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

How about you two stop sucking your dad's dicks and actually have a think about what I was trying to say. If you look at the average material used for a bike helmet, the UTS is around 50 MPa, the UTS of bone is well over 100 MPa. So the material that a helmet is made of will yield before bone will. You look at a shattered or smashed helmet and think, fuck that could have been my skull, but no, your skull would have withstood almost double the stress before yielding.
Of course Stress is F/A so a helmet is able to take a larger force than it's low UTS would suggest before yielding because it's spreading it over a wider area than your head.

My whole point about crumple zones was that if you have an accident in an older car, the car looks vaguely OK, some smashed lights but probably only dents in panels. This may hide underlying damage depending on chassis strength, but newer cars often look wrecked after a low speed shunt. That's because newer cars are designed to deform to cushion impact for pedestrians (or more suitably in our case, cyclists) and to save the chassis, just like a helmet.

http://www.whycycle.co.uk/safety_and_security/cycling_helmets/
http://www.bhsi.org/stdcomp.htm

http://www.whycycle.co.uk/safety_and_security/cycling_helmets/
http://www.bhsi.org/stdcomp.htm

top link summary sounds spot on to me -
The safety benefits offered by wearing a helmet do exist, but these benefits should be neither over-estimated nor under-estimated. Surely anything which can offer an extra amount of safety is worthwhile as long as it does not leave you with a false sense of security.

How about you two stop sucking your dad's dicks and actually have a think about what I was trying to say. If you look at the average material used for a bike helmet, the UTS is around 50 MPa, the UTS of bone is well over 100 MPa. So the material that a helmet is made of will yield before bone will. You look at a shattered or smashed helmet and think, fuck that could have been my skull, but no, your skull would have withstood almost double the stress before yielding.
Of course Stress is F/A so a helmet is able to take a larger force than it's low UTS would suggest before yielding because it's spreading it over a wider area than your head.

My whole point about crumple zones was that if you have an accident in an older car, the car looks vaguely OK, some smashed lights but probably only dents in panels. This may hide underlying damage depending on chassis strength, but newer cars often look wrecked after a low speed shunt. That's because newer cars are designed to deform to cushion impact for pedestrians (or more suitably in our case, cyclists) and to save the chassis, just like a helmet.

Thats quite good for someone who can't be bothered to argue ;P except the cock sucking comment. Less name calling and dick waving please, more discussion and debate.

Not sure if this has been mentioned yet but... If you are in a situation where you end up taking someone to court in an attempt to gain comensation for injuries caused in an collision, you can be awarded up to 20% less compensation if you were not wearing a helmet, as you are seen to be partially negligent in the eyes of the law. Regardless of the specifics of the incident.
Personally, I'd quite like that extra 20% in that situation.

As winter is fast approaching, everyone should be wearing a helmet anyway. Keeps your head warm, innit?

That judgment was fucking ridiculous.
Are pedestrians rewarded less damages because they don't wear helmets? Motorists?
That judge should be strung up.

Ridiculous yes, but it still stands, and acts as a precedence for any cases that might follow. Which really is a shame.

This always annoys me, how do they know this? I think it's more psychology, the helmet is fucked so the presumption is that your skull would be just as fucked. Now I'm not saying that helmets do not offer any protection it's this assumption from people who really have no knowledge about the strength of a helmet to be able to make that judgment that you'd be dead or you'd have this problem or that problem.

it's misleading to say the least. People look for reasons to wear one and they will find one... human nature. BTW saw you last week riding near St Pauls... no helmet like me, although that's no claim to fame, just saying.

I really hate the, "All the professionals use helmets, I've seen them on the track and on the Tour," comments. Yeah, well all professional racing drivers use helmets too, I wonder how many deaths could have been prevented if all car drivers wore helmets too. Try enforcing that one.

The counter-argument to that is that It's UCI regulations and they have to keep the sport appearing safe to the public. Can you imagine the outcry if someone crached and died when not wearing a helmet as opposed to the fuss if someone was wearing a helmet?

