Sussex Police tell us we should be wearing helmets - shouldn't they be staying out of this?

brooksby wrote:

daturaman wrote:

srchar wrote:

The thing I don't understand is, why aren't helmet advocates all wearing full-face downhill lids? Ones that might actually do something to protect their beautiful faces and massive brains if they have a high-impact off.

I certainly advocate wearing a full-face downhill "lid" for downhill mtb.

I'd think most people would.  But its a question of risk assessment - downhill mtb at speed is *way* different to riding in town to go to the shops or a recreational path along a riverside, isn't it?

I think that's exactly the point, tooling around on trails etc can be dangerous.

Cycling on a road shouldn't be, and isn't inherently, dangerous.

I didn't realise Sussex police had a remit to police what people wear when they are going about their own lawful, harmless business.

ChrisB200SX wrote:

I didn't realise Sussex police had a remit to police what people wear when they are going about their own lawful, harmless business.

My remit's what I say it is, YOU SLAG!

srchar wrote:

Do you really think a (cheap? old? crap?) piece of polystyrene is stronger than the human skull?  I think you'd be surprised.  I've had two massive crashes when not wearing a helmet, but wish I'd been wearing wrist guards, then my left one might actually still work as a wrist. So that's two all on anecdotes.

So the words "crumple zone" mean nothing to you then?

wknight wrote:

The one key statistic we are missing is how many people saved a trip to The hospital or even calling an ambulance because the helmet saved them. 

 

I witnessed two crashes very recently where the person walked away, but their helmet was a complete shattered mess. That would have been their head and yes it is personal choice, but no one complains about wearing a seat belt. Please don’t say there is data, because the data we need re Helmets has not been gathered. Go visit a&e and see head injuries. 

If the police get involved why not, remember it’s them who have all the paperwork, investigation and having to give the family the bad news

If a bike helmet is a "complete shattered mess", it means that the energy involved was much greater than the helmet was designed to protect against. The main protection from a bike helmet comes from compressing the expanded polystyrene inside it, not from the thin plastic outer that holds it together, so if the helmet shatters, it means it's not doing its job correctly and most likely provided only very minimal protection.

hawkinspeter wrote:

wknight wrote:

The one key statistic we are missing is how many people saved a trip to The hospital or even calling an ambulance because the helmet saved them. 

 

I witnessed two crashes very recently where the person walked away, but their helmet was a complete shattered mess. That would have been their head and yes it is personal choice, but no one complains about wearing a seat belt. Please don’t say there is data, because the data we need re Helmets has not been gathered. Go visit a&e and see head injuries. 

If the police get involved why not, remember it’s them who have all the paperwork, investigation and having to give the family the bad news

If a bike helmet is a "complete shattered mess", it means that the energy involved was much greater than the helmet was designed to protect against. The main protection from a bike helmet comes from compressing the expanded polystyrene inside it, not from the thin plastic outer that holds it together, so if the helmet shatters, it means it's not doing its job correctly and most likely provided only very minimal protection.

Real life impacts are very complicated actions, and it's entirely possible that the inital 'killing' impact deformed the helmet and protected the wearer, but also ruined the integrity of the helmet such that subsequent smaller impacts destroyed the now substantially weakened helmet, but those impacts were not capable of doing serious damage to the encased skull. So, a destroyed helmet does not mean either that it was subject to impacts outside it's design envelope, nor that it offered skant protection. Just because an air bag is a torn bloody, muddy floppy mess and the vehicle didn't stop when it deployed doesn't mean that the air bag offered no protection at the time of impact. 

madcarew wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

wknight wrote:

The one key statistic we are missing is how many people saved a trip to The hospital or even calling an ambulance because the helmet saved them. 

 

I witnessed two crashes very recently where the person walked away, but their helmet was a complete shattered mess. That would have been their head and yes it is personal choice, but no one complains about wearing a seat belt. Please don’t say there is data, because the data we need re Helmets has not been gathered. Go visit a&e and see head injuries. 

If the police get involved why not, remember it’s them who have all the paperwork, investigation and having to give the family the bad news

If a bike helmet is a "complete shattered mess", it means that the energy involved was much greater than the helmet was designed to protect against. The main protection from a bike helmet comes from compressing the expanded polystyrene inside it, not from the thin plastic outer that holds it together, so if the helmet shatters, it means it's not doing its job correctly and most likely provided only very minimal protection.

