I've heard the argument that cracked helmets haven't absorbed that much energy, as the energy absorption comes from foam compressing.
And reasonable does not mean right.
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!
THE Helmet Thread
(895 posts)-
Posted 10 years ago #
-
That is what I thought too. I thought that they were meant to crush, and that would absorb the impact and if they broke is showed it didn't do its job properly? Don't know where I got that from though.
And what sort of life is he actually living or going to live?
Posted 10 years ago # -
My understanding is that the foam should compress to the point where it becomes a solid mass and then shell, foam and, unfortunately, head will break. The trick with helmets is that the foam needs to be firm enough to withstand normal use, but soft and compressible enough to work in an accident.
The shell needs to be strong enough to support the foam as it compresses but be thin and light enough to the usable and as comfortable as it can be. Ultimately it will break. You need it to break after compression but before the head does because breaking will dissipate some more of the energy.
One of the criticisms of normal cycle helmets is that they are a shoddy compromise of foam that is too firm to compress early and shells that are too thin to support compression. That compromise is largely what makes them useable and wearable.
Posted 10 years ago # -
BBC article on Paper helmets
Well, looks like cardboard really.
Seems to be called the Kranium
Kraniums £79.99Posted 10 years ago # -
The shell might also spread the load over more foam but I've read reports which say this doesn't happen in real life.
Posted 10 years ago # -
I must get one of these "negative gravity" Kranium helmets (why must we keep using "k" where it should be "c" - it's never been
koolcool?).It claims to be 250g lighter than EPS, which is great as my Specialized Prevail is 200g! ;-)
Posted 10 years ago # -
Another disconnected Tory....
Posted 10 years ago # -
Lord Bourne also wants headphone use by cyclists banned. He made no mention whether he'd also like to ban deaf cyclists or ban motorists from using in-car sound systems
Motorists will have to drive with their windows open at all times. After all, we wouldn't want all the glass to reduce their sense of hearing would we?
Posted 10 years ago # -
Another disconnected Tory....
To be fair, disconnectedness and irrationality towards aspects of cycle safety has a wide cross-bench following.
Posted 10 years ago # -
True but this particular one is a tory...
Posted 10 years ago # -
Posted 10 years ago #
-
Halfords should just have saved themselves all that typing and just written:- BE VERY AFRAID BECAUSE YOU ARE GOING TO DIE.
Posted 10 years ago # -
http://road.cc/content/news/111258-chris-boardman-helmets-not-even-top-10-things-keep-cycling-safe
Can't say much more than I wholly agree. What's the chances of anyone listening to the 'British Cycling policy advisor' though?
Posted 10 years ago # -
wasnt going to post this but, following on from the kirkliston death, its important.
Recent skiing holiday, big group almost everyone wore a helmet, there was no peer pressure for me as most know my views.
We did have one person with a minor head injury, on piste snowboarding and took a mild concussion.
Most were a bit surprised at the injury because "he was wearing a helmet".
I did point out that - like bike helmets - these things dont possess magical powers.
I did also say that his brain might not have banged against his skull if he hadnt been wearing a helmet as (in theory) he might not have banged his head...........that one didnt go down so well.
But - IMO - its not different to all those we know who are convinced they would have incurred worse injuries were it not for the helmet.
Posted 10 years ago # -
54:13
Part of an occasional survey of the NEPN from Roseburn to Canonmills.
This was the number of helmeted/non-helmeted riders I saw from 17:00 to 17:25 today on that route.
Posted 10 years ago # -
I generally stay away from this debate but I know the inflatable helmet generates discussion:
Airbag helmet designers attack traditional helmet safety standards
"Hövding, which makes a sophisticated airbag-style helmet that inflates on impact, has released a video this morning claiming that the safety standard used to test helmets is flawed because it contains too much tolerance in its minimum safety levels. Furthermore, Hövding claims its system can reduce fatalities from head injuries in 25km/h impacts with cars to almost zero.
..."
Regardless of the claims, it's basically a bit of promotion by the company then, a near-7 minute advert. I'd be more interested in hearing they are campaigning for the tests to be more stringent than simply saying, "we're better than the rest, give us your €300."
Interesting this comes out just as their product went on sale in London...
Posted 10 years ago # -
It's good to know that they think their helmet is better than others when it costs 3 times what others would consider to be an expensive helmet.
Posted 10 years ago # -
Bump
Posted 10 years ago # -
...ed my head
Posted 10 years ago # -
This is rumour control. These are the facts * <intake of breath>
Paul.Mag: is it a rule in TdF that cyclists must wear a helmet?
All UCI(professional) races have compulsory helmet wearing, since May 2003. All SCU & BCF ("amateur") races have had compulsory helmet rules since 1991.
(Professional road racer fatalities have actually gone up since the introduction of this rule.)* Aliens reference
Posted 10 years ago # -
so do we think that the pros & UCI believe helmets make them faster or safer
Posted 10 years ago # -
@le_soigneur
I'm not sure your last "fact" is helpful as it has no context. Is that per 100 riders, per kilometre ridden or just total numbers. According to Wikipedia 11 riders have died in competition since 2003. Given the miles they cover that's a lot better odds than most of us face.
I would also assume they are generally riding faster and closer together now than in the past.Posted 10 years ago # -
@acs
That is just total numbers, but the peleton size, race distance etc didn't change '91-2003 & 2003-2013 so those are comparable periods.
They SHOULD have better odds than us, they are on closed roads.
They were riding faster when PEDs were unofficially legal. They don't really ride any closer now than in the past say 50 years.Posted 10 years ago # -
@paul.mag Mostly the pros are better bike handlers and know how to fall, the most common injuries are broken collarbones, hand sprains and road rash.
When they get it wrong, a helmet wouldn't have made much difference - compare Fabio Casartelli before 2003 to Wouter Weylandts 2011.
As I see it, the pros and UCI have a financial interest in helmets as it is an added sponsorship stream that they did not have pre-2003. So they will say it has made it safer. The statistics suggest it has made racers take more risks as they feel safer.Posted 10 years ago # -
That sounds true and rules out a couple of ideas,
Do you know how many professional riders there are now compared to 20 years ago? And what the average race mileage is of each.
I would also suggest that 11 deaths over 11 years is too small a number to be statistically significant.
With possible performance benefits from wearing helmets (slipstream/cooling) it would have been very interesting to see how many riders took them off for the Grand Depart if this was true:
http://www.ctc.org.uk/helmets-not-required-for-tour-de-france-2014-grand-departPosted 10 years ago # -
11 deaths is not statistically significant, you're right there, but that is in competition.
Intuitively the fatalities when training might be statistically significant, as there are a lot more miles and a lot more risks on open roads. Bradley Wiggins near-miss & Xavier Tondo are the only 2 I can name, but there have been many others.
The performance benefits might even out - overheating climbing 5 miles of 10% gradient as 12mph with a hat on was the reason the pro's went on helmet strike in 1991 and staved off compulsion for another 12 years.Posted 10 years ago # -
Hats came in the pro peloton for commercial reasons, not safety reasons - " look dad, Bertie c has a spesh lid with lots of holes, can I have one?"
Similarly, The Texan cheat was allowed to reign supreme for years as it suited UCI to extend pro cycling interest in North America - and we all know how the yanks love a winner, yes?
P.s. both are my opinion, I am sure someone will refute !!!
Posted 10 years ago # -
@nelly both opinions you express carry validity
Posted 10 years ago # -
Spotted this on the front page of today's Daily Telegraph:
Cycle helmets are useless, says brain surgeonOver 1000 comments already, but I can't be bothered to look at them...
Posted 10 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
