Cyclists hitting their heads on crashing

[Jdsk]

Jon in Sweden » 1 Apr 2023, 7:09am wrote

I do not accept that not wearing a helmet lowers the risk of injury in any way

I used the heavy helmet to illustrate the forces that have been reported from testing helmets, up to 65N or 14 lbf.
The link I provided also calculates for lighter helmets. At 250 grams and 10g, about 20 N or 6 lbf.
...

This is meaningless without a description of what force is being described and where it is acting.

Jonathan

[Steady rider]

Correction, 20 N or 4 lbf.

The researchers taking the measurements should be able to advise on the direction. One report mentions fairly random directions.
Any sudden forces applied to the head at a time of trying to maintain balance, when hitting potholes or any road defect would in some cases add to the risk of falling. I would suggest a good topic for a university study because many falls are due to poor road surfaces.

[Jdsk]

Jon in Sweden » 1 Apr 2023, 7:09am wrote

I do not accept that not wearing a helmet lowers the risk of injury in any way

I used the heavy helmet to illustrate the forces that have been reported from testing helmets, up to 65N or 14 lbf.
The link I provided also calculates for lighter helmets. At 250 grams and 10g, about 20 N or 6 lbf.
...

This is meaningless without a description of what force is being described and where it is acting.

The researchers taking the measurements should be able to advise on the direction. One report mentions fairly random directions.
Any sudden forces applied to the head at a time of trying to maintain balance, when hitting potholes or any road defect would in some cases add to the risk of falling. I would suggest a good topic for a university study because many falls are due to poor road surfaces.

Does that mean that you are unable to say what force you were describing and where it is acting?

Thanks

Jonathan

[Steady rider]

Does that mean that you are unable to say what force you were describing and where it is acting?

The research says the forces act on the helmets and details the g forces and forces for forward rotation of the helmet.

[Cowsham]

I was on my 250 two stroke up and down the lane yesterday giving it a bit of a shake down before the summer season -- no helmet -- did that make me a more careful rider ? You wouldn't have thought so if you'd seen the wheelies I was pulling ! Would I have been hurt more if I'd fallen with no helmet on ? -- I suspect so -- would the wife be mad if she'd saw me ? -- I suspect so.

[Audax67]

Back in the 15th or 16th centuries some proponents of a particular point of view tried valiantly to prove mathematically that the arc of a circle between any two points on its circumference was shorter than the chord.

They were devotees of the English mode of fencing, which taught that the correct way to kill someone was by hacking away with the edge of the blade, and they were incensed that sneaky parties with new-fangled foreign rapiers were simply poking sharp points past their guards and expunging an eye while they were still on the backswing. Duels were fought over the respective merits of both... faiths?

Nuff said. Box on.

[mattheus]

I do not accept that not wearing a helmet lowers the risk of injury in any way. It's akin to suggesting that seat belts reduce risk in a car crash.

If you do not accept the extensive research on Risk Compensation, then you are beyond reason, and thus barely worth discussing this with.

One thing worth considering - from this forum, not from the academic literature - is that at least one highly belligerent helmet advocate on this forum stated quite clearly that he (and others) wear helmets specifically in order to undertake more hazardous types of riding.

(I think your 2nd sentence may contain typos, so will not respond until you clarify ... )

[Jdsk]

...
I do not accept that not wearing a helmet lowers the risk of injury in any way.
...

This forum has so far shown itself unable to discuss this topic at length using the best available methods, the best available evidence and without logical fallacies. I live in the hope that it will. And that that would encourage more people to join in.

One of the steps that would be essential is to identify specific questions, and recognise that they are different from each other.

In this case that would include something roughly like:

What is the effect of wearing a helmet on head injuries if your head is going to hit something?
What is the effect of you wearing a helmet on your behaviour?
What is the effect of you wearing a helmet on the behaviour of other road users?
What are the effects of mandatory wearing of helmets?

All important, but different questions.

Jonathan

[Jdsk]

What is the effect of you wearing a helmet on your behaviour?
What is the effect of you wearing a helmet on the behaviour of other road users?