Real life impacts are very complicated actions, and it's entirely possible that the inital 'killing' impact deformed the helmet and protected the wearer, but also ruined the integrity of the helmet such that subsequent smaller impacts destroyed the now substantially weakened helmet, but those impacts were not capable of doing serious damage to the encased skull. So, a destroyed helmet does not mean either that it was subject to impacts outside it's design envelope, nor that it offered skant protection. Just because an air bag is a torn bloody, muddy floppy mess and the vehicle didn't stop when it deployed doesn't mean that the air bag offered no protection at the time of impact. 

I get your point, but does that mean you support the opposite view, that if a helmet is destroyed it means that it provided a high level of protection? That's what I was arguing against.

hawkinspeter wrote:

madcarew wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

wknight wrote:

The one key statistic we are missing is how many people saved a trip to The hospital or even calling an ambulance because the helmet saved them. 

 

I witnessed two crashes very recently where the person walked away, but their helmet was a complete shattered mess. That would have been their head and yes it is personal choice, but no one complains about wearing a seat belt. Please don’t say there is data, because the data we need re Helmets has not been gathered. Go visit a&e and see head injuries. 

If the police get involved why not, remember it’s them who have all the paperwork, investigation and having to give the family the bad news

If a bike helmet is a "complete shattered mess", it means that the energy involved was much greater than the helmet was designed to protect against. The main protection from a bike helmet comes from compressing the expanded polystyrene inside it, not from the thin plastic outer that holds it together, so if the helmet shatters, it means it's not doing its job correctly and most likely provided only very minimal protection.

Real life impacts are very complicated actions, and it's entirely possible that the inital 'killing' impact deformed the helmet and protected the wearer, but also ruined the integrity of the helmet such that subsequent smaller impacts destroyed the now substantially weakened helmet, but those impacts were not capable of doing serious damage to the encased skull. So, a destroyed helmet does not mean either that it was subject to impacts outside it's design envelope, nor that it offered skant protection. Just because an air bag is a torn bloody, muddy floppy mess and the vehicle didn't stop when it deployed doesn't mean that the air bag offered no protection at the time of impact. 

I get your point, but does that mean you support the opposite view, that if a helmet is destroyed it means that it provided a high level of protection? That's what I was arguing against.

If a helmet is destroyed, as I pointed out, it may have provided a high level of protection, but  for sure there will be instances where the helmet provided negligible protection and was destroyed. I think these may be the minority of cases where the rider survived though. To me it's hard to envisage an impact destructive enough to destroy a helmet that wouldn't have had fairly devastating effects on the head contained within  had it not been there, which is really what saying 'it provided negligible protection' means

madcarew wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

madcarew wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

wknight wrote:

The one key statistic we are missing is how many people saved a trip to The hospital or even calling an ambulance because the helmet saved them. 

 

I witnessed two crashes very recently where the person walked away, but their helmet was a complete shattered mess. That would have been their head and yes it is personal choice, but no one complains about wearing a seat belt. Please don’t say there is data, because the data we need re Helmets has not been gathered. Go visit a&e and see head injuries. 

If the police get involved why not, remember it’s them who have all the paperwork, investigation and having to give the family the bad news

If a bike helmet is a "complete shattered mess", it means that the energy involved was much greater than the helmet was designed to protect against. The main protection from a bike helmet comes from compressing the expanded polystyrene inside it, not from the thin plastic outer that holds it together, so if the helmet shatters, it means it's not doing its job correctly and most likely provided only very minimal protection.

Real life impacts are very complicated actions, and it's entirely possible that the inital 'killing' impact deformed the helmet and protected the wearer, but also ruined the integrity of the helmet such that subsequent smaller impacts destroyed the now substantially weakened helmet, but those impacts were not capable of doing serious damage to the encased skull. So, a destroyed helmet does not mean either that it was subject to impacts outside it's design envelope, nor that it offered skant protection. Just because an air bag is a torn bloody, muddy floppy mess and the vehicle didn't stop when it deployed doesn't mean that the air bag offered no protection at the time of impact. 

