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

Given that the Sharp site is a government sponsored one then it is likely the result of policy based evidence making at it's finest, and therefore worse than anecdote as a basis upon which to base a decision.

I wore a helmet yesterday and got a puncture.

It didn't rain though.

Whilst we descended a 28% hill we ascended a 20% one on the other side- EXPLAIN THAT

I'd just like there to be clear, easy to understand information for the consumer.

There is, it's just that you are particularly hard of understanding.

All adult cycle helmets legally on sale in the UK meet EN1078

That's it. The law precludes making any other claim. Any information out there suggesting that some of the helmets are safer than others is just opinion, not FACTs. You might respect the opinion of some of the people making judgements about relative safety of different helmets, but that's for you to decide. In your particular case, you seem to have already decided that no opinion is worth respecting unless it is published by a government agency, but that's a particular failing on your part*, not a general failure of knowledgeable people to place good science in front of the public in an accessible way.

*Andrei Sakharov, broadening an idea usually attributed to Benjamin Franklin, said "Never trust a government that doesn't trust its own people". Your government trusts you so little that it is reading all your emails and text messages, but you still think it is the only trustworthy source on matters affecting your immediate personal safety? It's an interesting position, I'll grant you that. Remember, it was your government that allowed helmet testing standards to be lowered to achieve Europe-wide harmonisation, and then made it illegal for anybody to bring it to consumers' attention that their product had passed more stringent tests too.

Whilst we descended a 28% hill we ascended a 20% one on the other side- EXPLAIN THAT

that would be interesting if helmets started having a grading similar to the "sold secure" bronze to gold rating that locks have.
and probably yet another consumer nightmare.

I don't believe that, or I certainly don't believe that it is in a law which could not be successfully challenged

Any prosecution would hinge on whether markings relating to other tests could be confused in the mind of the consumer with the mandatory EN1078 markings. I think you're right that the game is not worth the candle for manufacturers, but you shouldn't underestimate the ability of the European courts to underestimate the intelligence of the populace. To a lawyer, these look like six identical marks:

1 Attachment

Here's your consumer. Do you really think they are ready for different grades of helmet?

1 Attachment

Seems like it takes a serious crash now days to make people aware of the importance of wearing a helmet. But you cant teach stupid..

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

Oh for fuck's sake, this shit pisses me off.

Why do people like Wiggins and Cav give the slightest fuck anyway? What the fuck are they doing making statements saying not only should everyone wear a helmet all the time but that it should be the law?!? What difference does it make to them anyway?

And headphone use? What has that got to do with anything anyway? I often ride with headphones, and I'd say it probably makes less of an effect on my ability to receive useful sensory information than wearing tinted glasses.

I mean seriously, where the fuck are they coming from? They see some oik wobbling about on a BSO paying no attention and notice they have headphones in and assume that is the cause of their poor riding, rather than their general twattishness?

What is their angle here?

What is their angle here?

Simple, Wiggo was involved in a collision with a van pulling out, and his coach, Sutton also involved in another collision which result in him thinking that he wouldn't be alive without a helmet and thus think its worthwhile to wear them while ignoring the elephant in the room.

^ this is my evidence because I base it on assumption.

And Jeez, you should not be relying on sound when riding in traffic.

All ears tell you is there might possibly be a vehicle approaching if there aren't a ton of them around anyway.

What do you do with that information? Immediately dive off the road and into a bush?

I find hearing mildly useful when riding in the countryside. Fortunately the amount of external sound reduction a pair of regular open-backed headphones has is somewhat less than the amount of reduction in vision a pair of tinted glasses performs so wearing my headphones doesn't really make a difference.

In the city, if I'm using them I might turn them off if I'm going an unfamiliar route and need to concentrate on other things than just observing traffic. In terms of sound, couldn't say they've ever really made a difference. Being surrounded by a ton of traffic and very large reflective surfaces makes any sound as much of a distraction as any other, and only the loudest ones terribly useful, which unless you're riding with large expensive noise reduction headphones ... well, they aren't going to cancel out the sound of an approaching ambulance anyway.

It always surprises me when I hear people saying that wearing headphones renders you completely deaf to the world. Have these people never worn headphones?

And why are they telling the world no one should be legally allowed to?

"And headphone use? What has that got to do with anything anyway? I often ride with headphones, and I'd say it probably makes less of an effect on my ability to receive useful sensory information than wearing tinted glasses."

By that logic

"And ecstacy use? What has that got to do with anything anyway? I often ride on an E, and I'd say it probably makes less of an effect on my ability to cycle safely that when I have 8 pints and am absolutely hammered."

What? Are you comparing wearing tinted glasses to being the equivalent to safety as drinking 8 pints?

