12mph ??

 

Quote from a mailing-list:

 

-----

 

No cycle helmet is certified beyond 12mph (12.5mph actually) (being the

speed you head would reach at ground level if you fell off a stationary

bike). Also the important factor, energy, goes as the speed squared so

by 15mph your are already exceeding the helmet's design limit by 50%

(and they barely pass the 12mph test as it is). By the time you get to

20mph its 260% of its design limit.

 

Curious then that public perception is helmets are most needed when

riding fast, which is way beyond what they are designed for, and least

needed when pootling along, which is exactly what they are designed for.

 

-----

 

Pages full of facts:

 

Cycle Helmets: an international resource

Quote from a mailing-list:

 

-----

 

No cycle helmet is certified beyond 12mph (12.5mph actually) (being the

speed you head would reach at ground level if you fell off a stationary

bike). Also the important factor, energy, goes as the speed squared so

by 15mph your are already exceeding the helmet's design limit by 50%

(and they barely pass the 12mph test as it is). By the time you get to

20mph its 260% of its design limit.

 

Curious then that public perception is helmets are most needed when

riding fast, which is way beyond what they are designed for, and least

needed when pootling along, which is exactly what they are designed for.

 

-----

 

There's a good reason for this although I think the statement "No cycle helmet is certified beyond 12mph" is misleading and bordering on rubbish.

When designing a helmet you first need to decide want is more important, is it preserving life or preserving quality of life? Then you need to know the speed that most impacts will occur at and I'd guess that the 12mph figure is about right but that doesn't mean designers ignore what happens above that speed.

If your all out goal is to save lives then you put firmer padding in, more people will live but more will have brain damage. If your goal is quality of life you put just enough padding in for the 12mph crash, less people will have brain damage but more will die. I think in reality the padding is much firmer as a 12mph impact is unlikely to give you brain damage and designers know there's a fair risk of a higher speed impact.

Pro and anti helmet people usually quote shocking figures rather than relevent ones which is what leads to claims that they are useless or they are essential, I think they just help.

The American Snell standard is often touted as being the ultimate in helmet design but in motorbikes Snell goes for the highest survival rate, in designing a helmet to keep someone alive in a 100mph crash they have neglected people who don't ride that fast and end up brain damaged after a slower impact. Therefore if you ride a scooter a Snell certified helmet could well be a poor choice to go for.

There are other differences, for example the (motorbike helmet) BS certification includes a penetration test, the European one doesn't. People love to use standards to back up arguments when they don't know what the standard is.

I still think the most unsafe part of the helmet is the strap as many people don't adjust it properly, it will fly off in an accident and make wearing it pointless.

Good post. Agree entirely.

Pete

LED encrusted helmet??

 

Anyone have any thoughts about the helmet I saw in the Mail today with built in flashing LEDs. Good idea or not? Very seasonal!

I still think the most unsafe part of the helmet is the strap as many people don't adjust it properly, it will fly off in an accident and make wearing it pointless.

 

My feeling too, but I'm actually more concerned about strangulation (light or severe):

 

http://www.pedelecs.co.uk/forum/electric-bicycles/5103-grab-bargain-while-lasts-folding-helmet.html#post64720

Someone who recently fell from his bike and cracked his helmet (he's bruised everywhere and he has a bad case of whiplash, but the head/scalp/skull is fine):

 

http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i150/YD79005/FromiPhone099.jpg

 

http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i150/YD79005/FromiPhone098.jpg

Sometimes you need a nanny

 

I bought my mother (she's 65) a helmet for her birthday. She rarely rides her folding bike but two weeks after I bought her the helmet, she fell off her bike and banged her (helmeted) head on the concrete. She was fine. A few weeks earlier, and she wouldn't have been.

 

She was very pleased I'd made her wear a helmet.

 

I can understand why people don't want to be told what to do by the Government, but sometimes the resulting benefit is worth it.

