UK and Europe · Public discussion

Helmets

Started by Noel · · Last activity · 99 posts · 3,188 views

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
UK and Europe
Published
16 November 2006
Last activity
11 November 2012
Original author
Noel
Posts
99
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
3,188
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 41–60 of 99
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. "Ian Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:
    OG said:


    However, it seems to be similar to a 1990 study by Hodgson at lower
    speeds
    (10-14 km/h) which found that no-shell helmets had increased sliding
    resistance (bad) compared to hard shell helmets. A follow up study in
    1991
    showed that microshell helmets were more like hard shell and did not
    give
    the increased 'grab', so (as I say) it's not clear what type of helmet
    the
    Swedish study included.

    My testing has been with a microshell. The shell feels like varnished
    polystyrene, but I don't know what it actually is.

    It looks like the Swedish study was mainly to test chin straps, so i'm not
    sure how relevant it is.

  2. Rob Morley said:

    Actually we've evolved to instinctively protect our heads,

    yes but we haven't eveloved to ride bicycles in traffic; similarly out
    shulls have not evloved to be dragged along rods and kerbstones

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    I'm sympathetic to the anti compulsion arguments, but I don't think that
    helmets 'per se' are as bad as you seem to imply.


    Despite the recent research which showed that motorists give less room
    when passing a cyclist with a helmet than one without?

    on bloke riding round with a sensor on his head? call that reseach?

  3. Rob Morley said:

    Actually we've evolved to instinctively protect our heads,

    but we haven't evolved to ride bikes in traffic or to have our heads
    dragged / struck against roads vehicles and kerbstones

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    I'm sympathetic to the anti compulsion arguments, but I don't think that
    helmets 'per se' are as bad as you seem to imply.


    Despite the recent research which showed that motorists give less room
    when passing a cyclist with a helmet than one without?

    one bloke riding round with a sensor in his head, call that research?

    I'm also sympathetic to the anti- compulsion arguments but get
    increasingly annoyed at the anti-helmet brigade.

  4. MartinM said:


    but we haven't evolved to ride bikes in traffic

    and we haven't evolved to drive cars, use computers, fly to the moon
    etc. etc. so we shouldn't be doing any of those things either.

  5. In article <[email hidden]>

    MartinM said:
    Rob Morley said:

    Actually we've evolved to instinctively protect our heads,

    but we haven't evolved to ride bikes in traffic or to have our heads
    dragged / struck against roads vehicles and kerbstones

    Helmets don't give much/any protection in that situation, and can
    actually make injuries worse.

    Quoted message said:


    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    I'm sympathetic to the anti compulsion arguments, but I don't think that
    helmets 'per se' are as bad as you seem to imply.


    Despite the recent research which showed that motorists give less room
    when passing a cyclist with a helmet than one without?

    one bloke riding round with a sensor in his head, call that research?

    What would you call it?

    Quoted message said:


    I'm also sympathetic to the anti- compulsion arguments but get
    increasingly annoyed at the anti-helmet brigade.


    I'm mostly annoyed at the manufacturers who don't produce more effective
    helmets, the people who attach blame to cyclists for not wearing helmets
    rather than car drivers for driving dangerously, the parents who blame
    the government for not making helmets compulsory for children when they
    haven't made any effort to get the child trained or his bike maintained,
    the people who claim that helmets are safer than they are and the people
    who believe them ...

  6. MartinM wrote on 20/11/2006 20:40 +0100:

    Quoted message said:


    on bloke riding round with a sensor on his head? call that reseach?

    So share your research with us.

    PS You clearly haven't read Ian Walker's research but don't let
    ignorance get in the way of an opinion eh?

    --
    Tony

    "Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
    his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
    - Leonardo da Vinci

  7. SW wrote on 20/11/2006 20:55 +0100:

    Quoted message said:
    MartinM said:


    but we haven't evolved to ride bikes in traffic

    and we haven't evolved to drive cars, use computers, fly to the moon
    etc. etc. so we shouldn't be doing any of those things either.

    Ah but they wear helmets to fly to the moon so that's alright then. ;-)

    --
    Tony

    "Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
    his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
    - Leonardo da Vinci

  8. MartinM said:
    Rob Morley said:


    Despite the recent research which showed that motorists give less room
    when passing a cyclist with a helmet than one without?

    on bloke riding round with a sensor on his head? call that reseach?

    It sounds very much as if you haven't read even the most basic summary
    of the research, but don't let ignorance of the facts stop you
    criticising it.