I get your point, but does that mean you support the opposite view, that if a helmet is destroyed it means that it provided a high level of protection? That's what I was arguing against.

If a helmet is destroyed, as I pointed out, it may have provided a high level of protection, but  for sure there will be instances where the helmet provided negligible protection and was destroyed. I think these may be the minority of cases where the rider survived though. To me it's hard to envisage an impact destructive enough to destroy a helmet that wouldn't have had fairly devastating effects on the head contained within  had it not been there, which is really what saying 'it provided negligible protection' means

I'm not convinced as the general design of bike helmets has very clear structural weaknesses (or vents as they are often called) and any non-flat object hitting a helmet has a reasonable chance of destroying it. Your argument that a destroyed helmet most likely provided significant protection is begging the question.

hawkinspeter wrote:

madcarew wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

madcarew wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

wknight wrote:

The one key statistic we are missing is how many people saved a trip to The hospital or even calling an ambulance because the helmet saved them. 

 

I witnessed two crashes very recently where the person walked away, but their helmet was a complete shattered mess. That would have been their head and yes it is personal choice, but no one complains about wearing a seat belt. Please don’t say there is data, because the data we need re Helmets has not been gathered. Go visit a&e and see head injuries. 

If the police get involved why not, remember it’s them who have all the paperwork, investigation and having to give the family the bad news

If a bike helmet is a "complete shattered mess", it means that the energy involved was much greater than the helmet was designed to protect against. The main protection from a bike helmet comes from compressing the expanded polystyrene inside it, not from the thin plastic outer that holds it together, so if the helmet shatters, it means it's not doing its job correctly and most likely provided only very minimal protection.

Real life impacts are very complicated actions, and it's entirely possible that the inital 'killing' impact deformed the helmet and protected the wearer, but also ruined the integrity of the helmet such that subsequent smaller impacts destroyed the now substantially weakened helmet, but those impacts were not capable of doing serious damage to the encased skull. So, a destroyed helmet does not mean either that it was subject to impacts outside it's design envelope, nor that it offered skant protection. Just because an air bag is a torn bloody, muddy floppy mess and the vehicle didn't stop when it deployed doesn't mean that the air bag offered no protection at the time of impact. 

I get your point, but does that mean you support the opposite view, that if a helmet is destroyed it means that it provided a high level of protection? That's what I was arguing against.

If a helmet is destroyed, as I pointed out, it may have provided a high level of protection, but  for sure there will be instances where the helmet provided negligible protection and was destroyed. I think these may be the minority of cases where the rider survived though. To me it's hard to envisage an impact destructive enough to destroy a helmet that wouldn't have had fairly devastating effects on the head contained within  had it not been there, which is really what saying 'it provided negligible protection' means

I'm not convinced as the general design of bike helmets has very clear structural weaknesses (or vents as they are often called) and any non-flat object hitting a helmet has a reasonable chance of destroying it. Your argument that a destroyed helmet most likely provided significant protection is begging the question.

I don't think any of it is as absolute as your alterrnative proposition "the opposite view, that if a helmet is destroyed it means that it provided a high level of protection?".  And at this point we get to semantics, because I'm uncomfortable with "most likely" but comfortable with "fairly likely".  I take your point about the vents and a non-flat surface (eg rock or top of  fence post) but what would the effect on the skull be in the absence of the helmet. I think it's going to be generally unlikely that in the event a helmet is destroyed (I was envisaging the majority of the  helmet being in pieces) that an unprotected skull in the same instance wouldn't have benefitted from a helmet between it and the striking surface.

madcarew wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

madcarew wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

madcarew wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

wknight wrote:

The one key statistic we are missing is how many people saved a trip to The hospital or even calling an ambulance because the helmet saved them. 

 

I witnessed two crashes very recently where the person walked away, but their helmet was a complete shattered mess. That would have been their head and yes it is personal choice, but no one complains about wearing a seat belt. Please don’t say there is data, because the data we need re Helmets has not been gathered. Go visit a&e and see head injuries. 

