|
|
Post by silverdragon on Feb 1, 2015 10:13:31 GMT
Cycle helmets make you invincible, right?....
I dont believe they do.
And I just found out that the testing done on cycle helmets maxes out at 12.5mph.....
As in, they dont test impacts above that speed.....
Source was something by University of Michigan for that.
I also argue that helmets on Cyclists are a bad design, because they only cover the top of the head, and if you land sideways, that twists your head.
It doesnt protect Face, back of head, side of head, ears.....
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 2, 2015 12:03:48 GMT
Cycle helmets make you invincible, right?.... I dont believe they do. And I just found out that the testing done on cycle helmets maxes out at 12.5mph..... As in, they dont test impacts above that speed..... Source was something by University of Michigan for that. I also argue that helmets on Cyclists are a bad design, because they only cover the top of the head, and if you land sideways, that twists your head. It doesnt protect Face, back of head, side of head, ears..... cycle helmets are available in a multitude of designs and styles - but you are correct that the classic "skid lid" design gives only minimal protection. but no, definitely not invincible. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Feb 3, 2015 8:45:40 GMT
I aint asking for product testing, just "Type" testing..
And can Adam and Jamie come up with a much better design...
And then can they come up with something that doesnt make you look a PLONKA!....
I was handed a cycle helmet one time, nah... it made me look like an out of work teacher.
I had my open-face racing helmet to hand, I wore that instead.
|
|
|
|
Post by WhutScreenName on Feb 3, 2015 21:04:26 GMT
As soon as I read your post, I thought of this. Note that he WAS wearing his helmet. *copied from here |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Feb 3, 2015 21:13:15 GMT
Wasn't this one of the ideas in another thread?
|
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Feb 3, 2015 23:18:54 GMT
Bike helmets are a joke. Not only do they not protect you from anything bigger than a slight bump to your upper forehead or directly on your scalp, they actually increase the risk of neck injury. No, I don't have a source for that and I don't need one. Just look at the design and use your common sense.
You have a 1+ inch rim all the way around the head, just above your ears that can snag on anything and everything you come into contact with after falling, even at low speeds. An accident that would have otherwise left you with nothing more than a road rash can quickly turn into a serious trauma during a skid along the ground. The skin on your face will give way to the asphalt. The rigid design of the helmet won't, so your head will bounce up and down and your neck can get twisted. Not to mention that if you're skidding feet first, there's a risk of the rim snagging on something and the chin strap either chocking you or helping to twist your neck in a stituation where that wouldn't have happened if you hadn't been wearing the helmet.
Why are most motorcycle helmets designed to go all the way down to your neck? Because that design will let your shoulders get in the way of anything that would otherwise catch the rim of the helmet. Why are most new military helmets designed with a breakaway latch on the chinstrap? So that if the rim of the helmet gets caught on something, the chinstrap will break before your neck does.
Moms across the world are smart enough to see that wearing a bike helmet on the playground is a potential hazard. If the kid gets the helmet snagged on something, there's serious risk of choking and neck injury. They see this clear as day, yet they don't see that the same risks are there if the kid gets into a bike accident?
Go figure...
