
Cugel wrote:
Brucey wrote:7N ? where does that figure come from?

cheers


My figure was incorrect on two fronts:

1. It should have been 0.7kN.


So only out by a factor of a hundred then? ;-)


One should refresh one's memory with a mental note written on a piece of paper rather than the sort that churns 'round in the head for several years, becoming befuddled as it's copied (badly) from one synapse to another. :-)

Anyroadup, the shorthand is that them modish modern cycling hats absorb very little force indeed when smacked; and then only if the smacker is a nice flat road rather than some pointy thing, worming it's way between the many ventilation holes. And you only fall off 'cos your head's too hot in the hat. Oh yes you do!

Also, many look like Mekon and this frightens car drivers who were brought up on The Eagle comik, so they run you over.

Mekon.jpg
Future cycling


Cugel

Brucey
Posts: 37374
Joined: 4 Jan 2012, 6:25pm

Re: Helmets?

Postby Brucey » 22 Jul 2019, 10:39pm

let he who be without sin cast the first broken helmet.

If I had a quid for everything I'd misremembered I'd be a rich man (*)

(*) I think.... I might have remembered that wrongly.... :wink:

cheers
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Brucey~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Cyril Haearn
Posts: 12342
Joined: 30 Nov 2013, 11:26am
Location: Between the woods and the water

Re: Helmets?

Postby Cyril Haearn » 23 Jul 2019, 5:09am

An expert explained that forgetting is necessary to create space for new memories
Nice one Cyrille, nice one son..
Cycling-of course, but it is far better on 49" fixed
We love safety cameras, we love life "1330"

User avatar
Cugel
Posts: 3161
Joined: 13 Nov 2017, 11:14am

Re: Helmets?

Postby Cugel » 23 Jul 2019, 8:39am

Cyril Haearn wrote:An expert explained that forgetting is necessary to create space for new memories


There was a New Scientist article a while back that was a series, really, of sub-articles all about the various aspects of memory as well as various findings concerning it's operation in humans. It's a slippery beast, the memory; and also a morpher, starting in one shape but often assuming several others as the years go by.

Being as how the rascal is always trying to either trip us up or please us by becoming what we prefer happened rather than what did, I am wary of mine. It's too easy to make up a nice story, which is what all history is really, including our personal history. "Based on a true story". A very fat oxymoron, that!

These days I ask my memory for some proof. Often it gives a shrug or a leer then shuffles off to make up some more stuff.

Cugel