A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » Regional Cycling » UK
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Wear a helmet, you know it makes sense



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old February 24th 19, 08:12 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Ian Smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,605
Default Wear a helmet, you know it makes sense

On Sun, 24 Feb 2019 12:59:26 +0000, RJH wrote:

Common sense tells me that a cycle helmet can help in certain
circumstances - and it's worth wearing one on that basis.


What if wearing a helmet makes things worse in certain circumstances?

How do you determine that the circumstances that it makes worse are
less prevalent or less serious than the ones where it helps?

Suppose I had some sort of lucky talisman that would protect you from
all injury if you ever fell off your bike with no other vehicle
around, but it made it twice as likely that you'd be hit by each car
that overtook you. Would you want one of your own? Your logic (i.e.
that it helps in certain circumstances, so must be good) suggests
you'd want the talisman, even though it nearly doubles the chances of
your death each time you go out riding (cyclists rarely die without
interaction with a motor vehicle).

Cycle helmets are designed to help in the sort of impacts that arise
from falling off. They aren't designed to achieve very much in a
motor vehicle impact. That's why they have disclaimers on them saying
they aren't suitable for motor sport.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|
Ads
  #12  
Old February 24th 19, 08:54 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Rob Morley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,139
Default Wear a helmet, you know it makes sense

On Sun, 24 Feb 2019 12:59:26 +0000
RJH wrote:

Common sense tells me that a cycle helmet can help in certain
circumstances - and it's worth wearing one on that basis.


But what about the circumstances when a helmet can be harmful?
Rotational brain trauma can be more damaging than direct impact, for
example. And did you know that you might be more likely to be hit by a
car if you're wearing a helmet? Bicycle helmets are designed to
protect from impact in rather specific circumstances which roughly
equate to toppling over at low speed and hitting your head on the
kerb. Beyond that there's no guarantee that a helmet will provide any
protection at all. Now in all my years of cycling (some while wearing
a helmet) I've never encountered those specific circumstances. I've
fallen off in a variety of ways, some of them fairly high-energy
resulting in broken bones, but I've never thought a helmet saved my
brain, or would have if I'd been wearing one. It's possible that a
helmet might have helped the chap in the story, but that has to be one
of the rare examples - sufficiently noteworthy that it got in the
paper.

  #13  
Old February 25th 19, 09:28 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
TMS320
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,615
Default Wear a helmet, you know it makes sense

On 24/02/2019 11:55, GB wrote:
On 23/02/2019 19:27, Simon Jester wrote:
On Saturday, February 23, 2019 at 12:49:54 AM UTC, MrCheerful wrote:
https://www.theargus.co.uk/news/1745...afety-warning/


What evidence do you have to show a cycle helmet would have made any
difference?

Research shows cycle helmets can only absorb 70 joules before failing
and it takes around 1000 joules to crack a human skull.


How many joules does it take to cause a catastrophic bleed on the brain,
though?

I'm not sure what you mean by 'before failing'? Does that mean the
helmet cannot absorb more than 70 joules altogether? Or it cracks but
still absorbs some of the impact?


The head has potential energy before a crash. If it freefalls to the
ground, that will contribute to a vertical component of kinetic energy
when it hits the ground. 5kg falling 1.8m has an original PE of 88J and
hits the ground at 12.5mph.

It should be noted that the head has the same potential energy when
riding a bike as when walking so I don't understand why riding a bike is
considered to need special treatment.

In the DfT's "Reported Road Casualties Great Britain: 2016" it says:

"The pattern for pedal cycles is an interesting one: the overall
casualty rate of around 5,400 casualties per billion miles cycled is
close to the motorcycling casualty rate, whereas the fatality rate of
29.5 per billion miles cycled is much closer to the pedestrian rate"

The figure given for pedestrians is 34.5 fatalities per billion miles.

Clearly a helmet has a tiny bandwidth - it can't do anything about the
worst injuries (or, if it does, it would be clear evidence that
pedestrians should use them) and it won't move the less severe off the
chart.

And clearly helmets vary.


....above a minimum in standards that specify the vertical drop test.
  #14  
Old February 25th 19, 09:30 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
TMS320
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,615
Default Wear a helmet, you know it makes sense

On 24/02/2019 14:52, Simon Jester wrote:

Bullet energy is usually specified in Foot-Pounds or Newton-Metres.
A typical 9mm pistol round has a muzzle energy of 500 joules.


The clue here is that a Newton-metre is a Joule.
  #15  
Old February 25th 19, 09:32 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
RJH[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 101
Default Wear a helmet, you know it makes sense

On 24/02/2019 14:44, Simon Jester wrote:
On Sunday, February 24, 2019 at 12:59:30 PM UTC, RJH wrote:
On 24/02/2019 11:55, GB wrote:
On 23/02/2019 19:27, Simon Jester wrote:
On Saturday, February 23, 2019 at 12:49:54 AM UTC, MrCheerful wrote:
https://www.theargus.co.uk/news/1745...afety-warning/


What evidence do you have to show a cycle helmet would have made any
difference?

Research shows cycle helmets can only absorb 70 joules before failing
and it takes around 1000 joules to crack a human skull.

They sound like very focussed Joules - bullet perhaps? ;-)

How many joules does it take to cause a catastrophic bleed on the brain,
though?