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 4, 2015 2:57:45 GMT
Bike helmets are a joke. Not only do they not protect you from anything bigger than a slight bump to your upper forehead or directly on your scalp, they actually increase the risk of neck injury. No, I don't have a source for that and I don't need one. Just look at the design and use your common sense. You have a 1+ inch rim all the way around the head, just above your ears that can snag on anything and everything you come into contact with after falling, even at low speeds. An accident that would have otherwise left you with nothing more than a road rash can quickly turn into a serious trauma during a skid along the ground. The skin on your face will give way to the asphalt. The rigid design of the helmet won't, so your head will bounce up and down and your neck can get twisted. Not to mention that if you're skidding feet first, there's a risk of the rim snagging on something and the chin strap either chocking you or helping to twist your neck in a stituation where that wouldn't have happened if you hadn't been wearing the helmet. Why are most motorcycle helmets designed to go all the way down to your neck? Because that design will let your shoulders get in the way of anything that would otherwise catch the rim of the helmet. Why are most new military helmets designed with a breakaway latch on the chinstrap? So that if the rim of the helmet gets caught on something, the chinstrap will break before your neck does. Moms across the world are smart enough to see that wearing a bike helmet on the playground is a potential hazard. If the kid gets the helmet snagged on something, there's serious risk of choking and neck injury. They see this clear as day, yet they don't see that the same risks are there if the kid gets into a bike accident? Go figure... I'm inclined to disagree with your assessment. in the first place, the one picture I will always regret not having taken (and mainly to show to bike helmet resistors) was what my face looked like after doing a "head dab" in an intersection trying to avoid a driver who didn't feel it was necessary to signal until he entered the intersection. the road rash quite literally went from my hairline to my chin, starting above my right eye, and extending back to my ear. the entire area was also mildly bruised (it only turned yellow, not purple) it was my second point of contact, after the heels of my hands - which were well and thoroughly trashed. bicycle helmets are really not all that secure, or durable - and the human neck is. top rated motorcycle helmets go all the way down, so they will bottom out on your shoulders in a direct impact, and to protect your entire head from side and front impacts. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Feb 4, 2015 7:59:20 GMT
Wasn't this one of the ideas in another thread? Was it?... where?... |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 4, 2015 15:06:21 GMT
Wasn't this one of the ideas in another thread? Was it?... where?... I know it came up on the old discovery site from time to time. "bicycle helmets don't protect you because I don't want to wear one" or "you don't need a bicycle helmet because I don't want to wear one" |
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Feb 4, 2015 21:20:49 GMT
Note that I'm comparing to other helmet designs, so I'm not actually against helmets. I'm just pointing out that bicycle helmets are far from optimally designed.
We had a cyclist death due to a solo accident in my town about a year ago. 16-year old kid going about 25-30 kph down a hill on a country road. He was wearing a helmet, but it was one of those soft foam ones with a soft plastic shell and ventilation slits. He lost control of the bike for some reason (police assumes he either hit a rock or the shoulder of the road and tried to correct, but failed) and took a nose dive. He hit the ground with the side of his head first and slid along the road about 10-20 meters. Because the helmet material was so soft and the asphalt was pretty rough, the small dents in the road dug into the helmet as he skidded along. Each time the asphalt/helmet combo tried to stop his head, the force of his body behind it would push him forward, resulting in a broken neck.
I can't provide a link for that info, because it hasn't been publicly released. I know the family. My kid goes to school with the 16-year old's little brother and their dad told me what the police told them.
Now this is not the point where I go, "Had he not been wearing a helmet, he would have been fine." He wouldn't have. He would have cracked his skull instead. That in and of itself isn't guaranteed to kill anyone, but there's a pretty high likelyhood that would have been the outcome. Had help gotten there in time, he might have survived, but that depends on the severity of the injury. He might as well have died from the head trauma just as quickly as he died from the neck trauma. No arguments from me on that.
