Retrobike Forum Index

It is currently Sat Dec 03, 2016 1:43 am

* Login   * Register * Search  * FAQ



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 333 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 ... 34  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Jul 22, 2013 8:27 am 
retrobike rider
retrobike rider
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 08, 2008 2:36 pm
Posts: 16736
Location: Yorkshire, England
Well I have to say, looking at my helmet and the fact I don't have a headache or scratch to my head. Everywhere else maybe.
But them at the recent National ride will probably always see why helmets are a good thing ;)

Are they perfect, probably not.
Could they be improved, almost certainly.
They are cheap and cheerful and not hard to understand.
I only bought mine to stop branches and low lying tree dints and scratches to my head. I think I've just found put the other good use for them.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 22, 2013 8:32 am 
Gold Trader / PoTM Winner
Gold Trader / PoTM Winner
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 2:35 pm
Posts: 2784
GrahamJohnWallace,

You obviously arent in the usual "I'm never wearing a helmet and no-one can make me change my mind" camp.... which is good. You also appear to have a) a wealth of data and information at your disposal, and b) have had the time to digest it and evaluate it clearly.
Without wanting to appear disrespectful (far from it, anyone with the inclination to research a subjuct to such an extent has my utmost respect)... why dont you focus these resources into campaigning the right people or organisations into changing the design, laws, tests that helmets must pass, rather than just discussing it on a somewhat niche cycling internet forum.

CTC
British Cycling
Department of Transport
Local MP

All would be useful points of contact.
You might actually acheive something good for us all

G


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 22, 2013 8:32 am 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 11:16 am
Posts: 799
Location: Camden, London
GrahamJohnWallace wrote:
.................

I say that the vast majority of helmets we all spend millions do protect but not against brain damage and concussion and that we are being conned into believing that they do.
Where are the arguments and statistics to prove me wrong?
...........................


well I posted a couple of links that raised a number of issues which I was curious as to what you might make of them but instead we have the same graphs without any detailed explanation as to what/how being measured and a demand in very large font that someone should prove you wrong, I don't think you're helping your case, especially when the general consensus seems to be that a pic of a bust helmet suggests some people think they are a good idea - as bust helmet better than bust skull, a complete acceptance of the idea that it's down to the individual, and that a few people think that you should only wear one if you can't ride, or want to make a statement about yourself unconnected with cycling :roll: . I think you may not get what you want but not necessarily because your argument is persuasive.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 22, 2013 8:33 am 
Gold Trader / PoTM Winner / RB Rider
Gold Trader / PoTM Winner / RB Rider
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 6:26 pm
Posts: 16890
Location: 54 Festive Road Winchcombe GLOUCS Yarp...
Just gave my son (18) a helmet for riding to uni. He's going to need his brain unbruised, unrotated, and protected as the alcohol abuse of his first year will be damage enough!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 22, 2013 9:29 am 
retrobike rider
retrobike rider
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2008 6:25 pm
Posts: 924
Location: Near Wendover Bucks
unkleGsif wrote:
GrahamJohnWallace,
You obviously arent in the usual "I'm never wearing a helmet and no-one can make me change my mind" camp.... which is good. You also appear to have a) a wealth of data and information at your disposal, and b) have had the time to digest it and evaluate it clearly.
Without wanting to appear disrespectful (far from it, anyone with the inclination to research a subjuct to such an extent has my utmost respect)... why dont you focus these resources into campaigning the right people or organisations into changing the design, laws, tests that helmets must pass, rather than just discussing it on a somewhat niche cycling internet forum.

CTC
British Cycling
Department of Transport
Local MP

All would be useful points of contact.
You might actually acheive something good for us all

G

I am starting to spread the word and have already persuaded people to choose MIPS helmets as the best alternative currently available. However, as with science, any theory requires testing and pier review. Here is a better place than many due to the knowledgeable and mature attitude of most contributors.

There are is small number of scientists and cycling journalists that also hold the view that the underlying first principles of bicycle helmet design and testing, in order to prevent head injury, are wrong.
This is a link to the most comprehensive piece of journalism I have found on this subject. It is a "must read" for anyone thinking of buying a new helmet:
http://www.bicycling.com/sites/default/ ... Helmet.pdf
Also:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8W5X0s2AhU

However the biggest indicator that my point of view has some validity is the small number of helmet manufacturers quietly developing anti-rotation and dual density helmets. Even Bell, the biggest helmet manufacturer is rumored to be developing anti-rotational acceleration helmets. However, non of these manufactures is going to come out and say that the helmets they have been selling for decades are next to useless. And even the anti-rotation helmet manufacturers can't make any special claims regarding the effectiveness of their designs for fear of crippling litigation if one were to fail in an extreme accident. You are right in saying that the politicians hold the key to correcting this but they are influenced by the views of a public that trust current designs.

Personally, I base my decision to wear a helmet or not based on my experience of the risks involved in the type of riding I intend to do. But when I do wear a helmet, I expect it to protect me adequately from the life threatening effects of brain injury.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 22, 2013 9:35 am 
Gold Trader / PoTM Winner / RB Rider
Gold Trader / PoTM Winner / RB Rider
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 6:26 pm
Posts: 16890
Location: 54 Festive Road Winchcombe GLOUCS Yarp...
So presumably you were wearing a MIPS lid on the gates ride? Not a snipe, just interested. And which of the happy band are you so I can check it out?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 22, 2013 9:49 am 
retrobike rider
retrobike rider
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 08, 2008 2:36 pm
Posts: 16736
Location: Yorkshire, England
The History Man wrote:
So presumably you were wearing a MIPS lid on the gates ride? Not a snipe, just interested. And which of the happy band are you so I can check it out?

