Swedish helmet and apparel company POC is a brand focused on safety, whether it’s visibility with very bright clothing or its unique helmet designs, and its latest quest in the pursuit of rider safety is SPIN, a new technology that is designed to reduce rotational impacts during a crash and lessen the impact.
If you’re thinking it sounds a bit like MIPS, then you’d be right. POC was one of the first companies back in 2008 to utilise MIPS technology, which added a plastic liner to allow a small range, up to 15mm, of rotational movement during an impact, but POC has this year decided to develop a new solution that it claims is simpler, lighter and allows a better fit.
– Cycling helmets — everything you need to know
Love or hate it, there are a lot of safety claims backing up MIPS and most helmet companies have gradually adopted the technology, usually with a small increase in price. If there’s one complaint against MIPS is that it often impacts the fit of the helmet as it takes up a bit of space – I’ve found some helmets a tighter fit once upgraded to MIPS.
POC hasn’t dropped MIPS, yet, but it has spent two years developing its own version which aims to offer the same benefits but without the drawback of limiting fit.
SPIN, short for Shearing Pad INside, involves silicone-filled pads placed at strategic places inside the helmet intended to allow a small range of rotational movement so the helmet can move relative to the head. POC says it reduces the amount of force transmitted to a user’s head and brain in the event of an oblique impact. It reckons that angled impacts are the most common and its research shows that this sort of impact can cause serious head injury with a much lower impact force.
“Rotational impact protection is necessary to counter the forces involved in oblique impacts, which are a common cause of head injury. SPIN pads are integrated inside a helmet and add an extra layer of rotational impact protection by shearing in any direction, allowing the head to move relative to the helmet, reducing the force transmitted to the brain,” explains the company.
“Without SPIN pads the remaining rotational impact energy would require nature’s impact defence system, Cerebrospinal fluid, to react. However, by using SPIN pads another layer of protection is introduced as SPIN pads are able to shear in any direction and reduce the energy and force transmitted to the head.”
Compared to MIPS, SPIN is claimed to be lighter and allow for a closer fitting helmet because it eliminates the plastic layer inside the helmet and uses rather conventional looking pads. POC has produced this video to demonstrate how the pads are intended to work.
The new technology was first rolled out in POC’s snowsports helmets at the beginning of the year, and for 2018 it is adding it to several of its mountain bike helmets. There’s no news on rolling out SPIN to its road helmets at this stage, but it’s surely only a matter of time.
-1024x680.jpg "“Clear anti-cyclist bias”: Lawsuit filed against Toronto police after cop doored cyclist… before ticketing rider over incident")
53 thoughts on “POC ramps up helmet safety with SPIN rotational impact technology”
But helmets are already incredibly effective
But if helmets are already incredibly effective, saving thousands of lives a year, why do they need upgrading? Unless they aren’t and they don’t.
Also, you might like to consider hiring a proof reader:
“SPIN is Swedish company’s simplier take on MIPS helmet safety feature”
Or at the very least, run things through the spell checker.
burtthebike wrote:
Why can’t those of us who are interested in helmets and their development be allowed to read about them without being lectured about why you believe they don’t work? Could you just maybe leave us to make our minds up?
drosco wrote:
But if helmets are already incredibly effective, saving thousands of lives a year, why do they need upgrading? Unless they aren’t and they don’t.
Also, you might like to consider hiring a proof reader:
“SPIN is Swedish company’s simplier take on MIPS helmet safety feature”
Or at the very least, run things through the spell checker.
— drosco Why can’t those of us who are interested in helmets and their development be allowed to read about them without being lectured about why you believe they don’t work? Could you just maybe leave us to make our minds up?— burtthebike
Sorry, but I really didn’t think that was a lecture, and thought I was being incredibly restrained. And I don’t think I mentioned why I believe they don’t work.
Of course you should make your own minds up, but perhaps that process might work better if you are acquainted with the facts rather than just the propaganda?
burtthebike wrote:
Everybody likes facts.
Did you know that prior to 1995 very few people wore helmets?
Very interesting fact.
burtthebike wrote:
Everybody likes facts.
Did you know that in the decade after 1995 the KSI rate for cyclists dropped dramatically?
Very interesting fact.
Rich_cb wrote:
Oh, dear. You don’t understand elementary statistics, do you?
ConcordeCX wrote:
I actually understand statistics very well.
I’ve simply posted two facts.
Are the facts wrong?
Rich_cb wrote:
Oh, dear. You don’t understand elementary statistics, do you?