The point I'm trying to make is that the design of this type of helmet, which is the most widely used design these days, didn't protect him at all. It just ended up killing him in a different way than not wearing a helmet would have. Had he been wearing a motorcycle helmet or something with a similar design instead, something with a rigid and smooth surface that the asphalt couldn't dig into, with proper padding inside and that had gone down to his shoulders so his neck wouldn't have been able to bend and break like it did, I might have been handing over a "Get well soon" card, rather than an "Our condolences for your loss" card.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 5, 2015 4:26:20 GMT
Note that I'm comparing to other helmet designs, so I'm not actually against helmets. I'm just pointing out that bicycle helmets are far from optimally designed. We had a cyclist death due to a solo accident in my town about a year ago. 16-year old kid going about 25-30 kph down a hill on a country road. He was wearing a helmet, but it was one of those soft foam ones with a soft plastic shell and ventilation slits. He lost control of the bike for some reason (police assumes he either hit a rock or the shoulder of the road and tried to correct, but failed) and took a nose dive. He hit the ground with the side of his head first and slid along the road about 10-20 meters. Because the helmet material was so soft and the asphalt was pretty rough, the small dents in the road dug into the helmet as he skidded along. Each time the asphalt/helmet combo tried to stop his head, the force of his body behind it would push him forward, resulting in a broken neck. I can't provide a link for that info, because it hasn't been publicly released. I know the family. My kid goes to school with the 16-year old's little brother and their dad told me what the police told them. Now this is not the point where I go, "Had he not been wearing a helmet, he would have been fine." He wouldn't have. He would have cracked his skull instead. That in and of itself isn't guaranteed to kill anyone, but there's a pretty high likelyhood that would have been the outcome. Had help gotten there in time, he might have survived, but that depends on the severity of the injury. He might as well have died from the head trauma just as quickly as he died from the neck trauma. No arguments from me on that. The point I'm trying to make is that the design of this type of helmet, which is the most widely used design these days, didn't protect him at all. It just ended up killing him in a different way than not wearing a helmet would have. Had he been wearing a motorcycle helmet or something with a similar design instead, something with a rigid and smooth surface that the asphalt couldn't dig into, with proper padding inside and that had gone down to his shoulders so his neck wouldn't have been able to bend and break like it did, I might have been handing over a "Get well soon" card, rather than an "Our condolences for your loss" card. or he might have still broken his neck. |
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Feb 5, 2015 6:33:45 GMT
or he might have still broken his neck. Not according to the coroner and no offense, but seeing as he's actually had the chance to study the boy's body afterwards and you're guessing based on an internet post, I'm more inclined to take his word for it than yours. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 5, 2015 7:17:41 GMT
or he might have still broken his neck. Not according to the coroner and no offense, but seeing as he's actually had the chance to study the boy's body afterwards and you're guessing based on an internet post, I'm more inclined to take his word for it than yours. true, I'm guessing. And I haven't seen the exact model of helmet he was wearing, but whenever I see someone say "his safety equipment killed him" I automatically question the objectivity of the person saying it. the "his helmet stuck to the asphalt and broke his neck" claim is a common excuse for not wearing motorcycle helmets, as well. |
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Feb 5, 2015 7:23:45 GMT
Not according to the coroner and no offense, but seeing as he's actually had the chance to study the boy's body afterwards and you're guessing based on an internet post, I'm more inclined to take his word for it than yours. true, I'm guessing. And I haven't seen the exact model of helmet he was wearing, but whenever I see someone say "his safety equipment killed him" I automatically question the objectivity of the person saying it. the "his helmet stuck to the asphalt and broke his neck" claim is a common excuse for not wearing motorcycle helmets, as well. Well, as you can see, I'm not advocating for no helmets. I'm advocating for better helmets. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Feb 5, 2015 7:26:41 GMT
That is the whole argument.
Do they "save lives".....
Or do the just save you from light scratches.
What about all the bits in-between?
Going to the extreme, I have all the experience of a Rider, and the time I was in a car with a young lady of about 10yrs, the daughter of a friend, in the back.
There was a motor bikeist that was alongside us at a set of lights.
He had a full crash helmet...
But a pair of shorts and sandals were his only other clothing...
Whilst me and her Dad looked at each other in amazement, she wound down here window and shouted "Put some bloody clothes on you (beeping) twerp..."
WE just burst out laughing.
Yes you could have said something about the bad language, but the pure emotional response was priceless, because thats exactly what we wanted to say to that pillock.
I have slid down the tarmac at 60mph on more times than I care to remember.
Usually in either Leather or Waxed cotton type heavy motorcycle gear.
Not a scratch.
I have scuffs all over the crash helmet from those experiences.
In 1,000 ways to die on a Motorbike, having your skin sandpapered of any part of your body by tarmac, road rash, is not the preferred one....
Especially if you survive... it bloody hurts.
For long time afterwards as well.
Its not the death that worries me, its the light injuries from minor crashes, becoming major injuries through lack of protection...
I have a duff timber because a good quality boot saved my leg from crush injuries that could have been terminal, I was lucky I kept the foot.
|
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Feb 5, 2015 7:47:30 GMT
I actually read something shocking about bicycle helmets last night. They were only designed to prevent major trauma. They were never designed to prevent concussions, which can also kill you or at least leave you debilitated for the rest of your life if you have one that's severe enough or more than one over a period of time.