Interestingly, riders are allowed to remove their helmets on climbs, but I assume they would have to put them back on before the descent. Its a while since I read the rules, so I may be wrong...

The counter-argument to that is that It's UCI regulations and they have to keep the sport appearing safe to the public. Can you imagine the outcry if someone crached and died when not wearing a helmet as opposed to the fuss if someone was wearing a helmet?

The immediate publicly-given reason why helmet compulsion was introduced was the death of Andrei Kivilev in 2003. He wasn't wearing a helmet when he crashed in a freak incident, touching wheels with the rider in front while not having his hands on the bars.

Interestingly, riders are allowed to remove their helmets on climbs, but I assume they would have to put them back on before the descent. Its a while since I read the rules, so I may be wrong...

No, the exemption to ditch the helmet on the last climb up to a summit finish was removed some time ago.

Believe me that what a lots of people believe, in fact their entire confident rely on helmet, day-glo outfit etc. which fair enough got them out on the road, unfortunately, it give them the illusion that they're 'safe' because of the equipment, not their riding style.

Brilliant. I specifically asked for any kind of solid evidence to back up these claims and you type 'Believe me...' with no backup sources.

I'm convinced!

The immediate publicly-given reason why helmet compulsion was introduced was the death of Andrei Kivilev in 2003. He wasn't wearing a helmet when he crashed in a freak incident, touching wheels with the rider in front while not having his hands on the bars.

But he still fractured his skull though right? You can kind of see why they jumped to the conclusion that a helmet may have helped (rightly or wrongly)

Sam, the theory behind this is called 'risk compensation' and its main proponent is John Adams. Have a look at his web-site:

http://www.john-adams.co.uk/

There is also some summarised info about risk compensation on

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/.

Don't you think that the cycle helmets is a bit crazy though? In a kind of Daily Mail right wing batshit way?
I'd just have thought there was more comprehensive (or just other) info out there.

the effectiveness or not of helmets is not the key factor in deciding whether it is essential to wear one*. the key factor is whether cycling is an activity so prone to head injury that it requires special protection. It is not, and therefore it is not.

unless there is particular reason to think that cycling is not a safe activity (it is) or is prone in particular to head trauma (it isn't), then the argument that helmets may be effective applies equally to all activities, such as walking or driving. a friend of mine cracked his head open falling out of a bunk bed as a kid. I could argue that a helmet would have protected him - and conclude that everyone should wear helmets in bed. I don't because the fact is that most people use beds without cracking their heads open. This is exactly the same for cycling. Show me some numbers showing fantastically high rates of head injuries among cyclists, and then we can have a conversation about the effectiveness of various methods of preventing these. Until then, stop bleating on about helmets being effective or not, because that is not an argument.

*I have not been encouraged by the lack of population level data showing a decrease in the rate of head injuries with increased helmet use. If helmets were effective in reducing serious head injuries among cyclists, I think we would see it in some data.

But he still fractured his skull though right? You can kind of see why they jumped to the conclusion that a helmet may have helped (rightly or wrongly)

It is quite possible that a helmet might have helped. It is also possible that it might not have prevented the fatal nature of the head injury. I don't know. The conclusion you allude to is of course not an improbable conclusion. (No-one denies that helmets can have the positive effect to reduce the severity of head injury, by the way.)

Don't you think that the cycle helmets is a bit crazy though? In a kind of Daily Mail right wing batshit way?

Why would you think that?

If you are in a situation where you end up taking someone to court in an attempt to gain comensation for injuries caused in an collision, you can be awarded up to 20% less compensation if you were not wearing a helmet

Isn't that being challenged as being a load of old bollocks, though? You're not compelled by law to wear a helmet, so the notion that not wearing one somehow makes getting hurt your fault is flawed in the extreme. It's kind of like saying that one of YouTube - Troy Hurtubise: Project Grizzly
would protect you in an accident and if you don't wear one, then its your fault if you get run over and hurt.

