Remember kids... always wear a helmet. (The almighty bikeradar helmet thread)

Moth- some of that could be modelled I reckon, you could run a wing mirror into a crash test dummy head at the correct closing speed of what, call it 50 mph?

Then simulate glancing blows etc.

Other than that its The World Of Assumptions, such as did the truck driver see him at all/etc.

I've loaded the information into my Assumption-O-matic, and it reckons that putting something between your head and a metal plate travelling at 50 miles an hour would reduce the transmitted force. Or something.

I've stopped wearing a helmet to commute, as I'm invulnerable within the M25.

Considering the other stuff he's done post rowing it's rather sad that it was whilst riding a bike that he suffered a life changing injury.

That came out wrong- it is of course sad that he suffered a life changing injury at all, but most especially whilst cycling, as compared to (for example) the unsupported North Pole thing, cycling should be safer.

EDIT\ South Pole.

i wear a helmet, but i make up for it by carrying scissors in my pockets.

Said that to Wouter Weylandt.

That's low... really low, bringing up the tragic death of a professional cyclist because you don't want to wear a helmet for no other reason than fashion.

shakes head

Cracknell suffered brain damage and then became a helmet advocate. Just sayin'.

If part of the remit of cycling safety equipment is mitigating being hit on the head by a truck doing 70 mph, then shouldn't be wearing a hell of a lot more?

To be clear, if i was assigning probabilities to the alternate outcomes i've guessed at, my first guess would get a fair chunk. Maybe more than half.

And i'm aware that some of my other guesses seem a bit forced, but some combination of factors must explain why the claimed safety benefit of cycle helmets doesn't show up in national statistics.

For me the choice is clear because i'm keen to be consistent with my belief that armouring cyclists is a symptom of a skewed view of the problem, and i just fucking love cycling without a helmet. But even without those factors weighing in the balance, i don't think helmets are a safety benefit to people getting about on bikes, and i'm certain they aren't the most important thing.

This is all great stuff and opinions are wonderful things. You do all realise that nothing you say in this thread will have any effect on the people who you are arguing with here because they have the opposite view you?

I will lay off the Eric Pickles visual imagery so you can all squabble a little bit more but shout when you are ready as right now I am visualising him and Prescott naked mud wrestling and I know you will all enjoy it when I share that with you.

right now I am visualising him and Prescott naked mud wrestling.

Can you see their helmets?

This is all great stuff and opinions are wonderful things. You do all realise that nothing you say in this thread will have any effect on the people who you are arguing with here because they have the opposite view you?

I will lay off the Eric Pickles visual imagery so you can all squabble a little bit more but shout when you are ready as right now I am visualising him and Prescott naked mud wrestling and I know you will all enjoy it when I share that with you.

Is it ironic that you didn't realise the only point you were making is that no-one will listen?

I hate it when people think they are being clever pointing out that what someone says is an opinion. Like it's a revelation.

Can you see their helmets?

Yes, they are polishing them now

I dunno about you guys, but I thought that advert kinda stunk.

This is all great stuff and opinions are wonderful things. You do all realise that nothing you say in this thread will have any effect on the people who you are arguing with here because they have the opposite view you?

But you cant break the circle that is the eternal thread. That goes round and round and round....

Every bike forum has one, its the law, or an old charter, or something.

i wear a helmet, but i make up for it by carrying scissors in my pockets.

:-) :-)

I resent the dramatic lighting, skull overlays etc. Seems like a direct attempt at emotional blackmail:
‘If we make Cracknell, famous for being fit and strong, talk about how humans are all very weak and crunchy when faced with an articulated lorry…’
Well, what does that tell us? We already know this. You can give me quantifiable facts or else you can save yourself money and not bother producing propaganda.

This isn’t a dig at Cracknell. Managing to survive a collision of that magnitude – both physically and mentally – and then having to salvage something of a life for yourself afterwards is truly unthinkable. I have nothing but respect for him or anyone who has that level of courage. And I can understand him wanting to promote helmet use if it indeed did save his life. But I think it warps the issue and relies on emotions rather than data, which is what is seriously lacking in this debate.

Fuck me someone just said something sensible in the eternal helmet debate of helmets. Wrong place for that.

answer: yes

answer: no - as long as you don't mind the occasional sprout in your head after getting hit by a truck

Are there any links to any tests that have been done about the strength of helmets? I'm aware that helmets don't need to be that protective in order to get the correct pass marks to go on sale but anything showing any tests on particular helmets or anything?

http://cyclehelmets.org/1146.html

Cheers Andy, I'll be back in a week when I've read it all!

To put it in presceptive, it's fine for a crash, like when you come off your bicycle, but beyond that, it's moot.

Ed, I admire your perseverance remaining calm and continuing to post rational posts on this freak thread. Even though nothing new has been said here since 2007. I suppose noobs still need telling

Cracknell fans can inspect his helmet in Marlow on Sunday morning:
http://www.timetriallingforum.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=60161