In another article I found, someone had realized that while bicycle helmets may protect you somewhat from blows to the front, rear or sides of the head, they actually seem to contribute to severe brain damage due to rotational force when you land at an oblique angle. I can't find the article again, but as far as I remember, the risk was more than double that of a motorcycle helmet and about 20% higher than wearing no helmet at all, because, as they found out, people without helmets have an instinct to tuck their heads in and cover them with their arms, whereas people with helmets on seem to have that instinct reduced and even when they try, the size of the helmet prevents them from doing it properly.
The people who wrote the report on the tests did admit that they'd only looked at brain injury due to rotational forces, so they had no data on direct impact trauma. Their tests just weren't set up for that, since it wasn't what they investigated, so they did note that this should in no way be seen as evidence that wearing a helmet is more dangerous than not wearing one. They have no evidence to show that tucking in your un-helmeted head will prevent direct impact damage better than wearing a helmet. Just that it better prevents rotational damage.
Again, the conclusion was NOT that it's safer to ride around without a helmet, but rather that someone needs to take a serious look at current designs to reduce the risk of serious brain damage due to rotational forces on impact. Motorcycle helmets do a conciderably better job at this than bicycle helmets, but they too have room for improvement.
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Feb 5, 2015 8:55:39 GMT
On the grounds that even a leather flying helmet is better than none at all, we are not here to go into those who dont want to wear a helmet and are looking for any excuse....
We are looking at the design of existing cheese grater hats that make you look like a plonka, and dont help at all.
The idea of a likkle foam up there is after all slightly useful...
But a hard-hat type covering that extends a little down the sides to protect ears would be better?...
Side and back protection, and some facial protection would be better still.
Chin protection, as worn by some moto-cross riders, are better than what is sold at the moment.
Just a mention, a Friend went to parts of the U$A where they have lid-free laws, and got some stick for his absolute belligerent refusal to ride with no lid.
A Car did the silly.....
He dropped and rolled, the bike hit the car, but he slid around.
As he got up, his friends who were lid free checked him over, and noted with due course the terrifying scrapes down the side of his lid....
It was down to the foam in some places.
To a man (and one or two ladies) they all went straight to the nearest shop and bought helmets....
The bike survived with some minor bodywork repairs.
As a Bikeist, of long history, who was around when we invented BMX (British Moto cross) push-bikes, I am all for as much protection as you can get.
Even My old Bike trousers have kevlar knee sliders... and they are scraped good style, they look like a Lion has used them as a scratching post.
What I want in improved pedal-cycle helmets that are not "Think-you-are-safe", but are actually safe, at road speeds of 40mph and above, because its not the cyclist, its the driver who didnt see them that needs worrying about.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Feb 5, 2015 12:21:55 GMT
Bicycle helmets would not protect the Middle menigeal artery, that runs along the side of the head, just where the skull is thinnest . Impact forces can shear or rupture this, causing a hematoma, and to a lesser extent rotation as an as well cause this. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidural_hematoma |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 5, 2015 15:09:16 GMT
Okay, I can buy a "helmets have room for improvement" argument. and yes, no helmet is proof against anything - and the smaller the helmet, the less the helmet is proof against. one also needs to look at WHAT the helmet is designed to protect against - for example, we are forbidden to wear our traditional style fire helmets while riding the apparatus. in a collision the broad brim of the helmet will strike first, putting the entire force of the impact into side-loading our necks.
|
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Feb 5, 2015 17:17:32 GMT
Okay, I can buy a "helmets have room for improvement" argument. and yes, no helmet is proof against anything - and the smaller the helmet, the less the helmet is proof against. one also needs to look at WHAT the helmet is designed to protect against - for example, we are forbidden to wear our traditional style fire helmets while riding the apparatus. in a collision the broad brim of the helmet will strike first, putting the entire force of the impact into side-loading our necks. Which is also what's going on with many bicycle helmets and one of the things that need to be fixed. |
|
