A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Social Issues
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Helmet Advice



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 31st 03, 11:51 AM
DDEckerslyke
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Helmet Advice

This seems to be a largely US ng but I couldn't find a UK equivalent so here
goes:

Just got back on a bike after a few years. Never previously worn a helmet
but having three kids changed my perspective. Anyway in my price range - up
to GBP30 or so - there are a couple of alternatives on offer at the local
store Specialized Chamonix and Met MaxTrack II (I'm sure I could order
another if there is a standout model). One of the reasons I'm asking is that
five years ago 'Which', a consumer magazine in the UK, did a survey of bike
helmets and a majority were not suitable for their intended purpose, ie they
did not adequately protect your head. So what would you recommend as a
suitable helmet for someone commuting 4 or 5 miles a day to work and back on
city roads?

cheers

dd


Ads
  #2  
Old August 31st 03, 03:21 PM
Rick
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Helmet Advice

DD,

I won't open the discussion of whether helmets are effective or not. There
are times when they may possibly be (just like there are times when the
small bible in the shirt pocket can stop a bullet), and there are times when
they certainly are not (probably those situations where adults are most
likely to experience).

That said, certified helmets are all essentially the same. If you must have
one, select one (if you can find it) that conforms to whatever standards
organization tests helmets in Europe. Helmets that lack labels from a
standards organization are useless (or worse). In the US, for example, most
helmets, possibly all that are certified, are ANSI certified. The last time
I looked at helmets, I could not find any that conformed to the more
stringent Snell standard. It would seem that once helmets were mandated in
most states, there was no longer any benefit in marketing a such a helmet.
Yet another example of style over substance.

Rick

"DDEckerslyke" wrote in message
...
This seems to be a largely US ng but I couldn't find a UK equivalent so

here
goes:

Just got back on a bike after a few years. Never previously worn a helmet
but having three kids changed my perspective. Anyway in my price range -

up
to GBP30 or so - there are a couple of alternatives on offer at the local
store Specialized Chamonix and Met MaxTrack II (I'm sure I could order
another if there is a standout model). One of the reasons I'm asking is

that
five years ago 'Which', a consumer magazine in the UK, did a survey of

bike
helmets and a majority were not suitable for their intended purpose, ie

they
did not adequately protect your head. So what would you recommend as a
suitable helmet for someone commuting 4 or 5 miles a day to work and back

on
city roads?

cheers

dd




  #3  
Old August 31st 03, 06:31 PM
Raptor
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Helmet Advice

DDEckerslyke wrote:
This seems to be a largely US ng but I couldn't find a UK equivalent so here
goes:

Just got back on a bike after a few years. Never previously worn a helmet
but having three kids changed my perspective. Anyway in my price range - up
to GBP30 or so - there are a couple of alternatives on offer at the local
store Specialized Chamonix and Met MaxTrack II (I'm sure I could order
another if there is a standout model). One of the reasons I'm asking is that
five years ago 'Which', a consumer magazine in the UK, did a survey of bike
helmets and a majority were not suitable for their intended purpose, ie they
did not adequately protect your head. So what would you recommend as a
suitable helmet for someone commuting 4 or 5 miles a day to work and back on
city roads?

cheers

dd


Make sure it's certified and fits your head. If there is more than one
helmet that meets those standards, go for the one with the best
ventillation.

--
--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall
"I'm not proud. We really haven't done everything we could to protect
our customers. Our products just aren't engineered for security."
--Microsoft VP in charge of Windows OS Development, Brian Valentine.

  #4  
Old August 31st 03, 07:12 PM
Rick
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Helmet Advice

....stuff deleted

AFAICS this seems to be an ongoing debate in this ng. Is there any one

place
where I can see both sides of the argument? FWIW the one major crash I had
where I was knocked unconscious a helmet would have made no difference but
IIRC Chris Boardman crashed in the TdF one year and said his helmet saved
him from a lot of damage.