    I don't think there was a sensor on his head. Exposure or otherwise
    of the head was one of the variables examined, and plonking a sensor
    on it would confound that.

    The objection that it was only one bloke doing the riding is one I've
    heard elsewhere. If more than one person had been riding
    those that want to rubbish it would immediately announce the different
    people riding was an uncontrolled variable. It's a very poor
    criticism to make.

    Presumably MartinM has better research, more rigorously derived, which
    he will now share with us. Surely his opinion can only be based on
    something much more scientific than that he ridicules...

    regards, Ian SMith
    --
    |\ /| no .sig
    |o o|
    |/ \|

  9. OG wrote on 20/11/2006 19:47 +0100:

    Quoted message said:


    It looks like the Swedish study was mainly to test chin straps, so i'm not
    sure how relevant it is.

    Its relevant. They translated helmeted dummies into sloping "ground" at
    various angles and speeds and measured inter alia linear and angular
    acceleration of the head. They specifically commented on the large (and
    above maximum tolerable) rotational acceleration due to the sliding
    impact with the bicycle helmets that did not occur with motorbike helmets

    --
    Tony

    "Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
    his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
    - Leonardo da Vinci

  10. "Tony Raven" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    OG wrote on 20/11/2006 19:47 +0100:

    Quoted message said:


    It looks like the Swedish study was mainly to test chin straps, so i'm
    not
    sure how relevant it is.

    Its relevant. They translated helmeted dummies into sloping "ground" at
    various angles and speeds and measured inter alia linear and angular
    acceleration of the head. They specifically commented on the large (and
    above maximum tolerable) rotational acceleration due to the sliding impact
    with the bicycle helmets that did not occur with motorbike helmets

    Ah, just found the article on Google Scholar. I can't see any reference to
    motorbike helmets.

    What I can see is the following
    Quote
    "As a subsidiary result it was discovered that the rotational effects of the
    tested helmets differed a lot.The shell helmets did not grip the asphalt
    layer at all and did not rotate, which implies that nor did the head form
    rotate. The non-shell helmets gripped the asphalt layer in each impact,
    rotated and transferred this rotation to the head form."

    So the PCUG statement referenced earlier
    "Swedish studies that found bicycle helmets on 20mph asphalt impacts grabbed
    the surface and produced 4-6x the maximum tolerable angular acceleration"
    should maybe be properly qualified with something like
    "Swedish studies that found that one type of bicycle helmet on 20mph asphalt
    impacts grabbed the surface and produced 4-6x the maximum tolerable angular
    acceleration, though helmets with a shell do not show this problem"

  11. OG said:


    should maybe be properly qualified with something like
    "Swedish studies that found that one type of bicycle helmet on 20mph asphalt
    impacts grabbed the surface and produced 4-6x the maximum tolerable angular
    acceleration, though helmets with a shell do not show this problem"

    Maybe more properly:

    "Swedish studies that found that bicycle helmets on 20mph asphalt
    impacts grabbed the surface and produced 4-6x the maximum tolerable
    angular acceleration. Although it is possible to produce helmets with
    a shell that do not show this problem, manufacturers do not produce
    such a helmet."

    Commenting about teh performance of imaginary helmets, however, is
    hardly relevant to the discussion of real helmets, so the original
    comment seems reasonably fair.

    regards, Ian SMith
    --
    |\ /| no .sig
    |o o|
    |/ \|

  12. MartinM said:
    Rob Morley said:

    Actually we've evolved to instinctively protect our heads,

    but we haven't evolved to ride bikes in traffic or to have our heads
    dragged / struck against roads vehicles and kerbstones

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    I'm sympathetic to the anti compulsion arguments, but I don't think that
    helmets 'per se' are as bad as you seem to imply.


    Despite the recent research which showed that motorists give less room
    when passing a cyclist with a helmet than one without?

    one bloke riding round with a sensor in his head, call that research?

    I'm also sympathetic to the anti- compulsion arguments but get
    increasingly annoyed at the anti-helmet brigade.

    What's wrong with being anti-helmet?

  13. MartinM said:
    Rob Morley said:

    Actually we've evolved to instinctively protect our heads,

    but we haven't evolved to ride bikes in traffic or to have our heads
    dragged / struck against roads vehicles and kerbstones

    Since helmets are not designed to cope with other vehicles that's a red
    herring. As for being struck against and dragged along roads, the
    instinctive avoidance of hitting one's head in the first place is just
    as valid for not hitting a kerb-stone as anything else.

    Quoted message said:

    one bloke riding round with a sensor in his head, call that research?