Jesus. I wish I had a pic of my mate Dan's helmet from when he crashed into a wall in Wales. We were doing practice runs down the Cwmcarn DH course and he got a jump wrong whilst right next to me and slammed a concrete wall full on at about 35mph. It was absolutely devastating and his helmet literally shattered! It looked awful. He broke his hand and nose if I remember correctly, as well as multiple cuts/bruises. Doesn't sound too bad but it looked epic.

 

The idiot hasn't learned though, we are racing together again later this year

These discussion on helmets never lead anywhere since the arguments are fuelled by belief, not facts.

 

What is beyond me is the necessity some people have to persuade others. It smacks of religious fervour. It doesn't matter to me whether someone else wears a helmet or not. I really, deeply, don't care.

 

The only certainty seems to be that enforced helmet wearing drastically cuts the number of people using bicycles.

 

If you are a motorist and never use a bicycle, that is a good thing. If you are a cyclist and prepared to wear a helmet, it doesn't matter to you. If you are not prepared to wear a helmet, it's a bad thing. That's all you can say in the end.

 

The vast majority of head injuries are sustained by people in cars and on foot - why is there no discussion on the merits of of wearing helmets in these conditions? If the aim is to save life that is where to start for maximum life saving. But it isn't about that, is it? it's about imposing one's will on others.

 

The vast majority of head injuries are sustained by people in cars and on foot - why is there no discussion on the merits of of wearing helmets in these conditions? If the aim is to save life that is where to start for maximum life saving. But it isn't about that, is it? it's about imposing one's will on others.

 

There are so many examples of imposing one's will on others, that it is just human nature.

 

People in power do it.

Large groups of people do it, by persuading the people in power.

Small groups of people do it, by terrorising people in power.

Individuals have no voice unless they pick option 2 or 3.

 

Personally I sometimes wear a helmet, sometimes I don't and I don't care what others think unless they try to force me to wear a helmet. I like to make my own risk assessment, most of the time I get it right, sometimes wrong, who cares ?

from the site that Daniel referenced in post 152:

 

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/papers/c2023.pdf

I convinced my wife to wear a helmet and she is glad because with a beani underneath it keeps your head nice and warm:D

 

Like Lemmy, I could care less what other people do because at the end of the day it is up to the individual to decide on whats best for them.

from the site that Daniel referenced in post 152:

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/papers/c2023.pdf

 

It's an interesting read. What it amounts to is, if you tell me what accident you propose to have, I will design something to alleviate the results.

 

In the absence of that vital information, a helmet may help or hinder, depending on the accident.

 

The author of the piece plainly sees no reason for advocacy of helmets or otherwise. You pays (or not) your money and you makes your choice.

From a social POV, I think the wearing of helmets is like the many other things that we are made to feel guilty about if we do/do not do it:

 

Talking to children (as an adult male), smoking, fox hunting, 4x4 driving, off road motorcycling, appropriate speeding, making money. There may be legitimate reasons for one activity or another, but some do-gooder, lawmaker, tree hugger, will always try and stick the boot in, such is the culture in the UK and now we have the Euro-idiots to contend with.

You can be sure that neither Europe not the UK government will make helmets compulsory. That's because they know it deters cycling and that's the opposite of what they want. The UK governments have even made it clear they will block any attempt to make helmets for children compulsory.

 

From the chart below you'll see that in the Netherlands where helmet wearing incidence is very low (0.1% from another source), 27% of trips are made by bicycle. In Australia where helmet wearing is compulsory, hardly anyone cycles:

 

http://www.cycle-helmets.com/imgs/cycling-percentages.jpg

That is an interesting chart there Flecc. It saddens me to see the UK so low down

 

Dft figures for 2009 show that 58% percent of all car journeys made in the UK are under 5 miles, so why the hell are we so low on that chart?!?!

 

I can understand OZ being low, as the infrastructure is so varied.

 

And Netherlands would be high as it is flat and has the perfect infrastructure to support cycling.

 

What's our excuse?

Can I come in again!

