How much to pay for a cycle helmet?

On Sun, 2 Aug 2009 15:12:26 -0700
"burtthebike" wrote:


"Rob Morley" wrote in message
news:20090802231119.445d9794@bluemoon...
On Sun, 2 Aug 2009 14:57:40 -0700
"burtthebike" wrote:

This is actually another urban myth. The only research showing
that the helmet fit was necessary for protection was from
Thompson, Rivara and Thompson.

But if it's uncomfortable or insecure it's reducing your primary
safety.


How?

Distraction.

On Sun, 2 Aug 2009 12:05:53 -0700, "burtthebike"
wrote:

snip

Nowhere with a helmet law or
massive helmet promotion has been able to demonstrate any reduction in risk
to cyclists. Cycle training demonstrates considerable reduction in risk to
cyclists. Ergo, anyone interested in reducing risk to cyclists would invest
in cycle training and not invest in helmets.


Yep - go for it - this from the person who has said:

"I've examined all the evidence of cycle helmets I can
find, and I have been unable to find any benefit."

"They cycle helmets are demonstrably a bad thing."

So demonstrable that he has never demonstrated the truth of what he
claims.

--


Vote NO to the proposed group uk.rec.cycling.moderated aka uk.rec.cycling.censored

Simon Brooke wrote:
On 2 Aug, 05:25, "Mr. Benn" %%@%%.% wrote:
Simon Brooke wrote :

The Snell organisation runs independent tests on helmets and their
standards are very slightly more stringent than the European standard.

Thanks for the info. ?Are helmets ranked anywhere in terms of safety?

I have noticed in a coupe of cases I have seen that the outer shell cracks
when subjected to impact and I can only assume that is designed in to
absorb the impact. ?Is that the best mechanism for impact absorption or are
there lightweight aluminium shells available which deform to absorb the
impact?

If the foam of the helmet cracks on impact then the helmet has failed.
Polystyrene foam absorbs a lot of energy when crushed but very little
when broken. However the outer shell's only function is to protect the
foam from scuffs and abrasion; if it cracks on impact it's neither
here nor there as it has then done it's job. Obviously after any
substantial impact the protective ability of the helmet is compromised
and it should be discarded (and if you still want one, replaced).

The shell has another useful function, which is to slide along the
road with less friction than soft polystyrene, which if sliding would
tend to grab the road surface irregularities and twist the head
sharply round. That's a common cause of brain injury, but not one that
currently forms part of the cycle helmet safety standard tests. Of
course if it did, then it would probably also find that the currently
fashionable well ventilated helmets were more dangerous.

--
Chris Malcolm

"Rob Morley" wrote in message
news:20090802232718.50db8e11@bluemoon...
On Sun, 2 Aug 2009 15:12:26 -0700
"burtthebike" wrote:


"Rob Morley" wrote in message
news:20090802231119.445d9794@bluemoon...
On Sun, 2 Aug 2009 14:57:40 -0700
"burtthebike" wrote:

This is actually another urban myth. The only research showing
that the helmet fit was necessary for protection was from
Thompson, Rivara and Thompson.

But if it's uncomfortable or insecure it's reducing your primary
safety.


How?

Distraction.

Not one of the reasons claimed by TRT when they researched* the subject.

*TRT research definition - this is the answer, make up something to show it.

On 2 Aug, 23:12, "burtthebike" wrote:
"Rob Morley" wrote in message

news:20090802231119.445d9794@bluemoon...

On Sun, 2 Aug 2009 14:57:40 -0700
"burtthebike" wrote:

This is actually another urban myth. *The only research showing that
the helmet fit was necessary for protection was from Thompson, Rivara
and Thompson.

But if it's uncomfortable or insecure it's reducing your primary safety..

How?

Look, I'm not arguing that an inch of polystyrene foam is going to
protect you if a 40 ton truck goes over you. But if that inch of
polystyrene foam slips off your head, or gets pushed off your head,
before your head hits the pavement, there wasn't much point in wearing
it in the first place. And believe me I've seen many people
(particularly children) with helmets so ill-fitting and loose that
they would be likely to slip off in a crash.

If you're going to argue that helmets aren't worth wearing anyway,
then I won't disagree with you - I don't wear one. For me their
doubtful benefit from a safety point of view is greatly outweighed by
their manifest discomfort and inconvenience. But for people who do
choose to wear them, it's important to ensure that the helmet will
still be in place on the head when called upon to do its job.

Simon Brooke wrote:
On 2 Aug, 23:12, "burtthebike" wrote:
"Rob Morley" wrote in message

news:20090802231119.445d9794@bluemoon...

On Sun, 2 Aug 2009 14:57:40 -0700
"burtthebike" wrote:
This is actually another urban myth. The only research showing that
the helmet fit was necessary for protection was from Thompson, Rivara
and Thompson.
But if it's uncomfortable or insecure it's reducing your primary safety.
How?

Look, I'm not arguing that an inch of polystyrene foam is going to
protect you if a 40 ton truck goes over you. But if that inch of
polystyrene foam slips off your head, or gets pushed off your head,
before your head hits the pavement, there wasn't much point in wearing
it in the first place. And believe me I've seen many people
(particularly children) with helmets so ill-fitting and loose that
they would be likely to slip off in a crash.

If you're going to argue that helmets aren't worth wearing anyway,
then I won't disagree with you - I don't wear one. For me their
doubtful benefit from a safety point of view is greatly outweighed by
their manifest discomfort and inconvenience. But for people who do
choose to wear them, it's important to ensure that the helmet will
still be in place on the head when called upon to do its job.

I agree with all that you said.

Bod

"burtthebike" wrote in message
...

"Mr. Benn" %%@%%.% wrote in message
...
Phil W Lee phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk wrote in
:

"Colin McKenzie" considered Sun, 02 Aug 2009
09:16:16 +0100 the perfect time to write:

On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 05:19:40 +0100, "Mr. Benn" %%@%%.% writes:

I'm not too bothered about style, more about safety and comfort.

Then get some cycle training.

+1

It'll have far more effect on your safety than any amount of
polystyrene foam.
Go for BikeAbility, if you want to be sure of the standard.


I'm asking about helmets, not training.

But you claim to be interested in safety. Nowhere with a helmet law or
massive helmet promotion has been able to demonstrate any reduction in
risk to cyclists. Cycle training demonstrates considerable reduction in
risk to cyclists. Ergo, anyone interested in reducing risk to cyclists
would invest in cycle training and not invest in helmets.

It's up to be what I invest in thanks.

On Sun, 2 Aug 2009 23:00:52 -0700
"burtthebike" wrote:


"Rob Morley" wrote in message
news:20090802232718.50db8e11@bluemoon...
On Sun, 2 Aug 2009 15:12:26 -0700
"burtthebike" wrote:


"Rob Morley" wrote in message
news:20090802231119.445d9794@bluemoon...
On Sun, 2 Aug 2009 14:57:40 -0700
"burtthebike" wrote:

This is actually another urban myth. The only research showing
that the helmet fit was necessary for protection was from
Thompson, Rivara and Thompson.

But if it's uncomfortable or insecure it's reducing your primary
safety.


How?

Distraction.

Not one of the reasons claimed by TRT when they researched* the
subject.

I didn't realise that was part of the question.

£8 in Lidl, Wilkinsons etc.

£8 in Lidl, Wilkinsons etc.