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

Is it time to bring rotational injuries back to the discussion too?

You can also fall over while walking down the street and hit your head with enough force to knock you out or even kill you. Again, what's the impact speed?

What I liked about this one is when somebody on here pointed out that if you stand still and headbutt a brick wall, it doesn't mean the impact speed of the collision was zero

That might've been me.

I thought it might have been. I'm going to rep you for it in retrospect.

force[/i] they offer protection against, but a figure like 15N is completely meaningless to the average consumer.

Bicycle helmets are specifically never ever marketed on "safety", "speed" or anything like that at all. Even any standards information eg CE**** will be an unexplained bullet point, or a footnote. Advertisements and packaging will also never mention this, neither will it be on the manufacturers website product pages. At the most they use "venting", "comfort" or "fit" but never anything to actually suggest the product actually provides protection at any "speed".

My evidence is that every impact I have experienced it is better to have something between you and the thing you hit. Obviously if the 'something' is designed for purpose and tough yet soft even better.

Helmets may not be designed for a 25 mph impact but every bit of relevant experience I have tells me that I'd rather be wearing a helmet of any type than not whatever the impact and whatever the helmet was designed for. I am happy to accept that the helmet might do little good in an impact it is not designed for but I am confident that sometimes it will do some good.

I there any research out there which proves that at 25mph and above a bike helmet does no good whatsoever? Any lab tests which show that at 25 mph it is utterly useless every single time?

Hold the fucking phone, people. Jeez has experience doing something!!

That's not evidence, and until you understand that the rest of the world sees evidence as something else, you are going to keep being the one who is wrong. Every fucking time.

We might as well throw out law courts and imprison people based on whichever detective has the most experience.

What a fucking joke.

I disagree. The problem is the bad cyclist and the incorrect perception caused by ignorance. The problem is nothing to do with the helmet wearing.

OK another parallel. A woman is raped. An ignorant pig says she contributed to the crime because she was wearing short skirt. This is bullshit - the problem is the rapist, and the other problem is someone's ignorant perception that she was asking for it because she was wearing a short skirt. The short skirt is absolutely nothing to do with it. a complete irrelevance.

Lifewise the problem is the bad cyclist and the ignorant perception. The helmet is an irrelevance. Anyone who is well informed will spit the bad cyclist and the helmet is nothing more than an observation akin to 'he was wearing jeans'.

How does this fit into your experience?

What if in somebody's experience, everyone who has been raped has been wearing a short skirt. Get rid of short skirts, solve the problem. Are you beginning to understand why "experience" doesn't work?

Have you experimented with a sledgehammer, your head, and a helmet yet? Please take videos.

"Bicycle helmets are specifically never ever marketed on "safety", "speed" or anything like that at all. Even any standards information eg CE**** will be an unexplained bullet point, or a footnote. Advertisements and packaging will also never mention this, neither will it be on the manufacturers website product pages. At the most they use "venting", "comfort" or "fit" but never anything to actually suggest the product actually provides protection at any "speed". "

Think you'll find that marketing safety equipment/features in any shape or from is very tricky business... Of course, in some cases, you can create scare campaigns and/or play on the fear factor card, but generally speaking companies targeting general public consumers, do not want their product associated with blood and horror, let alone potential injury and death. Similarly you rarely see airline advertising campaigns focusing on company safety records.

http://road.cc/content/news/90737-wiggins-cycle-helmets-should-be-compulsory-and-ipods-banned-while-riding-bike

Wiggins should do some dope and STFU on cycle helmets.

CTC gathered some info on iPods during cycling, no proof these were indicated in accidents. Which kinda makes sense cos in a car you hear F-all too and have to rely on sight.

My bro has a good story about that: He got followed by a motor bike and turned out to be a copper as his backlight was out. Managed to waffle himself out of a fine too. He's good :)

Obviously its down to individuals - but having an earphone in left ear makes me more aware - both because the reduction in sensory information makes me pay more attention, and because it focuses all of the changes in the right/road-side ear so that you are more aware of stuff happening behind you

Obviously its down to individuals - but having an earphone in left ear makes me more aware - both because the reduction in sensory information makes me pay more attention, and because it focuses all of the changes in the right/road-side ear so that you are more aware of stuff happening behind you

Wut?! So reduction in sensory information makes your senses more aware?!?! Never heard of 1 being better than 2.

