[Kosh]

Re: Have you all got a hi-vis vest? : Thu Feb 14, 2013 10:15 am  

JerryChicken wrote:

The main arguments against (and I'm not a supporter of them) seem to always concern high speed impacts (high speed on a bike that is), collisions with motor vehicles (they have a point there), and a factor best described as the expectation that when you put a helmet you are automatically protected and will therefore be more reckless.

I'm not quite sure where the last theory came from but helmet or no helmet, five minutes cycling in commuter traffic will soon dash any such immortal theories from your head as you soon realise that you are often invisible to some motorists, or if not invisible they assume that giving you two inches of room when passing you is sufficient - I can imagine anyone still having invincible feelings after just one trip in commuter traffic.

Fact of the matter is that if you fall off a bike at any speed its going to hurt and I don't really see the argument against trying to mitigate some of that hurt.

This is actually a pretty well-established effect with more or less all protective gear/equipment to some degree or other.

Re: Have you all got a hi-vis vest? : Thu Feb 14, 2013 11:32 pm  

JerryChicken wrote:

or if not invisible they assume that giving you two inches of room when passing you is sufficient - I can imagine anyone still having invincible feelings after just one trip in commuter traffic.

Otherwise known as the 'Punishment Pass' - the angry motorists way of showing their irritation at the audacious cyclist, who has the brass neck to be minding his own business, trying not to get killed; happens to me all the time.

Re: Have you all got a hi-vis vest? : Fri Feb 15, 2013 3:42 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

In the case of seatbelts, I think the benefit of compulison is obvious. Even though a few will be injured or die because of it. In the case of helmets, I am not convinced. But at least a helmet does indisputably provide serious protection against - say- a substantial argument with a kerb edge.

Incidentally, why does every Tour de France rider wear one?

Funnily enough the accident/injury rates were tumbling in the 70s already and then with the onset of compulsary seatbelts that drop stalled, with each passing 'safety' feature the toll is eskewed elsewhere.

As for pro riding, well seeing as accident/injury rates haven't gone down in such since the inception by the UCI (backhanders from the helmet manufacturers as a sweetner and another spot for advertising notwithstanding) the whole helmet wearing thing seems a bit of a dim view given the very high speeds and risks taken.
Helmet compulsion for pro cyclists was brought in by the UCI in 2003 following the death of Andrei Kivlev during the Paris-Nice race, since then deaths of professional cyclists while racing have doubled.

In the 1950s, 8 pro riders were killed, in the 60s, 4; another 4 during the 70s, 5 in the 80s. 3 died in pro races in the 1990s. Guess how many died in the next decade...10, 6 after the helmet law was introduced.

The limited drop test which is roughly 13mph is like an average adult tripping and banging their heads. Do we advocate helmet wearing for walkers/shoppers etc who trip and bang their heads, do we advocate motor vehicle drivers to wear them (by doing so it would reduce injuries massively according to sources)?
More people die getting out of bed than all cyclists killed by motor vehicles.

that many thousands can't even fit their helmets properly nor even attend to their brakes either just makes wearing them a bit of a joke frankly.

Re: Have you all got a hi-vis vest? : Fri Feb 15, 2013 7:13 am  

knockersbumpMKII wrote:

The limited drop test which is roughly 13mph is like an average adult tripping and banging their heads.

I'd love to see your average adult if they can walk at 13mph.

Cycling at 13mph is a fairly sedate rate, typically the sort of fairly sedate rate that the vast majority of cycling is done at, you have to be cycling pretty hard to be consistently achieving 20mph for instance especially in built up areas.

You also need to look at your average cycling club's Sunday morning outing to discover just how many people prefer to cycle WITH helmets, its quite a large percentage and that is by personal choice not by some decree of a club or organisation - people simply prefer to have the backup of something between their head and a kerbstone, rather than their skull.

Re: Have you all got a hi-vis vest? : Fri Feb 15, 2013 8:43 am  

JerryChicken wrote:

I'd love to see your average adult if they can walk at 13mph...

Most people can't run at that pace.

knockersbumpMKII wrote:

... In the 1950s, 8 pro riders were killed, in the 60s, 4; another 4 during the 70s, 5 in the 80s. 3 died in pro races in the 1990s. Guess how many died in the next decade...10, 6 after the helmet law was introduced...