    It was actually quite a rigorously designed set of experiments AFAICT.
    What are your specific objections to his methodology?

    Quoted message said:

    I'm also sympathetic to the anti- compulsion arguments but get
    increasingly annoyed at the anti-helmet brigade.

    The anti-helmet brigade is largely a product of the imaginations of
    people who don't understand what a helmet-sceptic is. Pointing out the
    degree to which they're [censored] might sound like being "anti" because they
    really are quite [censored] compared to what's widely expected of them, but
    it's just telling it like it is.

    Pete.
    --
    Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
    Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
    Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
    net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

  14. Jeremy Parker said:

    That is an important question actually, which people should ask more
    often.

    a) They must pass either the European or North American standards,
    perhaps even both, although meeting both conflicts with criterion b)

    b) They must be as light and as cool as possible, i.e. only just
    meet criterion a)

    Though the note to consider with b) is that they will do so variously
    well according to the budget level. Expensive helmets will probably not
    surpass the minimum standard any more than a cheap one, but they will
    meet it with greater comfort for the rider. The extra money goes on
    retaining the strength while creating more holes in the structure, which
    increases ventilation and reduces weight.

    Quoted message said:

    c) They must have a high enough profit margin to pay various lawyers
    fees etc. You will need to defend yourself against the lawsuits
    from grieving relatives when your helmet doesn't actually work (Well,
    not lawsuits preferably. It's best to settle out of court, because
    then you can keep the amount of payouts secret, which is advisable.
    I've heard it suggested that this cost might be about a third the
    cost of a helmet, although I can't imagine ever being able to extract
    good data from any helmet manufacturer)

    I suspect that the above is quite possibly Total Bollocks (TM). All you
    have to do is demonstrate that your product meets the specifications you
    say it meets. It is quite noticeable that helmet ads from helmet
    manufacturers don't make a point of telling you how safe you'll be.
    They tell you how stylish and comfortable it is, and the small print
    tells you the specification to which they're tested. Nothing more than
    that, so you can't really get away with saying they don't do what they say.
    The point of profit margin isn't to pay for lawyers, it's to make money,
    which is what commercial enterprises (try to) *do*.

    Quoted message said:

    d) They must make you look like Darth Vader rather than some dork
    with a pudding basin on their head

    But if you want to look like a pro these days then that means wearing a
    hat. And that they make you look a plonker is a pretty moot point to a
    lot of people that find lycra clothing *at least* as ridiculous to look
    at as a hat.

    Points c) and d) suggest you've got lost the ability to Stick To The
    Clear Facts: time to realise that that doesn't do anyone any favours and
    just gives numpties a good reason not to believe anything you say.

    Pete.
    --
    Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
    Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
    Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
    net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

  15. Peter Clinch said:

    Jeremy Parker wrote:

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    d) They must make you look like Darth Vader rather than some dork
    with a pudding basin on their head

    Quoted message said:

    But if you want to look like a pro these days then that means wearing a
    hat.

    I discovered that when polling the neighborhood for some tree pruning
    work. People took me more seriously if I wore what looked like a tree
    pruning hat when standing in the garden looking at their tree, even
    though all I did was stand and look. I suspect that wearing a special
    hat as a mark of professionalism has strong atavistic roots going back
    to the ancient days of chiefs and witch doctors.

    --
    Chris Malcolm [email hidden] DoD #205
    IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
    [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

  16. "Ian Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:
    OG said:


    should maybe be properly qualified with something like
    "Swedish studies that found that one type of bicycle helmet on 20mph
    asphalt
    impacts grabbed the surface and produced 4-6x the maximum tolerable
    angular
    acceleration, though helmets with a shell do not show this problem"

    Maybe more properly:

    "Swedish studies that found that bicycle helmets on 20mph asphalt
    impacts grabbed the surface and produced 4-6x the maximum tolerable
    angular acceleration. Although it is possible to produce helmets with
    a shell that do not show this problem, manufacturers do not produce
    such a helmet."

    Commenting about teh performance of imaginary helmets, however, is
    hardly relevant to the discussion of real helmets, so the original
    comment seems reasonably fair.

    I'm not really sure what you are alleging here. The study makes it clear it
    tested three different versions of bicycle helmets.
    Quote

    "Three types of helmets were investigated. One hard-shell helmet (type A),
    one non-shell helmet (type B) and one ribbed helmet (large ventilation
    holes) with hard shell (type C). All three models are of modern design with
    chin strap attachment both at the sides and at the rear part of the helmet."

    Which bit of the study do you think is 'imaginary' ?