I'm not sure what you mean by 'before failing'? Does that mean the
helmet cannot absorb more than 70 joules altogether? Or it cracks but
still absorbs some of the impact?


Depends on the incident and circumstances, of course.

And clearly helmets vary.


Indeed - and I at least find it difficult to tell what's what (I use an
Aldi own brand). I gather this is a good guide:

https://www.smf.org/home

Common sense tells me that a cycle helmet can help in certain
circumstances - and it's worth wearing one on that basis.



I assume you always wear a helmet, not just when cycling.


Nope, just cycling, motorbiking and skiing.

--
Cheers, Rob
  #16  
Old February 25th 19, 09:37 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
RJH[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 101
Default Wear a helmet, you know it makes sense

On 24/02/2019 20:12, Ian Smith wrote:
On Sun, 24 Feb 2019 12:59:26 +0000, RJH wrote:

Common sense tells me that a cycle helmet can help in certain
circumstances - and it's worth wearing one on that basis.


What if wearing a helmet makes things worse in certain circumstances?

How do you determine that the circumstances that it makes worse are
less prevalent or less serious than the ones where it helps?


I can't think of a single likely circumstance where wearing a helmet
would make a cycling injury worse.

Suppose I had some sort of lucky talisman that would protect you from
all injury if you ever fell off your bike with no other vehicle
around, but it made it twice as likely that you'd be hit by each car
that overtook you. Would you want one of your own? Your logic (i.e.
that it helps in certain circumstances, so must be good) suggests
you'd want the talisman, even though it nearly doubles the chances of
your death each time you go out riding (cyclists rarely die without
interaction with a motor vehicle).


Not sure I see your point there. Are you saying wearing a helmet makes
me twice as likely to be hit by a car?

Cycle helmets are designed to help in the sort of impacts that arise
from falling off. They aren't designed to achieve very much in a
motor vehicle impact. That's why they have disclaimers on them saying
they aren't suitable for motor sport.


'Falling off' and 'vehicle impact' often happen at once, I'd have thought?


--
Cheers, Rob
  #17  
Old February 25th 19, 09:42 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
RJH[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 101
Default Wear a helmet, you know it makes sense

On 24/02/2019 20:54, Rob Morley wrote:
On Sun, 24 Feb 2019 12:59:26 +0000
RJH wrote:

Common sense tells me that a cycle helmet can help in certain
circumstances - and it's worth wearing one on that basis.


But what about the circumstances when a helmet can be harmful?
Rotational brain trauma can be more damaging than direct impact, for
example. And did you know that you might be more likely to be hit by a
car if you're wearing a helmet?


Ah, no, I didn't know that. Why might that be likely? Is this evidenced
at all, or some theory extrapolated?

Bicycle helmets are designed to
protect from impact in rather specific circumstances which roughly
equate to toppling over at low speed and hitting your head on the
kerb. Beyond that there's no guarantee that a helmet will provide any
protection at all.


I'm not looking for a guarantee - just protection in certain circumstances.

Now in all my years of cycling (some while wearing
a helmet) I've never encountered those specific circumstances. I've
fallen off in a variety of ways, some of them fairly high-energy
resulting in broken bones, but I've never thought a helmet saved my
brain, or would have if I'd been wearing one. It's possible that a
helmet might have helped the chap in the story, but that has to be one
of the rare examples - sufficiently noteworthy that it got in the
paper.


And my personal experience echoes yours. But given the low cost and
hassle, I'd rather wear a helmet and not rely on a sample of one to
inform my safety-related decisions.

--
Cheers, Rob
  #19  
Old February 25th 19, 10:17 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 489
Default Wear a helmet, you know it makes sense

On Monday, February 25, 2019 at 9:43:39 AM UTC, RJH wrote:
On 24/02/2019 14:49, wrote:
On Sunday, February 24, 2019 at 2:44:27 PM UTC, Simon Jester wrote:


Common sense tells me that a cycle helmet can help in certain
circumstances - and it's worth wearing one on that basis.



I assume you always wear a helmet, not just when cycling.


That is why they have killed several children in playgrounds.

https://www.cyclehelmets.org/1227.html


Do you have the figures for children saved?


Nobody has those figures.

QUOTE: "A doctor in Sweden lamented, with regard to strangulations in that country and its child helmet law, "We know we have killed, but we can't show we have saved anyone". (Sweden, 1)
  #20  
Old February 25th 19, 11:29 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Simon Jester
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,212
Default Wear a helmet, you know it makes sense

On Monday, February 25, 2019 at 9:32:30 AM UTC, RJH wrote:
On 24/02/2019 14:44, Simon Jester wrote:
I assume you always wear a helmet, not just when cycling.


Nope, just cycling, motorbiking and skiing.


Michael Schumacher would probably like to comment on that if he could.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Wear a helmet, you know it makes sense. Especially after a few drinks. Mrcheerful UK 5 October 28th 13 01:56 PM
Always wear a helmet, she knew it made sense Mrcheerful[_2_] UK 0 October 24th 11 12:56 PM
It only makes sense! Fred2 UK 73 April 28th 11 03:33 AM
Now it Makes Sense Davey Crockett Racing 0 June 17th 07 10:01 AM
This Makes To Much Sense Art Deco Mountain Biking 0 January 27th 05 03:50 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:01 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.