Depends on who you partner with!

So reduction in sensory information makes your senses more aware?!?!

Or, to put it a different way, reduction of irrelevant distractions allows greater task focus.

Not coming don on one side or the other, but you can see how describing the same thing in two different ways could lead people to different assumptions.

^ This exactly

Wut?! So reduction in sensory information makes your senses more aware?!?! Never heard of 1 being better than 2.

Not spoken to many blind people then lately I take it?

see https://www.lfgss.com/thread50817-105.html#post3233393 among other forum highlights
or maybe merge all the recurring circular argument threads into one?

^ This exactly

Not spoken to many blind people then lately I take it?

Well, I thought of arguing against it, but I do exactly the same thing with one earphone in. The argument with blind people is moot, since that is not an instant development.
I have read somewhere that the each ear is attuned to certain frequencies or such, but I'm not sure, and doubt that that comes into play when you substitutes an unpredictable environment (street) with music. Our right side hearing isn't going to exponentially improve to compensate for what the left ear misses out on.
Granted, saying that, It's generally only effected me once, at traffic lights till a bus had to beep at me to move away. I realised I was listening far too loud.

Think you'll find that marketing safety equipment/features in any shape or from is very tricky business... Of course, in some cases, you can create scare campaigns and/or play on the fear factor card, but generally speaking companies targeting general public consumers, do not want their product associated with blood and horror, let alone potential injury and death. Similarly you rarely see airline advertising campaigns focusing on company safety records.

Airlines, aren't selling safety, they're selling a service transporting people from one location to another. With bicycle helmets, their only purpose is safety/protection. In most other categories of safety wear, the "standards" met are often the biggest selling point, look at how motorcycle helmets are sold, or Nomex for retardant suits. Even cars are often sold on being "safe", and their primary function is also transport. I've always thought the helmet manufacturers have so little faith in their product they won't touch anything to do with safety.

Look at the Giro Air Attack, there is no mention on the sales page of anything to do with safety, protection or even the standards it meets, or the tests it's successfully passed, or perhaps it hasn't passed any?

Aside from the obvious liability issue in claiming 'safety', helmet manufacturers never mention it because every helmet passes exactly the same tests, you can't sell one that doesn't and there are no graded ratings (cf. Euro NCAP), it's pass or GTFO.

Common sense, belief, and experience count for fuck all when you're talking about EVIDENCE.

Do you have any evidence for that?

Is it time to bring rotational injuries back to the discussion too?

What goes around comes around.

My bro has a good story about that: He got followed by a motor bike and turned out to be a copper as his backlight was out. Managed to waffle himself out of a fine too. He's good :)

Cool story, JWestland's bro.

Aside from the obvious liability issue in claiming 'safety', helmet manufacturers never mention it because every helmet passes exactly the same tests, you can't sell one that doesn't and there are no graded ratings (cf. Euro NCAP), it's pass or GTFO.

So, why does the same company sell its motorcycle helmets differently often using the word "safety" and they quote the safety standards the helmet meets? You are aware there are far more stringent safety standards than the CE certification?

You are aware there are far more stringent safety standards than the CE certification?

Yes, but not ones you either have to pass or can use as a sales pitch in Europe.

Yes, but not ones you either have to pass or can use as a sales pitch in Europe.

Sorry, I'm confused. There are more stringent standards, eg DOT or Snell, which both offer bicycle helmet testing which is far stricter than the CE mark, and the bicycle industry industry used to use Snell, prior to 1995. Both Dot and Snell are still quoted in motorcycle helmets sales literature, why would bicycle helmet manufacturers not be able to cite them with bicycle helmets? Bell sell both motorcycle and bicycle helmets, but they cite no standards with the bicycle helmets.

I understand that to sell a bicycle helmet, you have to send a helmet off for testing to the CE certification, and then the manufacturer self certifies from there on, until there is a "production change", as with all CE marks. But I don't understand why they couldn't use a "higher or stricter" standard in a sales pitch. Could you explain?