Both of these might have something to do with "Risk compensation" but it's a very tricky term and IMO it runs out of value rather quickly.

It's also often used in something close to a belief system rather than as an important possibility that needs to be considered in the settings of interest.

However there are now plenty of relevant studies, and a systematic review. It's up to us whether we try and see what they're telling us.

Jonathan

[mattheus]

What is the effect of you wearing a helmet on your behaviour?
What is the effect of you wearing a helmet on the behaviour of other road users?

Both of these might have something to do with "Risk compensation" but it's a very tricky term and IMO it runs out of value rather quickly.

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck ...

[Jon in Sweden]

I do not accept that not wearing a helmet lowers the risk of injury in any way. It's akin to suggesting that seat belts reduce risk in a car crash.

If you do not accept the extensive research on Risk Compensation, then you are beyond reason, and thus barely worth discussing this with.

One thing worth considering - from this forum, not from the academic literature - is that at least one highly belligerent helmet advocate on this forum stated quite clearly that he (and others) wear helmets specifically in order to undertake more hazardous types of riding.

(I think your 2nd sentence may contain typos, so will not respond until you clarify ... )

Yeah, apologies for the typo. What I meant to say was that not wearing a helmet and believing it reduces your injury risk is like believing that not wearing a seat belt will do the same. I wasn't clear there.

I do not cycle recklessly. Whether I have a helmet on or not has no bearing on how I cycle. Genuinely none. I really, really don't want to fall off my bike, regardless of whether I'm helmeted or not.

The kind of people who undertake to cycle more dangerously with a helmet are probably beyond help. They're a liability whether helmeted or not.

[Cowsham]

...
I do not accept that not wearing a helmet lowers the risk of injury in any way.
...

This forum has so far shown itself unable to discuss this topic at length using the best available methods, the best available evidence and without logical fallacies. I live in the hope that it will. And that that would encourage more people to join in.

One of the steps that would be essential is to identify specific questions, and recognise that they are different from each other.

In this case that would include something roughly like:

What is the effect of wearing a helmet on head injuries if your head is going to hit something?
What is the effect of you wearing a helmet on your behaviour?
What is the effect of you wearing a helmet on the behaviour of other road users?
What are the effects of mandatory wearing of helmets?

All important, but different questions.

Jonathan

You are very astute Jon.

Another question I'd ask is " when a helmeted cyclist rides by does an anti helmet campaigner what way does the anti helmet campaigner feel? "

Do they feel anxious or angry ?

Do they feel elated when a helmetless cyclist rides by.

What happens when a helmetless rider steams past them in the same direction? Is there a conflict of interests there?

A helmet keeps my head warm and I can pretend I'm not bald at least.

[DaveReading]

The kind of people who undertake to cycle more dangerously with a helmet are probably beyond help. They're a liability whether helmeted or not.

The reference was to cyclists who "undertake more hazardous types of riding". That doesn't necessarily mean that they present any danger to anyone other than possibly to themselves.

[mattheus]

The kind of people who undertake to cycle more dangerously with a helmet are probably beyond help. They're a liability whether helmeted or not.

The reference was to cyclists who "undertake more hazardous types of riding". That doesn't necessarily mean that they present any danger to anyone other than possibly to themselves.

Yes [I think the context was various forms of racing, or possibly downhill MTB stuff ...]

In those situations they do me no harm, and I have no problem with their choice. But I will not be conned that they are more safe than if they didn't do the dangerous activity in the first place! (Equally, I don't object to sky-diving - with or without PPE, it's their life, their decision. Does anyone know if PPE is required for sky-diving? Apart from a parachute that is!)

THE PROBLEM comes when people apply the same logic to MY riding, and lecture me on not wearing the things when it is NOTHING TO DO WITH THEM

[Jdsk]

(Equally, I don't object to sky-diving - with or without PPE, it's their life, their decision. Does anyone know if PPE is required for sky-diving? Apart from a parachute that is!)

Section 3 "Personal clothing and equipment":
https://britishskydiving.org/wp-content ... tion-6.pdf
... helmets, footwear, gloves, knives.

Jonathan