He didn't ride a bike at the gates ride. He inflated tyres and carried it over 'gates'.
Only protection needed was from bike landing on the head ;)

They help, even in their current design. Anything is better than nothing. Just wait till they have better helmets. It'll come. Expanded poly is an old design. Been doing it's job for many. Maybe not perfectly, but then nothing is and if you hit a wall at 40mph headfirst, or fall over one the road and it smashes and protects your head even a little bit then what's the problem. They are not expensive.


Last edited by FluffyChicken on Mon Jul 22, 2013 10:38 am, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 22, 2013 10:27 am 
retrobike rider
retrobike rider
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2008 6:25 pm
Posts: 924
Location: Near Wendover Bucks
daugs wrote:
well I posted a couple of links that raised a number of issues which I was curious as to what you might make of them


Hi David,
You are correct. I did follow your links and they were to the standard metadata studies of studies that are generally used to back the bicycle helmets protect you adequately point of view. There as many if not more such studies that come to the opposite conclusion. These are so complex and time consuming that I do not have the time to annalise or criticise them. Though I can point you studies that analyse other studies but this route will only lead to boredom or insanity. If you can post some specific criticisms or questions, I then might stand a hope in hell of answering them. I have in my researches chosen to circumvent such studies on both sides of the argument preferring instead to look for data from real life accidents. This is on the basis that if helmets do protect from brain injury, then the dramatic rise in their use should cause a corresponding dip in the real world brain injury statistics. But I cannot find such a dip.
daugs wrote:
...but instead we have the same graphs without any detailed explanation as to what/how being measured and a demand in very large font that someone should prove you wrong,
My apologies here in that whilst I did try to explain data and extract key passages at the at the beginning of this thread, it was very time consuming and so I eventually gave up. However if you want me to explain a graph or provide links to a particular source documents I will do my best.

daugs wrote:
I don't think you're helping your case, especially when the general consensus seems to be that a pic of a bust helmet suggests some people think they are a good idea - as bust helmet better than bust skull, a complete acceptance of the idea that it's down to the individual, and that a few people think that you should only wear one if you can't ride, or want to make a statement about yourself unconnected with cycling :roll: . I think you may not get what you want but not necessarily because your argument is persuasive.

I do understand that I am arguing against a consensus of people who have spent good money on helmets and so may not want to hear that they do not protect well against brain injury. And I never expected this to be a popular point of view. I have held the conviction that most current bicycle helmet designs are poor since page 13 of this thread. But at least now with the occasional use of large fonts my message may be finally getting a response.

I could of course not botherd writing further here, but simply gone out and bought a MIPS helmets for myself and family.


Last edited by GrahamJohnWallace on Mon Jul 22, 2013 10:59 am, edited 4 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 22, 2013 10:49 am 
retrobike rider
retrobike rider
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2008 6:25 pm
Posts: 924
Location: Near Wendover Bucks
FluffyChicken wrote:
The History Man wrote:
So presumably you were wearing a MIPS lid on the gates ride? Not a snipe, just interested. And which of the happy band are you so I can check it out?

He didn't ride a bike at the gates ride. He inflated tyres and carried it over 'gates'.
Only protection needed was from bike landing on the head ;)

The biggest danger of head injury was from the low beams in the pub.
And it was on the way to the to the bar that I also clocked up my highest speed of the day. :oops:

I don't currently own a MIPS helmet.
Currently there are no agreed testing standards of the type required to evaluate how effective various anti-rotation designs are. Also in a 3ft linear drop test the foam in MIPS helmets will be no better at absorbing energy than that in standard helmets. Though other sports do have helmets with dual density foam that allows for the absorption of the energy of both large and small linear impacts.

So MIPS helmets, whilst being a step in the right direction, are unlikely to be the best design that is achievable. But they are at least addressing the problem of rotational acceleration of the brain. And so I would buy one in preference to any other helmet design currently available in the shops.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 22, 2013 7:51 pm 
retrobike rider / Gold Trader
retrobike rider / Gold Trader
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2007 1:26 pm
Posts: 3752
highlandsflyer wrote:

My wife and I like to turn the lights out and throw knives at each other. So far so good.


:lol:

Helmets work , I have always worn one and make sure my kids do anytime on their bikes , I was taken out by a 7.5 tonne lorry on Thursday this week on my way to work, the wing mirrors assembly to the back of head by a fast passing lorry hurts , my Giro XAR helmet is toast properly damaged & cracked , It certainly did what it was meant to IMO I have no serious injures as in my original thread HERE , if I wasn't wearing one then it would be a different story that doesn't even bear thinking about.

When helmets were first introduced I will admit you looked strange wearing one as it was not the norm. Now I think it's completely the opposite it looks so wrong not to wear one. Similar to when you see someone on a road going quad bike not wearing a crash helmet , why wouldn't you ? at least if you do wear one on a quad bike no one will know it you (who still looks a tool ) :lol:

Glad I am still posting here on Retrobike and able to get out on my bikes soon with my boys ;)


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 333 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 ... 34  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: FairfaxPat and 27 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

About Us

Follow Retrobike

Other cool stuff

All content © 2005-2015 Retrobike unless otherwise stated.
Cookies Policy.
bikedeals - the best bike deals in one place
FatCOGS - Fat Chance Owner's Group

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group