If the police get involved why not, remember it’s them who have all the paperwork, investigation and having to give the family the bad news

If a bike helmet is a "complete shattered mess", it means that the energy involved was much greater than the helmet was designed to protect against. The main protection from a bike helmet comes from compressing the expanded polystyrene inside it, not from the thin plastic outer that holds it together, so if the helmet shatters, it means it's not doing its job correctly and most likely provided only very minimal protection.

Real life impacts are very complicated actions, and it's entirely possible that the inital 'killing' impact deformed the helmet and protected the wearer, but also ruined the integrity of the helmet such that subsequent smaller impacts destroyed the now substantially weakened helmet, but those impacts were not capable of doing serious damage to the encased skull. So, a destroyed helmet does not mean either that it was subject to impacts outside it's design envelope, nor that it offered skant protection. Just because an air bag is a torn bloody, muddy floppy mess and the vehicle didn't stop when it deployed doesn't mean that the air bag offered no protection at the time of impact. 

I get your point, but does that mean you support the opposite view, that if a helmet is destroyed it means that it provided a high level of protection? That's what I was arguing against.

If a helmet is destroyed, as I pointed out, it may have provided a high level of protection, but  for sure there will be instances where the helmet provided negligible protection and was destroyed. I think these may be the minority of cases where the rider survived though. To me it's hard to envisage an impact destructive enough to destroy a helmet that wouldn't have had fairly devastating effects on the head contained within  had it not been there, which is really what saying 'it provided negligible protection' means

I'm not convinced as the general design of bike helmets has very clear structural weaknesses (or vents as they are often called) and any non-flat object hitting a helmet has a reasonable chance of destroying it. Your argument that a destroyed helmet most likely provided significant protection is begging the question.

I don't think any of it is as absolute as your alterrnative proposition "the opposite view, that if a helmet is destroyed it means that it provided a high level of protection?".  And at this point we get to semantics, because I'm uncomfortable with "most likely" but comfortable with "fairly likely".  I take your point about the vents and a non-flat surface (eg rock or top of  fence post) but what would the effect on the skull be in the absence of the helmet. I think it's going to be generally unlikely that in the event a helmet is destroyed (I was envisaging the majority of the  helmet being in pieces) that an unprotected skull in the same instance wouldn't have benefitted from a helmet between it and the striking surface.

I think we need some experimenters to figure out the real value of destroyed helmets.

I just object to the naive view that a destroyed helmet must have provided significant protection, when I would expect the opposite to be more likely.

hawkinspeter wrote:

madcarew wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

madcarew wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

madcarew wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

wknight wrote:

The one key statistic we are missing is how many people saved a trip to The hospital or even calling an ambulance because the helmet saved them. 

 

I witnessed two crashes very recently where the person walked away, but their helmet was a complete shattered mess. That would have been their head and yes it is personal choice, but no one complains about wearing a seat belt. Please don’t say there is data, because the data we need re Helmets has not been gathered. Go visit a&e and see head injuries. 

If the police get involved why not, remember it’s them who have all the paperwork, investigation and having to give the family the bad news

If a bike helmet is a "complete shattered mess", it means that the energy involved was much greater than the helmet was designed to protect against. The main protection from a bike helmet comes from compressing the expanded polystyrene inside it, not from the thin plastic outer that holds it together, so if the helmet shatters, it means it's not doing its job correctly and most likely provided only very minimal protection.

Real life impacts are very complicated actions, and it's entirely possible that the inital 'killing' impact deformed the helmet and protected the wearer, but also ruined the integrity of the helmet such that subsequent smaller impacts destroyed the now substantially weakened helmet, but those impacts were not capable of doing serious damage to the encased skull. So, a destroyed helmet does not mean either that it was subject to impacts outside it's design envelope, nor that it offered skant protection. Just because an air bag is a torn bloody, muddy floppy mess and the vehicle didn't stop when it deployed doesn't mean that the air bag offered no protection at the time of impact. 

I get your point, but does that mean you support the opposite view, that if a helmet is destroyed it means that it provided a high level of protection? That's what I was arguing against.