— Rich_cb I actually understand statistics very well. I’ve simply posted two facts. Are the facts wrong?— ConcordeCX
Apologies if this has already been said (I’ve commented now rather than read to the end and scroll back up): but presenting two sets of facts doesn’t necessarily show a causal link, does it? For example: mobile phones became much more available after 1995 so are they responsible for the drop in KSIs? (after all, people could call an ambulance more easily). Street Hawk wasn’t on tv anymore so maybe people started wearing helmets. Actually, when did the Tour organisers start insisting that riders wore helmets? I dunno, just stirring… 😉
brooksby wrote:
It’s already been covered.
Correlation is not always causation but sometimes it is.
The increased use of helmets correlates strongly with the decrease in cycling KSIs.
The same rate of decrease is not seen in non cyclists.
So what is causing the cyclist specific decrease?
burtthebike wrote:
Seriously, this is a really interesting article, yet the first comment is yours attempting to debunk the whole thing. Honestly, it’s been done to death.
burtthebike wrote:
But what if they are, yet POC believe they can be improved further. Ford’s Model T was pretty effective in its day. Thankfully car designers felt they could push the envelope a little further.
simonmb wrote:
A perfectly valid point, but I think you rather missed mine, which is that they don’t actually work in practice, despite all the “helmet saved my life” stories, the propaganda and the continual threat of helmet laws. We are continually told that helmets are incredibly effective, but all the reliable data shows that they aren’t, so perhaps we ought to be looking at what really works, instead of wasting time, effort and resources into improving something which has completely failed to imporove the safety of cyclists.
The Model T worked perfectly well, and was capable of improvement, but you can’t say that about cycle helmets.
burtthebike wrote:
Simon says: No one who speaks with authority claims helmets are simply incredibly effective. There is evidence that helmets are incredibly effective in some circumstances. I wear mine in case I get involved in such a circumstance.
When you say helmets don’t work in practice you’re as wrong as those who say they’re incredibly effective.
And anyone who says that anything isn’t able to be improved upon has no understanding of product evolution.
burtthebike wrote:
For the same reason that although the last model groupset that you ran was increadible effective you still decided to upgrade it. Just because something is effective does not mean that it should not or could not be improved upon. I think you are confusing the work “effective” with the word “perfect”.
Basic cheap helmets do not
Basic cheap helmets do not inspire confidence, so any improvements or trickle-down deveopments are worth encouraging surely.
Forester wrote:
Actually, the cheap helmets are probably more effective because they are optimised to pass the tests and nothing else, whereas the expensive ones are optimised for style and aerodynamics and all those vents weaken it.
I appreciate POC’s ethos. I
I appreciate POC’s ethos. I like my trabec race MIPS, if I need to replace it anytime soon I will be buying the Tectal SPIN.
Rich_cb wrote:
So between 1995 and 2005, cyclist KSIs decreased from say 1550 to what: 900? A pretty significant decrease of 42%?
But wait: overall road KSIs fell from 49,621 to 32,201 in the same period: a decrease of 35%.
http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN02198/SN02198.pdf
So what are the facts for the decade:
-35% decrease in all road KSIs
-42% decrease in cyclist KSIs
-70-80% of all cyclists weren’t even wearing a helmet (your other graph)
Conclusion: it’s completely disingenuous to link the cyclist KSI decrease with helmets, isn’t it?
davel wrote:
Nope.
Cyclist KSIs fell at a faster rate than overall KSIs.
That indicates there was a cyclist specific factor at play does it not?
Now let’s try and think of some cyclist specific factors.
Any suggestions?
Rich_cb wrote:
The first thing I was taught about stats is that correlation does not equal causation. In Australia when they brought in the helmet law, deaths to cyclists fell, but deaths to pedestrians fell by slightly more, but that didn’t stop the helmet proponents claiming that helmets were effective, even when pedestrians weren’t wearing them, so the cause of the fall in cyclists’ deaths was almost certainly not due to helmets. In fact, because there were fewer cyclists, the rate of cycling deaths went up, not down.
Same thing happened with motorcycle helmets in the UK. After the introduction of the law, motorcycling deaths fell, but deaths to all road users fell, apart from cyclists, pedestrians and rear seat passengers in cars. So although the helmet campaigners claimed a victory for road safety, the cause of that fall in motorcycling deaths is highly unlikely to have been the helmet law.