 

As I said, people do what they want to do. Having said that(IMHO) I hardly notice when wearing my helmet, they are so light. I wonder what the main reason that people don`t like them?

When riding the other day a fairly largish twig/branch dropped off of a tree in front of me( I stopped and the weight was about 2 Kilos) 2 secs later might have seriously injured me:eek:

I know the chance of that happening is rare but have you ever noticed just how many times you meet another vehicle and a crossroad?

 

What's our excuse?

 

As much as a third of us have the excuse of the hilly territory Lloyd, the demarcation between relatively flat South London and the Surrey hills is quite marked with very different rates of utility cycling, high in South London, negligible in the Surrey hills of the North Downs. The effects of that seems much greater than the effects of heavy traffic.

 

But for two thirds of the country there really is no excuse, I see it just as a cultural thing, Britain is not a cycling nation though we were only sixty years ago. That was through necessity though, not desire, as as soon as motorised transport could be afforded, the population made the switch. As ever, the USA is our cultural model, not Europe.

.

Tis a shame. Would be a far better place if more people cycled! One can but dream eh?

 

I think that as a country the UK is not very cycling-friendly. Certainly the attitude of many motorists I encounter would put off a new cyclist in an instant I think. Our cycle lanes are a joke, too.

 

I think I am having one of my more negative, moany days

 

I hardly notice when wearing my helmet, they are so light. I wonder what the main reason that people don`t like them?

 

Motorcycle helmets weren't available for the first 23 years of my motorcycling and cycle helmets not available for around the first 30 years of my cycling so I'm used to being without the latter and ride accordingly. Since I've never hurt myself in any way in 63 years of cycling I'm content to carry on without helmets or any other cycling gear which are just inconveniences. I like to just get on and ride at a moments notice in just the way the Dutch do, street clothes and no special preparations when going on utility trips.

.

I'm not sure how true it is, but I was told long ago that the motorcycle crash helmet law was pushed through by an MP with interests in Stadium helmets?

Apparently, this was done more for the reason of cutting the cost of treating head injury's which could involve life long care, than rider safety.

In two particular cases of head injury I know of the injury's were due to the brain impacting the inside of the skull. There was no external sign of injury so doubtful a helmet would have helped in these cases.

 

I'm not so sure the nanny state is interested in protecting us, rather reducing the cost of treating us should we have an accident. Plus the obvious benefit of fixed penalties should we break the law.

 

I also think there's some myth around seat belt effectiveness. In the attached advert, I believe the same injuries would occur had the driver been wearing a seat belt. Internal organs don't become stationary because their outer protection is restrained, do they?

 

 

 

I also think there's some myth around seat belt effectiveness. In the attached advert, I believe the same injuries would occur had the driver been wearing a seat belt. Internal organs don't become stationary because their outer protection is restrained, do they?

 

The Government's Road Research Laboratory published their research into this a few years after the law was introduced. They concluded that there was a "hinge" speed at which the seatbelt itself caused death through internal organ damage like burst spleen or liver. That speed was circa 26 mph, that's the terminal speed at the driver's body, not the accident impact speed which is much higher but absorbed by the vehicle structural collapse.

.

When riding the other day a fairly largish twig/branch dropped off of a tree in front of me( I stopped and the weight was about 2 Kilos) 2 secs later might have seriously injured me:eek:

 

Imagine if it had headed towards the pavement instead of the road, it could have easily hit a pedestrian. Maybe we should be wearing helmets when walking. Not all the time, that would be silly, just when we're doing something dangerous like walking under trees, drinking alcohol, wearing stiletto shoes, going up stairs, crossing the road etc.

Imagine if it had headed towards the pavement instead of the road, it could have easily hit a pedestrian. Maybe we should be wearing helmets when walking. Not all the time, that would be silly, just when we're doing something dangerous like walking under trees, drinking alcohol, wearing stiletto shoes, going up stairs, crossing the road etc.

 

You'd have to wear the appropriate helmet, cycling helmets only work for cycling accident's? I wear a minors helmet cos I live near a school.