If a helmet is destroyed, as I pointed out, it may have provided a high level of protection, but  for sure there will be instances where the helmet provided negligible protection and was destroyed. I think these may be the minority of cases where the rider survived though. To me it's hard to envisage an impact destructive enough to destroy a helmet that wouldn't have had fairly devastating effects on the head contained within  had it not been there, which is really what saying 'it provided negligible protection' means

I'm not convinced as the general design of bike helmets has very clear structural weaknesses (or vents as they are often called) and any non-flat object hitting a helmet has a reasonable chance of destroying it. Your argument that a destroyed helmet most likely provided significant protection is begging the question.

I don't think any of it is as absolute as your alterrnative proposition "the opposite view, that if a helmet is destroyed it means that it provided a high level of protection?".  And at this point we get to semantics, because I'm uncomfortable with "most likely" but comfortable with "fairly likely".  I take your point about the vents and a non-flat surface (eg rock or top of  fence post) but what would the effect on the skull be in the absence of the helmet. I think it's going to be generally unlikely that in the event a helmet is destroyed (I was envisaging the majority of the  helmet being in pieces) that an unprotected skull in the same instance wouldn't have benefitted from a helmet between it and the striking surface.

I think we need some experimenters to figure out the real value of destroyed helmets.

I just object to the naive view that a destroyed helmet must have provided significant protection, when I would expect the opposite to be more likely.

Well, I nominate Donald Trump as crash test dummy #1

I don't think the opposite is more likely, and just because it's a naiive view doesn't mean it's wrong

Really, to my mind, the crux of that argument is given that a head was encased in the helmet at time of destruction, and significant force is likely to have been applied to destroy it,  what would have been the state of the head had the helmet not been there. Generally speaking I think the answer has to be "worse", probably normally coupled with "considerably".

madcarew wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

madcarew wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

madcarew wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

madcarew wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

wknight wrote:

The one key statistic we are missing is how many people saved a trip to The hospital or even calling an ambulance because the helmet saved them. 

 

I witnessed two crashes very recently where the person walked away, but their helmet was a complete shattered mess. That would have been their head and yes it is personal choice, but no one complains about wearing a seat belt. Please don’t say there is data, because the data we need re Helmets has not been gathered. Go visit a&e and see head injuries. 

If the police get involved why not, remember it’s them who have all the paperwork, investigation and having to give the family the bad news

If a bike helmet is a "complete shattered mess", it means that the energy involved was much greater than the helmet was designed to protect against. The main protection from a bike helmet comes from compressing the expanded polystyrene inside it, not from the thin plastic outer that holds it together, so if the helmet shatters, it means it's not doing its job correctly and most likely provided only very minimal protection.

Real life impacts are very complicated actions, and it's entirely possible that the inital 'killing' impact deformed the helmet and protected the wearer, but also ruined the integrity of the helmet such that subsequent smaller impacts destroyed the now substantially weakened helmet, but those impacts were not capable of doing serious damage to the encased skull. So, a destroyed helmet does not mean either that it was subject to impacts outside it's design envelope, nor that it offered skant protection. Just because an air bag is a torn bloody, muddy floppy mess and the vehicle didn't stop when it deployed doesn't mean that the air bag offered no protection at the time of impact. 

I get your point, but does that mean you support the opposite view, that if a helmet is destroyed it means that it provided a high level of protection? That's what I was arguing against.

If a helmet is destroyed, as I pointed out, it may have provided a high level of protection, but  for sure there will be instances where the helmet provided negligible protection and was destroyed. I think these may be the minority of cases where the rider survived though. To me it's hard to envisage an impact destructive enough to destroy a helmet that wouldn't have had fairly devastating effects on the head contained within  had it not been there, which is really what saying 'it provided negligible protection' means

I'm not convinced as the general design of bike helmets has very clear structural weaknesses (or vents as they are often called) and any non-flat object hitting a helmet has a reasonable chance of destroying it. Your argument that a destroyed helmet most likely provided significant protection is begging the question.

I don't think any of it is as absolute as your alterrnative proposition "the opposite view, that if a helmet is destroyed it means that it provided a high level of protection?".  And at this point we get to semantics, because I'm uncomfortable with "most likely" but comfortable with "fairly likely".  I take your point about the vents and a non-flat surface (eg rock or top of  fence post) but what would the effect on the skull be in the absence of the helmet. I think it's going to be generally unlikely that in the event a helmet is destroyed (I was envisaging the majority of the  helmet being in pieces) that an unprotected skull in the same instance wouldn't have benefitted from a helmet between it and the striking surface.