Ice cream causes drowning, and the sales of ice cream and the figures for drowning are the same shape. But of course that is nonsense, and it is coincidence that more people buy ice cream and go swimming when it’s hot.
Simply posting two sets of data and implying that they are related is disingenuous.
burtthebike wrote:
Correlation is not causation.
If you compare the pedestrian KSI figures to the cyclist KSI figures you can see that the cyclist KSI suddenly began to decline post 1995 after decades of stasis whilst the pedestrian rate continued to decline at its previous rate.
By taking pedestrians as our control group we can eliminate a lot of the statistical noise and provide stronger statistical evidence than just correlation.
Rich_cb wrote:
Simply posting two sets of data and implying that they are related is disingenuous.
— Rich_cb Correlation is not causation. If you compare the pedestrian KSI figures to the cyclist KSI figures you can see that the cyclist KSI suddenly began to decline post 1995 after decades of stasis whilst the pedestrian rate continued to decline at its previous rate. By taking pedestrians as our control group we can eliminate a lot of the statistical noise and provide stronger statistical evidence than just correlation.— burtthebike
I just had a little look at http://cyclinginfo.co.uk/blog/2636/cycling/stats-uk/index.html and they’ve got a graph that implies that pedestrian fatalities have dropped at a sharper rate than cyclist fatalities. Does this mean that pedestrians started wearing helmets in the early nineties?
hawkinspeter wrote:
No, it means that in 1990 a pedestrian specific factor starting affecting the pedestrian KSI rate.
Whatever that factor was it did not affect the cyclist KSI rate (which had been broadly static since the early 1980s).
A pedestrian specific factor might be something like improved pedestrian crossings for example.
hawkinspeter wrote:
It simply implies that some factor may be at work in pedestrian KSI’s causing the decrease. It would be worth looking at the possible causes for that decrease, perhaps starting with miles walked, use of public transport, improved car / pedestrain impact safety factors. Just as one needs to look at a possible cause for the cycling KSI decrease, in which case we have a convenient and good candidate in the increase of helmet wearing. Obviously cyclists and pedestrians don’t exist in the exact same risk climate so expecting there to be a common factor in the KSI decline may be jumping the gun a little…
Rich_cb wrote:
A few*, but stop the implications – make an actual argument.
This is the 2nd or 3rd time I’ve seen you post these two graphs together while waiting for others to join the dots for you. You want to make the implication without having to make a specific claim, because you know you don’t have the evidence to back anything specific regarding helmet use in that decade up. You’ve never qualified it by conceding that other factors were at play across ALL ROAD USERS – you post the graphs, and drop the mic.
Road KSIs fell off a cliff in 1995. They decreased by over a third, suggesting major, major factors in general road safety improvement. The vast, vast majority of road users not KSId in that decade (even cyclists!) weren’t wearing helmets, never mind cycling helmets. In this same period we’re looking at an increase of helmet use from roughly a laughable 15% to a less-than-stellar 30%. Cycling helmets in this overall decrease are just noise.
But what are you claiming of that increase? That helmet use increasing by 15% caused the decrease of cycling KSIs by 42%? No, that would be silly – but you make the implication each time you post those two graphs and sit back. You’re not daft, you know that you don’t have enough material to lead to a conclusion, but you call BTBS out for posting figures and extrapolating an argument, so you need to do better.
So what’s your implication now, seeing as we’ve discounted the bulk of that KSI decrease via ‘general road KSIey improvements’? You’re still attributing that greater KSI decrease (42% vs 35%, so a decrease of 7%) to helmets? Are you suggesting that an increase of 15% in helmet use results in a decrease of 7% in KSIs?
* My own fact is that Indurain won his last TdF in 1995. It’s obvious that the sportier UK riders decided to devote their next decade of riding to Big Mig, 2 years for each TdF win, and, seeing how effective his brain-sappingly boring riding style was, decided to emulate that. Fewer accidents and collisions: fewer KSIs. Oooh, easily, let’s say, 6.85% fewer.
davel wrote:
http://theconversation.com/dont-feed-the-trolls-really-is-good-advice-heres-the-evidence-63657
ConcordeCX wrote:
Barring a pompous comment about understanding statistics you’ve made no contribution to the thread.
Jog on.
davel wrote:
Firstly, I’ve posted the graphs once before and actually specifically drew attention to the different rates of decline for different road users. So your ‘mic drop’ accusation is bullshit.
I call BTBS out for posting made up statistics and for deliberately/ignorantly confusing relative and absolute risk.