DD,

Frankly, I haven't archived most of same, nor do I track the websites that
discuss the issue. Deja News will give you the stuff and links that were
posted on the topic. You can also search for information on the web,
particularly the Aussie study that was done a few years back.

That said, certified helmets are all essentially the same. If you must

have
one, select one (if you can find it) that conforms to whatever standards
organization tests helmets in Europe.


This was part of the problem in the survey I mentioned. The magazine

dropped
helmets on to three different shaped anvils and analysed the results. Many
of the helmets did next to nothing to absorb the impact despite the fact
that all conformed to one or other of the two main standards. I wondered

if
there were helmets that are known to be effective.


The Snell standard helmets were, IMO, most likely to provide some
protection. The essential problem with helmets is, according to the
anti-helmet crowd (I don't particularly align with either camp), is that the
helmet essentially enlarges the skull, adding rotational torque to any
impact. This torque on the neck/skull produces more severe injuries than a
direct impact (which the skull is designed to handle reasonably well).
Additionally, the type of impact helmets were designed to mitigate are
rarely encountered in cycling accidents. Most blows to the skull will be
oblique, not direct, hence the torque issue. Worse, most will exceed the
design specifications of the helmet in the first place leading to
catastrophic failure (hence the quote you cite above "Many of the helmets
did next to nothing to absorb the impact..."

Frankly, I am leaning toward the wear a good hat and shades attitude. It
keeps you warmer in winter and protects from the sun in summer.

Rick


  #5  
Old September 1st 03, 02:59 AM
Frank Krygowski
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Helmet Advice

"DDEckerslyke" wrote in message ...

AFAICS this seems to be an ongoing debate in this ng. Is there any one place
where I can see both sides of the argument?


I don't know of one place that is "neutral," if that's what you mean.
Think about it: most "neutral" people will lack the motivation to
publish on the issue. But this is normal for almost all contentious
issues. It simply means you must weigh the evidence provided by both
sides and decide which is more sensible.

I can attempt to summarize some of the major points of the helmet fans
and the non-fans, at risk of being called biased.

Helmet fans say "Any fall off a bike can kill you." Non-fans say
"Same for any fall off _anything_. But bike head injuries are less
than 1% of the US totals. Falls around the home are 40%, injuries
inside cars are 50%. Don't single out cyclists."

Helmet fans say "It's not just fatalities. Helmets prevent smaller
injuries too, and you certainly don't want even a minor injury."
Non-fans say "Minor injuries, like fatalities, occur in all sorts of
activities. Again, don't single out cycling."

Helmet fans say "But over 500,000 Americans visit emergency rooms each
year due to bike crashes." Non-fans say "Over 400,000 visit ERs due
to accidents involving their beds! Big numbers prove only that
America is a big place."

Helmet fans say "But helmets prevent up to 85% of head injuries."
Non-fans say "That 85% claim came from only one tiny,
poorly-constructed study. It's never stood up in any examination of
the effects of widespread helmet use. For example, no jurisdiction
has seen anything close to that benefit after imposing a mandatory
helmet law."

Helmet fans say "But many other studies predict some benefit, even if
not as great." Non-fans say "Case-control studies of small,
self-selected populations generally predict benefit. Large studies of
general populations (after imposition of helmet laws) find little or
no benefit, and they are more 'real world'."

Helmet fans say "Think of the public health cost of the injuries."
Non-fans say "Overpromoting or mandating helmets reduces cycling,
which causes more, not less, public health cost. Cycling has been
shown to have benefits far greater than its tiny risks."

Helmet fans say "I was saved from serious injury or death by my
helmet." Non-fans say "That's absolutely unprovable. People have
survived bike crashes of every type for a hundred years. Dented
styrofoam proves only that styrofoam can be dented."

Helmet fans say "If everyone wore a helmet every time they rode,
fatalities or head injuries would drop tremendously." Non-fans say
"Helmet use has greatly increased, yet there is no good evidence of
any corresponding reduction in head injuries - instead, head injuries
per rider seem to have actually increased."