I think we need some experimenters to figure out the real value of destroyed helmets.

I just object to the naive view that a destroyed helmet must have provided significant protection, when I would expect the opposite to be more likely.

 

Well, I nominate Donald Trump as crash test dummy #1

 

I don't think the opposite is more likely, and just because it's a naiive view doesn't mean it's wrong

Really, to my mind, the crux of that argument is given that a head was encased in the helmet at time of destruction, and significant force is likely to have been applied to destroy it,  what would have been the state of the head had the helmet not been there. Generally speaking I think the answer has to be "worse", probably normally coupled with "considerably".

By the way, I meant "naive" as in the mother's views - I think most people on this forum have read at least some discussions of helmet efficacy.

A problem with using a destroyed helmet as a signature of a high level of protection, is that it leads to the paradox whereby the weaker the helmet, the more often it is judged to have provided protection.

My view on bike helmets is that they are good at protecting against scrapes and possibly minor skull fractures, but next to useless in preventing brain damage due to the brain 'sloshing' against the inside of the skull. Combined with the data that shows drivers give less space to helmet wearing riders, and I think that their net benefit is negligible.

hawkinspeter wrote:

Combined with the data that shows drivers give less space to helmet wearing riders, and I think that their net benefit is negligible.

 

Interesting one that...

I am also convinced that drivers seem more patient/safe around me when I am giving it some welly rather than pottering about on the tops.  Anyone else noticed this, or the opposite?

Shrewsbury PSCOs committed a similar faux pas on twitter last week:

Quote:

A cycle helmet and shatterproof sunglasses are a must for anyone on their bike this sunny Bank Holiday Monday. Quite a few more mature males seen without. Experience counts for nothing when you hit a pothole. #SafeCycling #WearAHelmet

https://twitter.com/ShrewsburyCops/status/993524733189738496

I'd like to think that they actually read some of the informative responses.

PRSboy wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

Combined with the data that shows drivers give less space to helmet wearing riders, and I think that their net benefit is negligible.

 

 

Interesting one that...

I am also convinced that drivers seem more patient/safe around me when I am giving it some welly rather than pottering about on the tops.  Anyone else noticed this, or the opposite?

No but the research on helmeted vs bare-headed riders is real. For best results grow your hair long (or wear a wig) and wobble a bit.

PRSboy wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

Combined with the data that shows drivers give less space to helmet wearing riders, and I think that their net benefit is negligible.

 

 

Interesting one that...

I am also convinced that drivers seem more patient/safe around me when I am giving it some welly rather than pottering about on the tops.  Anyone else noticed this, or the opposite?

Definitely. The slower I go, the more close passes, beeps and rants I get. Doesn't even matter if the reason I am going slower is that I am with the kids.

Definitely. The slower I go, the more close passes, beeps and rants I get. Doesn't even matter if the reason I am going slower is that I am with the kids.

[/quote]This last.  Although slightly off topic, I simply cannot believe (well actually I can, but that’s even worse) that grown adult males are prepared to shout foul mouthed abuse at children.

hawkinspeter wrote:

 

By the way, I meant "naive" as in the mother's views - I think most people on this forum have read at least some discussions of helmet efficacy.

A problem with using a destroyed helmet as a signature of a high level of protection, is that it leads to the paradox whereby the weaker the helmet, the more often it is judged to have provided protection.

My view on bike helmets is that they are good at protecting against scrapes and possibly minor skull fractures, but next to useless in preventing brain damage due to the brain 'sloshing' against the inside of the skull. Combined with the data that shows drivers give less space to helmet wearing riders, and I think that their net benefit is negligible.

 

Very fair point on 'the weaker the helmet...', except one assumes most helmets being worn have passed the relevant safety standards, and so from that standpoint most destructive hits have had some fair degree of force behind them.

I have to disagree with you on the brain damage issue, because it is the rate of acceleration (negative or positive) that is of prime importance in that instance, and if you consider under the same impact loading, if a head hits the ground unprotected there is say +/- 3mm of combined cushioning of skin and skull deformation at the point of impact and for arguments sake lets say that results in a 150g deceleration, if there is under the same scenario a combined cushioning of 12mm resulting from polystyrene deformation (whether or not it ruptures) then that drops the deceleration to under 40g, which is orders of magnitude less dangerous for the brain. 