Unless they were all head injuries, those stats tell us little.

Re: Have you all got a hi-vis vest? : Fri Feb 15, 2013 1:06 pm  

Sorry I didn't make that clear as clearly people don't walk at 13mph
The velocity of the head is going about 12-13 mph when an adult person falls from a stationary position. So I should have said from stationary and not falling/tripping whilst walking.
The drop test (alinear test at that) with a 2kg solid object inside the helmet which is from about 1.2-1.5m straight down (I think only Snell tested from higher in the past as well but most helmets nowadays aren't snell tested)...so that's pretty much the test for how your head will be protected when it strikes the ground. That protection diminishes rapidly as the speed goes up.
Look at the manufacturers claims on the literature, you'll notice it makes very little in terms of what protection they offer, there's a very good reason for that, they know how poor they are and would be sued to high heaven.

As a cyclist coming to an abrupt halt or being launched toward the ground means your head is going much faster than your actual cycling speed, a heck of a lot less if you're walking as your head (if you were to fall) would be in excess of the testing parameters. As I've said, helemts are fine for minor abrasions/cuts/bruises but are next to useless for much else and increase the chances of a rotational brain injury which I'm more than happy to avoid that lieu of a few bruises. As I said upthread personally I've never smacked my head once & i've ridden on the road 30 odd years doing 140k+ miles so I've yet to experience any head injury whatsoever low/er speed accidents/falls invariably do not involve hitting the head, hips, shoulders, hands and thighs usually carry the brunt.

An example of why helmets should be worn in every day life by pedestrians and motrists far more than cyclists.
A study examined 28 cyclist deaths over 15 years in Sheffield and Barnsley. Over 80% of both
cases and controls had severe head injuries, but controls (an equal number of pedestrians and motor
vehicle occupant fatalities) suffered more fatal injuries to other parts of the body. If helmets had
saved all those who only had head injuries, at best 14 (50%) of cyclist deaths would have been
prevented. On the other hand, if the pedestrians and motor vehicle occupants had worn helmets, some
175 lives may have been saved in the same period...

I could go on as the information is out there, people just need to read up and find out the truth about how little helmets actually offer but actually increase the chances of injury, I stated previously that studies show that after compulsary helmet wearing was introduced the rates of head injuries increased...so, those wearing helmets have more crashes and have more head injuries than unhelmeted from a statistical POV

Re: Have you all got a hi-vis vest? : Fri Feb 15, 2013 2:59 pm  

knockersbumpMKII wrote:

I could go on as the information is out there, people just need to read up and find out the truth about how little helmets actually offer but actually increase the chances of injury, I stated previously that studies show that after compulsary helmet wearing was introduced the rates of head injuries increased...so, those wearing helmets have more crashes and have more head injuries than unhelmeted from a statistical POV

You have me right up until that last paragraph, I can't disagree with the fact that in collisions with heavier vehicles a cycle helmet is pretty mush useless, it was also pretty much useless the last time I went over the handlebars as the first point of impact was my hands, elbows and chin, 30 years later I still have the scar on my chin and no helmet would have prevented that, and I also agree with you that in non-collision falls from bikes at normal cycling speeds instinct causes you to fall onto your hands/arms.

I also understand the effect that safety equipment has on reckless behaviour, thats a given, what I do not understand is the dismissal of reasoning that a helmet won't do you any harm and might just do you a favour when your instincts are too slow to stop your head coming into contact with something much harder, lets call it the insurance effect.

Re: Have you all got a hi-vis vest? : Fri Feb 15, 2013 4:14 pm  

knockersbumpMKII wrote:

...As a cyclist coming to an abrupt halt or being launched toward the ground means your head is going much faster than your actual cycling speed...

How?
I feel the Stevo momentum rule argument coming on here.

knockersbumpMKII wrote:

...An example of why helmets should be worn in every day life by pedestrians and motrists far more than cyclists.
A study examined 28 cyclist deaths over 15 years in Sheffield and Barnsley. Over 80% of both
cases and controls had severe head injuries, but controls (an equal number of pedestrians and motor
vehicle occupant fatalities) suffered more fatal injuries to other parts of the body. If helmets had
saved all those who only had head injuries, at best 14 (50%) of cyclist deaths would have been
prevented. ...