Helmet fans say "It's such an easy thing to do." Non-fans say "It's
ineffective. It would be much better to put the energy into teaching
proper riding, and into enforcing existing traffic laws."

Helmet fans say "Promoting helmets can only help." Non-fans say "It's
more likely to scare people away from cycling, and that hurts."


Obviously, you can tell which side I'm on! But if you want a site
that disagrees with me, the most popular one is the Bicycle Helmet
Safety Institute (actually, a mostly one-man operation) at
http://www.bhsi.org

One site that disagrees with the BHSI is http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/
.... and be sure to click on the "Helmet FAQ" link at the left.

Another site, a new one (somewhat under construction) concentrates on
British data. http://www.cyclehelmets.org/

That said, certified helmets are all essentially the same. ...


This was part of the problem in the survey I mentioned. The magazine dropped
helmets on to three different shaped anvils and analysed the results. Many
of the helmets did next to nothing to absorb the impact despite the fact
that all conformed to one or other of the two main standards. I wondered if
there were helmets that are known to be effective.


Present bike helmets offer only low levels of protection, and future
ones will doubless be little better. This is simple physics. To
increase protection from a straight-on impact, you'll need thicker
material, since it takes more distance to stop something (e.g. your
head) more gently.

But thicker material means more weight, less ventilation, and (most
seriously) more chance that the helmet will actually receive an
impact. (If a bare head misses collision by 1/2 inch, a helmet will
hit. Larger helmets will be hit harder and more frequently.
Furthermore, larger helmets offer more "lever arm" for tangential
impacts, and would thus be expected to increase the particularly
damaging rotational accelerations of the brain.

Incidentally, the pro-helmet American magazine Consumer Reports has
tested bike helmets several times. Although they do not give
numerical values for impact protection (nobody seems to tell the
American public how low the protection levels really are!) they've
given comparative, non-numerical bar graphs. In each test, the most
expensive helmets have been the _least_ protective!

When you think about it, that's logical. To get minimum weight and
maximum ventilation, you need to skim as close to the minimum impact
standard as possible. And this razor's edge design time costs money!

- Frank Krygowski
  #6  
Old September 1st 03, 04:18 AM
Rick
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Helmet Advice

Frank,

Excellent summation, without the diatribes.

Rick

"Frank Krygowski" wrote in message
m...
"DDEckerslyke" wrote in message

...

....long summary deleted


  #9  
Old September 1st 03, 03:34 PM
Bill Z.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Helmet Advice

Mitch Haley writes:


Another example, somebody I knew: Elderly couple (~80 yrs) on
tandem. Dog took out front wheel. Fell over sideways, stoker pretty
much had her skull shattered, spent weeks in the hospital. Was
promoted as a "helmet saved a life" incident in the club we were in
at the time. The helmet was, IIRC, a Bell Tourlight. You simply
can't find anything as effective as that helmet marketed for road
cycling today. I can't see where it did her any noticeable good, a
fall without it would have broken her skull, as did a fall with it.


Since the injury was serious enough for her to spend weeks in the
hospital, it is believable that you wouldn't have to increase the
damage by very much for it to be fatal. So, the helmet could very
well have made a difference as to whether she survived, or at least
might have shortened her hospital stay. Just cutting a day off of her
stay in a hospital would probably more than pay for all the helmets
she would have bought over a lifetime.

Bill

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 




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
published helmet research - not troll Frank Krygowski General 1927 October 24th 04 06:39 AM
Bicycle helmet law can save lives Garrison Hilliard General 146 May 19th 04 05:42 AM
A Pleasant Helmet Debate Stephen Harding General 12 February 26th 04 07:32 AM
Reports from Sweden Garry Jones General 17 October 14th 03 05:23 PM
How I cracked my helmet Rick Warner General 2 July 12th 03 11:26 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:08 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.