I think, possibly contrary to many on this forum, that for your average around town cyclist helmets do little to improve their safety and would agree with you on your limited net benefit. For chidren with their combined poorer judgement and more susceptible brains etc, I suspect they provide quite some benefit, even in the accumulated non-destructive knocks which (a la rugby, boxing et al) can aggregate brain damage. For me as a racer who, when I hit I tend to hit with some force, I think they can be a 'life saver'. I am fairly sure that compulsory helmet wearing has a negative health effect on the total population but makes negligible difference to the individual cyclist. I'm fairly certain that individual choice to wear a helmet in quite a number of cases helps prevent major injuries and on that basis confers a helath or safety advantage to the individual cyclist.

madcarew wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

madcarew wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

wknight wrote:

The one key statistic we are missing is how many people saved a trip to The hospital or even calling an ambulance because the helmet saved them. 

 

I witnessed two crashes very recently where the person walked away, but their helmet was a complete shattered mess. That would have been their head and yes it is personal choice, but no one complains about wearing a seat belt. Please don’t say there is data, because the data we need re Helmets has not been gathered. Go visit a&e and see head injuries. 

If the police get involved why not, remember it’s them who have all the paperwork, investigation and having to give the family the bad news

If a bike helmet is a "complete shattered mess", it means that the energy involved was much greater than the helmet was designed to protect against. The main protection from a bike helmet comes from compressing the expanded polystyrene inside it, not from the thin plastic outer that holds it together, so if the helmet shatters, it means it's not doing its job correctly and most likely provided only very minimal protection.

Real life impacts are very complicated actions, and it's entirely possible that the inital 'killing' impact deformed the helmet and protected the wearer, but also ruined the integrity of the helmet such that subsequent smaller impacts destroyed the now substantially weakened helmet, but those impacts were not capable of doing serious damage to the encased skull. So, a destroyed helmet does not mean either that it was subject to impacts outside it's design envelope, nor that it offered skant protection. Just because an air bag is a torn bloody, muddy floppy mess and the vehicle didn't stop when it deployed doesn't mean that the air bag offered no protection at the time of impact. 

I get your point, but does that mean you support the opposite view, that if a helmet is destroyed it means that it provided a high level of protection? That's what I was arguing against.

If a helmet is destroyed, as I pointed out, it may have provided a high level of protection, but  for sure there will be instances where the helmet provided negligible protection and was destroyed. I think these may be the minority of cases where the rider survived though. To me it's hard to envisage an impact destructive enough to destroy a helmet that wouldn't have had fairly devastating effects on the head contained within  had it not been there, which is really what saying 'it provided negligible protection' means

The site linked through http://road.cc/content/feature/241993-when-should-i-replace-my-bike-helmet - https://helmets.org/ - seems to reckon that you should replace a bike helmet when there's pretty much the slightest scratch/dent/fading.  The helmet currently sitting on top of my wardrobe at home has lots of scratches, all of which are from poorly trimmed shrubbery on my local cycle route, none from actual falling off or collisions...  Does this mean that the helmet is now ready to go to landfill?

OnYerBike wrote:

If you click throught to the Sussex Police website, the full article includes this:

Nick Lloyd, road safety manager for the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (RoSPA), said: “RoSPA recommends that cyclists wear a helmet, but does not call for this to be made mandatory as it is a matter of personal choice. While a helmet will afford protection to the head they are less effective in high impact collisions. Therefore, it is more important to stop the collision from happening in the first place through engineering and driver and rider education and training.”

Bingo!

Bloody hell!  Even RoSPA have got it. Almost.

nextSibling wrote:

The only way to know if a "helmet saved my life" would be to have exactly the same crash twice, once with a helmet and once without.

Which would discount the predictive effects that modelling gives us, which enables us to predict an awful lot of things rather accurately as it turns out (that's why they train pilots in simulators, run computer modelling stress tests on critical components for all sorts of things, and have computer modelling in side CPR dolls to predict the effects of someone's actions.) It is not difficult to demonstrate the effectiveness of many life saving devices (bullet proof vest) without having to run exactly the same 'accident' twice. 

