Old age helmets

[pjclinch]

^^^

Though I think Steady Rider's worry is at least in part that wearing a helmet may cause the fall in the first place.
While I see that adding mass to the head will have a finite effect on how easy it is to balance I'm far from convinced it would be easy to detect, particularly by walking along some strips or beams and seeing how one did.
I am further of the opinion that if there really is a significant balance detriment from a light cycle helmet then a rucksack full of shopping would be a much bigger one, and thus a better place to focus one's balance-related worries.

Pete.

[Steady rider]

The two aspects, simple balance tests for people to monitor their own balance, before perhaps seeking specialised advice or tests, could potentially be helpful. The second part to determine how much difference helmets can make to balance and riding stability possibly requires very precise research.

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... _stability

up to 65N due to deep potholes and about 40N due to side winds, typically lighter helmets may be used in some cases compared to the 1986 research.

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... _warranted

Also info on neck injuries is worth considering.
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... le_helmets

[pjclinch]

^^^

Those figures for force have often been quoted here but there's no real indication whether or not they're significant issues. Being left there as numbers doesn't tell us much.

Side winds have far bigger areas to operate on than the differences between a head and a helmeted head, so again why worry about helmets when luggage will have far more effect?
Potholes are (like rock gardens, drop-offs etc. on MTB trails) mostly about are you prepared for them. If you aren't, yes, a lid could push you over the edge, but there again you could be going over anyway in which case a helmet might help... If you are prepared and have the technique then a rider can take pretty amazing whacks in their stride (watch some World Cup downhill for examples).

Pete.

[Steady rider]

The figures mentioned, up to 65N due to deep potholes and about 40N due to side winds, could be considered against the typical force of rider and bicycle, say 70kg rider and 8 kg bike, 78 kg x 9.81 = about 765N.
Therefore potential extra forces from a heavy helmet, possibly full face with peak, say 60N from a deep pot hole, could be about 7%-8% of the normal force exerted by the rider and bike. The potential 40N from side winds may be 5% of the normal road force. There is evidence showing increased helmet use associated with an increased accident rate. Much more research was needed to gain a fuller understanding of helmet use and riding stability but who would pay for the research? The forces may be more significant due to their location and movement on the head, resulting in the head being less steady compared with a rider without a helmet. The research from 1986 mention the direction of the forces may be fairly random, so may add to the out of balance forces.

People cycling with back packs or luggage may cycle slower and their accident rate may change. My approach is towards cycling without falls or minimum falls and how to achieve this. Helmet use is unhelpful with regards the rate of falling but may help in adding to the profile slightly.

[Airsporter1st]

But them stairs ..... and in a hoose with a vigorous collie and a insertive corgi! (likes an ankle-stroke, he does) I feel in my water (no study being available on the matter) that I should go carefully to bed; and also when I arise and go via them stairs for the necessary coffee to waken me fully.

Cats are also a poor safety mix with stairs, it turns out, especially when they've decided that if they come down with me that will lead to breakfast, and they'll just wait around near the top for me so as not to miss it.

Pete.

My nocturnal trips from bedroom to loo are done in the dark, passing the top of the stairs, and often in the presence of a cat, mostly black, hopeful of a snack. Perhaps keeping a helmet by the bed would be wise.

Probably safer to simply pee in the helmet - then you don’t need to make such a dangerous trip at all.

[Cugel]

Cats are also a poor safety mix with stairs, it turns out, especially when they've decided that if they come down with me that will lead to breakfast, and they'll just wait around near the top for me so as not to miss it.

Pete.

My nocturnal trips from bedroom to loo are done in the dark, passing the top of the stairs, and often in the presence of a cat, mostly black, hopeful of a snack. Perhaps keeping a helmet by the bed would be wise.

Probably safer to simply pee in the helmet - then you don’t need to make such a dangerous trip at all.

Some do become forgetful as they age to the point of needing the helmet gazunda. Morning arrives, bright and full of the promise of an early morning bike ride. The forgetful one dons his green spot jacket et al, with the helmet going upon his ancient napper last thing ....... .

Wot's this!? It seems to be raining despite the sun shining brightly.

The cat looks on, smiling to itself at humans and their daft antics.

[pjclinch]

<snip>
There is evidence showing increased helmet use associated with an increased accident rate. Much more research was needed to gain a fuller understanding of helmet use and riding stability but who would pay for the research?

Quoting Goldacre & Spiegelhalter again (my emphasis, not theirs)

With regard to the use of bicycle helmets, science broadly tries to answer two main questions. At a societal level, “what is the effect of a public health policy that requires or promotes helmets?” and at an individual level, “what is the effect of wearing a helmet?” Both questions are methodologically challenging and contentious.

I would suggest your biggest problem is not the money so much as the experimental design to look at something that is methodologically challenging and contentious. The sort of issues that plague trying to show if helmets are clearly beneficial are the same sorts of issues that plague trying to show they're clearly detrimental: there are lots of interrelated variables, including self-adjusting human behaviour, that make isolating specific issues very hard indeed.
So yes, there are figures showing it's seemingly the case that more folk wearing helmets correlates with higher accident rates, but there is not a smoking gun showing that helmets have caused the accidents: too many other variables.

My criticisms of your experimental design are not from the basis that I don't think there's anything worth looking at, but that I very, very much doubt that getting folk to walk along varying width strips with and without a cycle helmet will tell you anything useful. It just doesn't account for the numerous confounding complexities of real life cycling, particularly those around human behaviour and the effects of practice and habit.

Pete.

[Steady rider]

The point about some experiments is to design them to measure or assess specific elements, thus not to include human behaviour and the effects of practice and habit. Regarding balance three aspects could be included, walking, cycling and equipment/luggage/helmets/cycle design aspects etc.

Considering cycling, angle of lean/degree of steering/pressures on pedals,various pieces of equipment could be useful, sensors/transducers, transmitters/receivers, data logging equipment. Today technology is very advanced with mobile phones used to measure acceleration levels when cycling, ref no 3, https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... _stability
https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/18/3/914
Considering in 1986 they were assessing the levels of vibration acceleration, up to 10g, and today nearly 40 year later, technology should be capable of assessing most aspects of cycling and balance,

[pjclinch]

The point about some experiments is to design them to measure or assess specific elements, thus not to include human behaviour and the effects of practice and habit.

Go and read Adams' Risk for a book full of examples of how that doesn't really work out the way you want it to.

It's not about money or tech, it's about the methodology running into too many confounders that undermine the experiments.

Pete.