Moving on.
At a population level there will always be multiple factors at play.
By comparing the KSI rates for cyclists, pedestrians and overall KSIs you can cut through a lot of the noise.
When there is a significant difference between the rates for different road users it strongly implies that group specific factors are having an effect.
The task then is to identify group specific factors that changed significantly during the period in question.
Cycle helmets meet that criteria.
Does it mean cycle helmets accounted for the entire difference. No.
Is it absolute irrefutable proof? No.
Is it possible to obtain absolute irrefutable proof? No.
It is evidence though.
The quality of evidence in the helmet debate is generally poor. Most studies are small and riddled with errors.
This evidence is, therefore, as good or better than pretty much anything else in the debate.
The hypothesis is that the large increase in cycle helmet use contributed, in part, to the relatively steep in decline in cyclist KSIs compared to other road users.
There is some evidence to support that hypothesis.
If you have evidence of other cyclist specific factors that changed during that period feel free to post them. Jokey suggestions about Big Mig aside…
@Rich: that’s a pretty
@Rich: that’s a pretty rambling admission that you’re arguing ideologically. I’m not saying others aren’t doing the same, but posting unrelated graphs does not an argument make – it’s the kind of stuff I’d expect from a Trump tweet.
If “There is some evidence to support that hypothesis”, maybe post that and not the pictures.
Apropos of nothing, here’s Mig. Experts say he reached peak boring in 1995. Don’t accept that that level of boring could cause 7% drop in KSIs? Sad.
davel wrote:
I don’t think you’ve understood the argument I’m making.
The graphs are the evidence.
The graphs show a cycling specific factor which began to have a significant effect from 1995 onwards.
By comparing the decline in cycling KSIs to pedestrian KSIs and overall KSIs we can be confident that the factor is specific to cyclists.
The challenge is then to identify that factor.
A time trialling Spaniard boring all cyclists into submission is one possibility but another, some might argue more likely, possibility is the rise in helmet use.
The rise in helmet use occurred at the exact same time as the cycling specific decline in KSIs.
You will never be able to definitively prove that helmets caused the decline but you will equally never to be able to prove that they did not.
The weight of evidence currently suggests that helmets were responsible for at least some of the decline in cyclist KSIs.
Rich_cb]
Well, the helmet wearing rates in Australia and New Zealand jumped significantly when the helmet laws were introduced, and the absolute number of cyclist deaths fell, but the number of cyclists fell by more, so the relative risk actually rose. That’s long term, whole population data and is just about as good as it’s possible to get, and the results are similar in all long term, large scale, reliable studies. It is almost impossible to have absolute irrefutable proof about anything, but when all the reliable evidence says one thing, it’s pretty conclusive.
The research showing massive benefits from helmet wearing is rated the lowest on international scales of reliability of research, and is usually done by blatantly biased researchers, and it always gets headlines, but the reliable studies which show no benefit are ignored. The public are misled and believe that cycle helmets are fantastically effective and therefore take more risks when they wear one, risk compensation. The actual protection given by a helmet is low, and the extra risk taking overwhelms it.
The largest ever study found a small but significant increase in risk with helmet wearing.
burtthebike wrote:
The problem with studying mandatory helmet laws is that the cyclist population is changed by such laws.
The number of cyclists decrease but not uniformly. Casual cyclists are far more likely to be deterred than those who cycle for sport.
Road racing or mountain bike racing is obviously more dangerous than a quick spin to the corner shop so the risk statistics become skewed as a larger proportion of cyclists are engaging in higher risk activities.
If you look at the graphs I’ve posted on this thread you can actually disprove the argument that cycle helmets increase accident rates.
From 1995 onwards the helmet wearing rate in the UK increased dramatically.
Over the same period of time the number of accidents stayed virtually static.
Interestingly the proportion of those injuries that were serious or fatal fell substantially.
In the UK there is therefore no evidence that increased use of helmets leads to an increase in the accident rate. There is some evidence that the increased use of helmets leads to a decrease in the KSI rate.
Rich_cb wrote:
The largest ever study found a small but significant increase in risk with helmet wearing.