Look at an NCAP crash test. The dummies have recording devices which accurately predict the likelihood of failure of certain human parts, in a less technical way we drop heavy weights on helmets  in such a way that we know that that force applied to a skull would generally cause damage to the skull, we also know that a certain amount of deformation associated with an impact implies damage to a skull. We can know these things with a certain degree of confidence. So, I'm not arguing that helmets save lives on a regular basis, just that your argument ignores an enormous amount of work and data that has been accrued over the years in safety research, and is used to accurately predict the outcome certain actions without having to kill people just to make sure it's right. 

Personally I went all the way through a car windscreen some years ago (from the outside to the inside) and although knocked out briefly, my skull and all the skin on it was intact. The helmet was badly deformed and then broken by a later impact. Research shows that people who penetrate windscreens with their head with the amount of force that I did (buried up to my shoulders) rarely escape a broken skull, and with it all the concommitant dangers. So, although I wouldn't claim my helmet saved my life it is undeniable that it saved me from some fairly serious injuries (I didn't need a single stitch on my head, other parts of my body which weren't protected in the same way needed dozens) including the high likelihood that it saved me from a fractured skull. Considering a large proportion of people who contact a car at the closing speed that I did die as a result of the collision, and the majority of those deaths are the result of head injuries, it's not a long bow to draw to say that on the balance of probabilities the helmet may have been instrumental in saving my life.

madcarew wrote:

nextSibling wrote:

The only way to know if a "helmet saved my life" would be to have exactly the same crash twice, once with a helmet and once without.

Which would discount the predictive effects that modelling gives us, which enables us to predict an awful lot of things rather accurately as it turns out (that's why they train pilots in simulators, run computer modelling stress tests on critical components for all sorts of things, and have computer modelling in side CPR dolls to predict the effects of someone's actions.) It is not difficult to demonstrate the effectiveness of many life saving devices (bullet proof vest) without having to run exactly the same 'accident' twice. 

Look at an NCAP crash test. The dummies have recording devices which accurately predict the likelihood of failure of certain human parts, in a less technical way we drop heavy weights on helmets  in such a way that we know that that force applied to a skull would generally cause damage to the skull, we also know that a certain amount of deformation associated with an impact implies damage to a skull. We can know these things with a certain degree of confidence. So, I'm not arguing that helmets save lives on a regular basis, just that your argument ignores an enormous amount of work and data that has been accrued over the years in safety research, and is used to accurately predict the outcome certain actions without having to kill people just to make sure it's right. 

Personally I went all the way through a car windscreen some years ago (from the outside to the inside) and although knocked out briefly, my skull and all the skin on it was intact. The helmet was badly deformed and then broken by a later impact. Research shows that people who penetrate windscreens with their head with the amount of force that I did (buried up to my shoulders) rarely escape a broken skull, and with it all the concommitant dangers. So, although I wouldn't claim my helmet saved my life it is undeniable that it saved me from some fairly serious injuries (I didn't need a single stitch on my head, other parts of my body which weren't protected in the same way needed dozens) including the high likelihood that it saved me from a fractured skull. Considering a large proportion of people who contact a car at the closing speed that I did die as a result of the collision, and the majority of those deaths are the result of head injuries, it's not a long bow to draw to say that on the balance of probabilities the helmet may have been instrumental in saving my life.

Not ignoring the data and the hard work etc etc etc, all very valid. From modelling, research and anecdotal evidence we can say that a helmet 'possibly' or 'probably' saved a life - but never that it actually *did*.

nextSibling wrote:

The only way to know if a "helmet saved my life" would be to have exactly the same crash twice, once with a helmet and once without.

it doesn't have to be a crash. You could drop a kerbstone on someone's head from 1.5 metres.

You have to do the first part of the experiment when they're wearing the helmet. You may not get the opportunity to run the second part.

tommyraleigh86 wrote:

Chris Boardman's gave them a piece of his mind now... https://twitter.com/Chris_Boardman/status/996733502132453382

We are fortunate indeed to have such an articulate advocate as Chris Boardman.  I certainly couldn't keep my cool in the face of the crass stupidity that we have deal with.