  17. OG said:


    "Ian Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:


    Commenting about teh performance of imaginary helmets, however, is
    hardly relevant to the discussion of real helmets, so the original
    comment seems reasonably fair.

    I'm not really sure what you are alleging here. The study makes it clear it
    tested three different versions of bicycle helmets.
    Quote

    "Three types of helmets were investigated. One hard-shell helmet (type A),
    one non-shell helmet (type B) and one ribbed helmet (large ventilation
    holes) with hard shell (type C). All three models are of modern design with
    chin strap attachment both at the sides and at the rear part of the helmet."

    Which bit of the study do you think is 'imaginary' ?

    The existence of hard-shell cycling helmets in shops. You could buy
    them 10 years ago, I haven't seen one for nearly that long.

    regards, Ian SMith
    --
    |\ /| no .sig
    |o o|
    |/ \|

  18. On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 19:03:32 -0000, "OG" <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:


    "Ian Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:
    OG said:


    should maybe be properly qualified with something like
    "Swedish studies that found that one type of bicycle helmet on 20mph
    asphalt
    impacts grabbed the surface and produced 4-6x the maximum tolerable
    angular
    acceleration, though helmets with a shell do not show this problem"

    Maybe more properly:

    "Swedish studies that found that bicycle helmets on 20mph asphalt
    impacts grabbed the surface and produced 4-6x the maximum tolerable
    angular acceleration. Although it is possible to produce helmets with
    a shell that do not show this problem, manufacturers do not produce
    such a helmet."

    Commenting about teh performance of imaginary helmets, however, is
    hardly relevant to the discussion of real helmets, so the original
    comment seems reasonably fair.

    I'm not really sure what you are alleging here. The study makes it clear it
    tested three different versions of bicycle helmets.
    Quote

    "Three types of helmets were investigated. One hard-shell helmet (type A),
    one non-shell helmet (type B) and one ribbed helmet (large ventilation
    holes) with hard shell (type C). All three models are of modern design with
    chin strap attachment both at the sides and at the rear part of the helmet."

    Which bit of the study do you think is 'imaginary' ?

    Perhaps it was this bit (repeated from that portion which you were so
    kind as to quote):

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    ...Although it is possible to produce helmets with
    a shell that do not show this problem, manufacturers do not produce
    such a helmet."

  19. Tony Raven said:

    SW wrote on 20/11/2006 20:55 +0100:

    Quoted message said:
    MartinM said:


    but we haven't evolved to ride bikes in traffic

    and we haven't evolved to drive cars, use computers, fly to the moon
    etc. etc. so we shouldn't be doing any of those things either.

    Ah but they wear helmets to fly to the moon so that's alright then. ;-)

    You're just trivialising the argument. I appreciate that I'm in the
    minority here for a. wearing one b. going against the party line on
    just about everything including the merit of cyclecraft and cyclesense.
    I'm also (believe it or not) strongly anti-compulsion for precisely the
    reasons you all state. There's nothing wrong with being helmet sceptic,
    and that's what should be brought up to BHIT and the rest of the pro
    compulsion shower. But taking the battle to fellow cyclists and
    rubbishing anyone who disagrees with your opinion or labelling them a
    Troll is disengenious to say the least.
    I'm giving this NG a rest to concentrate on more important things (1200
    of them to be precise), see you all later next year ;-)

    (self plonk)

  20. "Ian Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:
    OG said:


    "Ian Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:


    Commenting about teh performance of imaginary helmets, however, is
    hardly relevant to the discussion of real helmets, so the original
    comment seems reasonably fair.

    I'm not really sure what you are alleging here. The study makes it clear
    it
    tested three different versions of bicycle helmets.
    Quote

    "Three types of helmets were investigated. One hard-shell helmet (type
    A),
    one non-shell helmet (type B) and one ribbed helmet (large ventilation
    holes) with hard shell (type C). All three models are of modern design
    with
    chin strap attachment both at the sides and at the rear part of the
    helmet."

    Which bit of the study do you think is 'imaginary' ?

    The existence of hard-shell cycling helmets in shops. You could buy
    them 10 years ago, I haven't seen one for nearly that long.

    Aha,
    you are saying that the microshell helmets available now are not the same as
    the hard shell helmets that were tested then.

    OK, you may be right.

    On the other hand the 1991 follow up to Hodgson's 1990 study showed that
    microshell helmets behaved more like hard shell at lower speeds. Is there
    evidence to show that they are worse at the higher speeds in the Swedish
    study?

    And finally, are no-shell helmets still available?

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.