Last time I thought about this I ended up comparing sprinting (Olympics, track and field) with sprinting (Olympics, velodrome).

The people on the bikes wore helmets, the people on foot did not- presumably this has some basis in what kind of injury could be the result of it all going wrong, and the probabilities therein.

I've crashed and never hit my head but I view a helmet as cheap insurance- it weighs 199 grams and it might do some good- why not wear it?

Even if my skull would cope with an impact the skin would not, and gravel rash on my head is something I'd prefer to avoid.

Hey ho- people will continue to do whatever they want.

What a pointless post! I'm going to get another beer.

Even if my skull would cope with an impact the skin would not, and gravel rash on my head is something I'd prefer to avoid.

It's not as bad as you think, Vitamin E cream sorted my face scars right out.

It's not as bad as you think, Vitamin E cream sorted my face scars right out.

I have a near endless, free supply if you need any future treatment.

Direct, in person application is most effective....

Last time I thought about this I ended up comparing sprinting (Olympics, track and field) with sprinting (Olympics, velodrome).

The people on the bikes wore helmets, the people on foot did not- presumably this has some basis in what kind of injury could be the result of it all going wrong, and the probabilities therein.

I've crashed and never hit my head but I view a helmet as cheap insurance- it weighs 199 grams and it might do some good- why not wear it?

Even if my skull would cope with an impact the skin would not, and gravel rash on my head is something I'd prefer to avoid.

Hey ho- people will continue to do whatever they want.

What a pointless post! I'm going to get another beer.

This post inspired me to also get another beer, so it was not at all pointless.

Or just do both? if you want to wear a helmet. I don't imagine ppl put on a helmet and think "right I'll start riding with my eyes closed from now, I'll be fine, I have a helmet".

But they do.

Many guys and girls have almost managed to take me out because they decided to just turn right without looking or signalling, luckily my bike has a fucking good set of brakes and I am happen to be damn good at using them.

Most people don't look, Sometimes I lose concentration and don't look every so often, and Scold myself for doing so, most of those that don't look are just damn clueless.

I have a near endless, free supply if you need any future treatment.

Direct, in person application is most effective....

Gender recognition fail...

Why would you think that?

I agree with that sentiment actually. Not being proficient enough to question any of the research, but the website reads like something people write up when they passionately argue for intelligent design. It's just trying to hard, and doesn't come across as impartial. Hence quoting cyclehelmets.org as resource for no helmet use actually does the opposite: It makes me go "yeah right" and keep the lid on.

I'm with Dammit on this. Extra insurance. I did kiss the tarmac once, and that never happened when I was walking. Also I'm clipped in, it might be slippery, potholes, whatever. I'm not thinking that a helmet might prevent all injury in a car accident, though.

I agree with that sentiment actually. Not being proficient enough to question any of the research, but the website reads like something people write up when they passionately argue for intelligent design. It's just trying to hard, and doesn't come across as impartial. Hence quoting cyclehelmets.org as resource for no helmet use actually does the opposite: It makes me go "yeah right" and keep the lid on.

I'm with Dammit on this. Extra insurance. I did kiss the tarmac once, and that never happened when I was walking. Also I'm clipped in, it might be slippery, potholes, whatever. I'm not thinking that a helmet might prevent all injury in a car accident, though.

AN important distinction to keep in mind is that the 'helmet controversy' is not about you wearing or not wearing your helmet. It's about whether compulsory helmet-wearing should be introduced as a population-wide public health intervention.

It's actually quite an unemotional matter, and the way the research is presented doesn't make an attempt to try and address your own feelings about your own helmet-wearing--which is why you may feel emotionally disconnected from it. Try reading some of the stuff on the site again with that in mind.

The problem that we still face is that helmet compulsion may be introduced for everyone, for a not very risky activity that results in comparatively few head injuries, with the effects of compulsion at a population level, where it's been tested, far from convincing, to say the least.

Gender recognition fail...

Proclivity assumption fail.....