— Rich_cb The problem with studying mandatory helmet laws is that the cyclist population is changed by such laws. The number of cyclists decrease but not uniformly. Casual cyclists are far more likely to be deterred than those who cycle for sport. Road racing or mountain bike racing is obviously more dangerous than a quick spin to the corner shop so the risk statistics become skewed as a larger proportion of cyclists are engaging in higher risk activities. If you look at the graphs I’ve posted on this thread you can actually disprove the argument that cycle helmets increase accident rates. From 1995 onwards the helmet wearing rate in the UK increased dramatically. Over the same period of time the number of accidents stayed virtually static. Interestingly the proportion of those injuries that were serious or fatal fell substantially. In the UK there is therefore no evidence that increased use of helmets leads to an increase in the accident rate. There is some evidence that the increased use of helmets leads to a decrease in the KSI rate.— burtthebike
The largest ever study (Rodgers, 1988) had nothing to do with a helmet law, but it found that wearing a helmet increased risk.
The evidence showing no benefit or an increase in risk from wearing a helmet is considerably more reliable than that showing a benefit, including your inference from UK data, which may or may not be due to helmet wearing.
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1012.html#96
burtthebike wrote:
The data I’ve linked to in this thread strongly suggest that helmet use does not increase the risk of injury.
Helmet use more than doubled between 1995 and 2005 yet the rate of cycling injuries stayed completely static. The rate of KSIs dropped dramatically.
If helmets do increase the risk of injury how do you explain that data?
Rich_cb wrote:
The most obvious factor would be the number of cyclists on the roads. Increased helmet use is often associated with fewer cyclists – compare the cycling culture in Australia vs Amsterdam. I would posit that the decrease in cycling KSIs can be attributed to a decrease in the number of cyclists and maybe the decrease in cycling can be attributed to the increased peer pressure to wear a helmet (e.g. “you’ve only got one head”, “it saved my life” etc.).
hawkinspeter wrote:
You can eliminate that factor by looking at the relative risk rate, for examples KSIs per 1m km or something similar.
The relative risks show a similar post 1995 decline to the absolute risks.
This disproves the theory that the decline was down to reduced rates of cycling.
“valid point, but I think you
“valid point, but I think you rather missed mine, which is that they don’t actually work in practice, despite all the “helmet saved my life” stories”
Don’t they? So when the metal pole smashed my quite solid shoulder through my skin fracturing and dislocating it and smashed the shit out of my helmet… You think it offered me no protection?
Regardless of scientific
Regardless of scientific tests saying they do or don’t work and all the people saying it saved my life or those saying it won’t save you if a ton of metal runs over you etc etc……
After nigh on 30yrs of attending RTC’s involving bikes and seeing the mess a head makes when it’s scraped along the ground I will happily wear one.
Stumps wrote:
By definition you wear a helmet for walking and when in a motorvehicle, if not, why not?
We already know that almost half of all serious head trauma’s are from a group that occupy motorvehicles and that as a rate people on foot are more likely to have a serious head trauma.
Clearly your own bias proves you can’t assess risk correctly.
Stumps wrote:
You might like to check out the term “observation bias”.
Just to add it won’t save my
Just to add it won’t save my life in a high speed collision or being crushed by a lorry
Nothing science-based about
Nothing science-based about my next statement, and even I don’t fully understand it, but I’m just back from Amsterdam and spent four days cycling the city – and comfortably riding sans helmet. First day back home – on goes the helmet. I couldn’t even contemplate cycling without a lid here. The same thing happened in and after Copenhagen. Anyone else had the same experience? Do they / did they have the same helmet debate on Dutch and Danish cycling forums?
simonmb wrote:
Put your finger on it there Simonmb. Cycling in Amsterdam is much safer than in any UK city, and no-one there wears a helmet, apart from road racers and tourists, so whatever makes cycling safe, it isn’t helmets. So why do we waste so much time talking about helmets which are just a distraction from the real issue, and why aren’t we doing what the Dutch and the Danes do and making cycling safe?
That’s why I object so much to articles and advertorials extolling the virtues of helmets, because they are essentially a waste of time and most definitely not “the answer” to making cycling safe. They also deter some people by making it appear that cycling is a very risky activity, as why would you need to wear a helmet if it wasn’t? The risks of cycling are about the same as walking, but nobody considers that inherently dangerous.
As has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread, there seems to be a correlation between the number of cyclists and the risks of cycling, so by deterring some people, helmet publicity puts us all at greater danger. There was another report last week which showed that the heatlh benefits of cycling are even bigger than had been estimated before, so helmet publicity also increases ill health by deterring people.
@Rich: I do get exactly that
@Rich: I do get exactly that argument – that there’s a cycling-specific difference. And there might be, but we haven’t found it yet.