Doesn't that argue in favour of wearing a helmet?

knockersbumpMKII wrote:

...On the other hand, if the pedestrians and motor vehicle occupants had worn helmets, some 175 lives may have been saved in the same period...

So, there may be a case for motorists and pedestrians wearing helmets, but that's irrelevant as to whether they are efficacious for cyclists.

knockersbumpMKII wrote:

...I could go on as the information is out there, people just need to read up and find out the truth about how little helmets actually offer but actually increase the chances of injury, I stated previously that studies show that after compulsary helmet wearing was introduced the rates of head injuries increased...so, those wearing helmets have more crashes and have more head injuries than unhelmeted from a statistical POV

No mate, your extrapolation fails to take into account increased traffic density, no mention of numbers of motorcyclists or all sorts of factors that might come into play.


By the way, I don't cycle, I don't have any axe to grind either way and I'm not knocking your experience ... it's just that I'm a bit of a nerd and I can't just let such stuff go unchallenged.

<EDIT> P.S. In my view, as wearing or not wearing a helmet affects no-one other than the cyclist who does or doesn't wear one ... I think it should be the cyclist's choice and should not be compulsory.

Re: Have you all got a hi-vis vest? : Fri Feb 15, 2013 4:19 pm  

knockersbumpMKII wrote:

Sorry I didn't make that clear as clearly people don't walk at 13mph
The velocity of the head is going about 12-13 mph when an adult person falls from a stationary position. So I should have said from stationary and not falling/tripping whilst walking.
The drop test (alinear test at that) with a 2kg solid object inside the helmet which is from about 1.2-1.5m straight down (I think only Snell tested from higher in the past as well but most helmets nowadays aren't snell tested)...so that's pretty much the test for how your head will be protected when it strikes the ground. That protection diminishes rapidly as the speed goes up.
Look at the manufacturers claims on the literature, you'll notice it makes very little in terms of what protection they offer, there's a very good reason for that, they know how poor they are and would be sued to high heaven.

As a cyclist coming to an abrupt halt or being launched toward the ground means your head is going much faster than your actual cycling speed, a heck of a lot less if you're walking as your head (if you were to fall) would be in excess of the testing parameters. As I've said, helemts are fine for minor abrasions/cuts/bruises but are next to useless for much else and increase the chances of a rotational brain injury which I'm more than happy to avoid that lieu of a few bruises. As I said upthread personally I've never smacked my head once & i've ridden on the road 30 odd years doing 140k+ miles so I've yet to experience any head injury whatsoever low/er speed accidents/falls invariably do not involve hitting the head, hips, shoulders, hands and thighs usually carry the brunt.

An example of why helmets should be worn in every day life by pedestrians and motrists far more than cyclists.
A study examined 28 cyclist deaths over 15 years in Sheffield and Barnsley. Over 80% of both
cases and controls had severe head injuries, but controls (an equal number of pedestrians and motor
vehicle occupant fatalities) suffered more fatal injuries to other parts of the body. If helmets had
saved all those who only had head injuries, at best 14 (50%) of cyclist deaths would have been
prevented. On the other hand, if the pedestrians and motor vehicle occupants had worn helmets, some
175 lives may have been saved in the same period...

I could go on as the information is out there, people just need to read up and find out the truth about how little helmets actually offer but actually increase the chances of injury, I stated previously that studies show that after compulsary helmet wearing was introduced the rates of head injuries increased...so, those wearing helmets have more crashes and have more head injuries than unhelmeted from a statistical POV

Were helmets worn while sustaining the head injuries? Was there a similar increase in the number of accidents? Id there a correlation with the increase in the number of motorists? Are there more cyclists on the roads at night? If they were on the roads at night, did they have appropriate lighting? Can modern bicycles travel faster therefore increasing the risk of more serious injury?

Statistics are meaningless unless you present all of the factors. Statistically, blue bikes may be more likely to be in a serious accident, should we stop painting them blue?

Re: Have you all got a hi-vis vest? : Fri Feb 15, 2013 5:31 pm  

Just worked out my speed on my bike, in 2012 it was around 2 mile per year