If you think sound isn't important sensory information, you are doing it wrong.

I can't even drive without the window being at least partly open, how people navigate big roundabouts and nasty junctions on a bicycle while singing along to Blink 182 or whatever you are listening to (probably incredibly loud, to compensate for the lorry and bus noise you should be listening to) is totally beyond me

"What? Are you comparing wearing tinted glasses to being the equivalent to safety as drinking 8 pints?"

Evens each other out. I always wear tinted glasses when riding after eight pints, let alone a couple of E's...

"If you think sound isn't important sensory information, you are doing it wrong.

I can't even drive without the window being at least partly open, how people navigate big roundabouts and nasty junctions on a bicycle while singing along to Blink 182 or whatever you are listening to (probably incredibly loud, to compensate for the lorry and bus noise you should be listening to) is totally beyond me."

While I often listen to music in one ear while riding, personally I rely on both eyes and ears. That said many deaf people drive and ride bikes perfectly safe. Think the issue with iPods is more about the possible distraction, than not being able to hear oncoming traffic.

Headphones don't work for me as I hate having music loud so for it to be loud enough to hear in traffic my ears hurt :(

So I play my music out loud, so everyone can complain about it, at least they hear me coming.

If you think sound isn't important sensory information, you are doing it wrong.

I can't even drive without the window being at least partly open, how people navigate big roundabouts and nasty junctions on a bicycle while singing along to Blink 182 or whatever you are listening to (probably incredibly loud, to compensate for the lorry and bus noise you should be listening to) is totally beyond me

You should probably try using your eyes. I find that helps immensely.

If you're having to have a window open when navigating a roundabout in a car, then seriously it sounds like you are doing it wrong.

While I often listen to music in one ear while riding, personally I rely on both eyes and ears. That said many deaf people drive and ride bikes perfectly safe. Think the issue with iPods is more about the possible distraction, than not being able to hear oncoming traffic.

I think it's more from people seeing muppets who have absolutely no spacial awareness whatsoever, or just don't give a fuck, your BSO-riding hoodie or beautiful godzilla type who can't ride a bike, weave all over the place, consider 'useful skills' when riding to be being able to text whilst riding no handed, generally in their own little world - often might be seen sporting white ipod earbuds or beats ... and so people seem to associate wearing headphones with such berks.

And then they generalise that everyone who wears headphones are berks, because they are the ignorant generalising types. Basically they are worse than Hitler.

. . .
Here's a DfT paper reviewing the available literature. It comes out pro-helmet.
http://erso.swov.nl/knowledge/Fixed/40_Pedestrians/ref.%2054%20helmets.pdf

It also observes
"The way in which the debate has been conducted is unhelpful to those wishing to make a balanced judgement on the issue."

Which about sums up this thread, really.
I suspect the DfT are too ashamed of this research to have it on their own website. It has been superseded by the TRL review which couldn't find a reliable measure of helmet effectiveness in the literature.
The 2002 study overstates the risk of head injury by a factor of 10. They copied Cook and Sheik's typo, not noticing the BMJ commentary on that. The first paper studied, Dorsch, claims 90% of fatalities are prevented by helmets.
They quote the cost effectiveness figure from Hendrie without mentioning the outcome of that study:- no clear cost benefit from helmet legislation in WA.
I could go on, there is more on the cyclehelmets.org site. Since it was published many of the Thompson, Rivara claims have been discredited in the USA. Federal law there prevents government agencies from citing that sort of un verified research.
. . . . .
How is your bank holiday sunday going? We've got beautiful hazy sunshine here in Somerset.

There is, it's just that you are particularly hard of understanding.

All adult cycle helmets legally on sale in the UK meet EN1078

That's it. The law precludes making any other claim.

That's utter rubbish. Every other sector can have other claims, even Bell do, on their European site for motorcycle helmets. Are you suggesting that there is a piece of legislation specifically concerning the bicycle helmet sector?

Genuinely, I'm not sure if you're stupid? But your arguments make no sense whatsoever. I've already given you the links to demonstrate that the same company uses safety standards for motorcycle helmets, and no safety standards for bicycle helmets. Both meet the similar CE regulations. Which bit of this do you not understand?

Here's the EU legislation on helmet;

The standard's key features are:[1]

Test anvils: Flat and kerbstone
Drop apparatus: Guided free fall
Impact velocity, energy or drop height flat anvil: 5.42–5.52 m/s
Impact energy criteria: < 250g
Roll-off test: Yes
Retention system strength: Force applied dynamically. Helmet supported on headform.
A derived standard, EN 1080, covers helmets for young children. It addresses problems associated with the strangulation of children playing while wearing helmets.[1]