What I’m saying is
1. I’m skeptical that an increase in use of 15% would cause a reduction in KSIs of 7%, and that we’ll ever identify and quantify all the factors, but also
2. When you take the overall reduction of a huge volume of KSIs – tens of thousands, compared to about a thousand cycling-specific ones, that a reduction of 42% cyclist KSIs not significantly different from the overall 35%?
And of course all this is framed by your decade from 1995. Could we pick a year either side and find that cycling is closer to the trend than the 7%? ie. I haven’t crunched these, but is this 7% difference for this single set effectively noise? What does 94-04 or 96-06 look like etc.
Right, lashing it down here and I really need to get my new TT bike on the turbo and also try out Rouvy. Will check in later.
Here’s another graph that
Here’s another graph that suggests to me that helmets are far less important than the road culture. Interestingly, Portugal is an outlier and they recently revoked their mandatory helmet law (presumably because mandating helmet use tends to lead to fewer cyclists and increased KSIs) and can be contrasted with Amsterdam and their lack of helmet use. More importantly, it suggests that the number of cyclists on the road is a major factor in cyclists’ road safety (whereas the benefits of helmets are somewhat debatable).
@Davel
@Davel
hawkinspeter posted a graph showing the years you asked about.
Prior to 1995 there hadn’t really been any significant change in the KSI rate since the early 1980s, from 2002 onwards the KSI rate closely mirrors the pedestrian rate suggesting that it was a joint factor at play from then on.
I would argue that the difference between 42% and 35% is significant. hawkinspeter’s graph shows the comparison with pedestrians well, from 1995 onwards there is a clear change.
Interestingly the number of overall injuries (KSI + slight/minor) suffered by cyclists was pretty static from 1995 to 2005.
So whatever the cyclist specific factor was it did not prevent cyclists from having accidents, it just reduced the proportion of accidents that resulted in a death or serious injury.
I would argue that is more evidence that the factor was cycling helmets.
(Note: the overall injury data is not as reliable as the KSI data but it’s the best we’ve got)
@Rich_cb – I can’t find any
@Rich_cb – I can’t find any decent stats on UK helmet use over the years. Have you found any?
hawkinspeter wrote:
I posted a graph earlier in the thread.
This is the data that the graph is based on.
https://trl.co.uk/reports/PPR420
It’s not perfect but the methodology is consistent so the results are comparable.
Rich_cb wrote:
@Rich_cb – I can’t find any decent stats on UK helmet use over the years. Have you found any?
— Rich_cb I posted a graph earlier in the thread. This is the data that the graph is based on. https://trl.co.uk/reports/PPR420 It’s not perfect but the methodology is consistent so the results are comparable.— hawkinspeter
Thanks – I should have checked the thread.
I’m not convinced that the helmet usage lines up that well with the KSI stats, but we’re just playing with graphs here, so it’s all down to interpretation.
Hasn’t the criteria for SI
Hasn’t the criteria for SI data changed over time?
Also, something as simple as looking at it by miles ridden can have a significant impact. With our sport being the new golf haven’t the number of recreational miles increased significantly? I’d imagine leisure miles are much different in terms of KSI than city commuting.
First ally, I have a simple test for those for and against helmets. I have a 2 by 2 concrete slab, a dining chair and a helmet… Pop along and get involved.
I am in the helmet saved my life camp but don’t give a shite who chooses to wear one (except my kids). What I hate is someone telling me it has no benefit as that’s simply idiotic and I’d invite them to the aforementioned chair…
alansmurphy wrote:
I don’t think anyone says they can never offer any protection, and no-one can argue that yours didn’t protect you. It’s the weight of the benefit that is debated – and I can’t see it being resolved.
You highlight one of the criticisms, because I’d take the helmet in your test any day of the week, but they’re not designed to protect you from stones being dropped on your head, which is a pretty unlikely riding scenario. The criticism is that the rating and testing of them is too specific for them to be of much real world use, when you consider how much they’re mandated and the perception of their safety. In certain offs they might well be better than nothing but they’re certainly not marketed or mandated with that as their strapline.
Oh, right: it has been
Oh, right: it has been addressed, and discussed ad nauseam. I’ll get my coat…
Dave, there are certainly
Dave, there are certainly some on here that argue that they offer no protection. My chair game was more to point out concrete hurts but I could certainly think about spring loading the front legs.
I also massively agree with the Boardman argument I. E. that as you suggest, it’s so far down the pecking order it’s untrue. Furthermore, should never be used when victim blaming as is so often the case…