Helmets Save Your Bonce

That research by whchever university it was (Bristol? i cant remember) into the clearance given to cyclists by drivers has been discredited on so many counts its.beyond amusing. Too small a a sample, each turn taken at different timesof day, the rider being aware of the aim of the experiment so unable to give an objective performance a la Schrodinger, no measurenent taken of the position of the cycle itself in the carriageway...

So what you're saying is, it's every bit as good as the pro helmet research.

Absolutely!

Chopper1192":1zvqg7vq said:

Im a helmet wearer, but not because i think cycling is dangerous.

Its because hitting my head on solid objects is dangerous.

Click to expand...

Yes, you are right. Hitting a head on a solid object is dangerous and could have severe consequences.

So do you wear a helmet when walking, or are you really good at balancing on two feet or have a greater gravity
pull that it never happens to ever topple over and hit that solid object with your head?

Or is it just when there are two wheels attached to a gate under your bum that solid objects planted on the ground
just suddenly loom up straight towards your head?

So, I guess you walk without PPE because it's not dangerous and have PPE when cycling because it's not dangerous. What PPE do you wear for an activity that you consider dangerous then?

:?

I do not wear a helmet for walking, and its a daft question. Walking is a natural act, one which the human body has evolved very admirably to cope with. The human skull on a healthy person is evolved specifically to protect the brain from any impact that a humon on foot is liable to subject it to in terms of height (and therefore qccleration through gravity) or velocity. A bicycle introduces height and most especially velocity well beyond the ability of a pedestrian to reproduce, and an impact therefore has greater opportunity to exceed the limits of the skulls integrity.

FluffyChicken":1esxnnb5 said:

But you only get % of helmet users from the reported cases ?

Click to expand...

Yes that means that if helmets protect from brain damage then more helmets being worn should mean less brain injury. However in countries where helmets are mandatory the incidence of cycling head injury has not declined as expected,

FluffyChicken":1esxnnb5 said:

The dwindling numbers of non helmet users having accidents could have rapidly increased, why couldn't it ?

Click to expand...

Well such an unprobable coincidence would indeed be very handy in supporting your point of view.

FluffyChicken":1esxnnb5 said:

The roads are rapidly more dangerous than when I were a lad, which is when the stats seem to start.

Click to expand...

Do not the stats show that cycling per mile is getting safer and has been doing so for decades?

FluffyChicken":1esxnnb5 said:

The interesting stats would come if you banned the use of helmets.

Click to expand...

Is that not why the pre helmet stats v post helmet stats are so revealing?

FluffyChicken":1esxnnb5 said:

There is a correlation that increased helmet use shows a decrease in injury (graph goes up and graph goes down and see at the moment some couple of years later to level of). The population could be coincidental. For a start there are no errors ranges given for the graph and correlation factors
In fact they are quite horrible graphs to try to read.

Click to expand...

There are three graphs I have posted and whilst there is indeed some short term volatility the general trend on all three in unaffected by the increased helmet take up. What error ranges are you expecting in graphs based on hospital head counts?

FluffyChicken":1esxnnb5 said:

Also it only shows one specific aspect, not the lesser protection it is given, it is biasing the reason for having/not having a helmet. Severe Brain damage is not the be all and end all of what a helmet is protecting against.

Click to expand...

I don't get this. If helmets can be designed to also reduce the risk of brain damage and concussion surely they should?

FluffyChicken":1esxnnb5 said:

I'm not debating helmet designs, I'm debating the thread title.
The helmets are there to reduce the chances and severity of minor injuries all the way up to fatality. Not to Remove it.
There will always be better designs as technology and understanding advances the full range down and still be comfortable for the user.

Click to expand...

That brain injury due to rotational acceleration is a problem that has been undertood by researchers and neurosurgeons since the 1950s but still no improved helmet standards to protect cyclists. If there are to be improvements to all new helmet designs, then who will drive it? And When?

I am fascinated by those resisting the notion of improved helmet design here:
Is this because people cannot see the clear evidence that there is a problem with simply strapping a block of polystyrene on your head?
Is this because of the complexity of the science and engineering involved?
Is it just simple conservatism, and people being comfortable with what they Know?
Or is it that in conceding that helmets are not as good as they should be, do some people that there arguments for using helmets are in some way undermined?
In most areas of product design consumers welcome continuous development and improvement. Why not here?

Could it be that helmet wearers are incapable of intelligent thoughts?

I ride pretty much every day, I wear a helmet, and, due to riding 4000 + miles per year, I manage to fall off numerous times during a typical year in the dirt. I also usually manage to whack my head on low hanging branches a couple of times, too, which is also where the helmet comes in handy! I got tired of hurting myself on impact and am wearing elbow pads these days, and I just ordered some cycling shorts with hip and tail bone pads built in. It's really cheap insurance IMHO. If you look at a typical DH rider, he's armored up to the Max, because he knows he's gonna fall off now and again, and wants to just pop back up and resume riding, which is pretty much what happens. We have an old saying around here that goes-"If you've got a Ten Cent Head, then wear a Ten Cent helmet". By the way, in California helmet wearing is mandatory for under 18 riders, although it isn't really enforced...

GJW, am I missing something? I don't note all the posters demanding no improvement in helmet design.

My old truck had no seat belts, so I installed some.

I do whatever I can to improve my, and my family's safety.

When there is a consensus on new helmet designs I will move there, just like I moved to a modern car with all the safety gear for our high speed long distance journeys.

When it comes to any emerging technology, taking an extreme view is for the extremists.

The rest of us keep our minds open until we see the hard facts, or the new technology is adopted across the board so we don't have to get waste deep in the crap flying about.

Because the majority of helmet wearers recognise that in the type of incident that most cyclists are likely to encounter (minimal impact/dermabrasions) even a cheap, disposable skid lid hitting something hard before their head/face is, well, a no brainer...

...someone, somewhere above suggested that any given bunch of stat's are skewed due to the non-reporting of minor incidents and they hit the nail fairly and squarely on its non-helmeted head; I have taken a tumble on numerous occasions and scraped, gouged or dented a riding/cycle/crash/para/cycle helmet in the process but not once required medical attention (sectioning may have been more appropriate in hindsight! ) and certainly never reported them anywhere, until now...

...which is the point I think a lot of people are making.

Without a helmet I would have left a considerable amount of skin/hair/blood scattered half way around the world that I am glad to be still attached to!

And whilst I am more than capable of Rambo'esque DIY surgery I'd much rather not have to prove it these days