|
Post by the light works on Feb 5, 2015 17:38:11 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. not quite - unless your bicycle helmets have a different design than ours. we DO have some companies that make a more full coverage helmet - the problem is that the skeleton frame racing helmets are seen as cooler by all except a certain fringe - with the amusing thing being that the particular fringe that likes the less "cool" helmets is also the fringe that is more likely to use the helmet for its intended purpose.
|
|
|
Post by kharnynb on Feb 5, 2015 18:34:57 GMT
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Feb 5, 2015 22:09:20 GMT
Which is also what's going on with many bicycle helmets and one of the things that need to be fixed. not quite - unless your bicycle helmets have a different design than ours. So, you wouldn't say that this design... ...where the helmet has a brim that sticks out at least an inch from the head all the way around bears any similarity at all to a fireman's helmet in terms of there being a brim that can cause neck contusions? I know it's not as large a brim as the fireman's helmet, but it's there and it protrudes conciderably more from the head than the one you've shown below. When you fall, the force will try to "flatten you" against the ground. Common sense tells me that in order to do that, a helmet with a brim like the one I've shown above will force your neck to bend until your jaw is flat against the ground and the angle required to do that seems immediately more severe to me than it would be with the "skater helmet" you've shown below. we DO have some companies that make a more full coverage helmet - the problem is that the skeleton frame racing helmets are seen as cooler by all except a certain fringe - with the amusing thing being that the particular fringe that likes the less "cool" helmets is also the fringe that is more likely to use the helmet for its intended purpose. I don't know if that type of helmet provides better protection against serious injury, but compared to the racing type helmet shown above that most cyclists use these days, it certainly seems at first glance that not only does it protect more of the head better agains scrapes because it just has better overall coverage, but it also hasn't got the protruding rim that could increase the risk of neck injury. Again, I don't know that it makes a difference, but common sense (to me at least) says it should. EDIT: Of course, if you take a nose dive like the dude in the picture, there are no guarantees that ANY helmet, no matter how good, will protect you from neck injury. Sometimes you just put yourself in a situation where even a belt and two pairs of suspenders still isn't enough to hold up your pants.
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Feb 5, 2015 22:50:40 GMT
I stumbled across the original research paper that this article draws its info from yesterday. Can't find it again, though, but the gist of it was this: Head injuries associated with cycling haven't dropped in Australia since the country introduced mandatory helmet laws (MHL's), even though the laws have been in effect for 20 years. One of the reasons for this has been shown in a British study to be that motorists have a tendency to drive closer to cyclists wearing helmets than to cyclists without. The perceived increase in safety seems to promote more risky behavior. This is known as risk compensation and was also shown to be a factor in single vehicle accidents in the US after the introduction of ABS. The belief that the addition of a safety system would indeed keep drivers safe seemed to make them willing to not only drive faster, but also brake later than they normally would without ABS. The end result was that risk compensation behavior ended up causing just as many accidents with ABS as there were before it was introduced. Risk compensation doesn't only affect motorists. It also affects the cyclists. To quote SD's OP, "cycle helmets make you invincible, right?" While the people who would have put on a helmet whether the law told them to or not would still behave like they normally did in traffic, people who didn't normally wear a helmet, but was suddenly forced to by law, seemed to engage in more risky road behavior, making the probability of them having an accident much higher. The third and perhaps most important point is that forcing people to wear helmets causes a significant decrease in people wanting to jump on a bike in the first place. This decreases the amount of cyclers on the road, decreasing the amount of times motorists meet them in traffic, decreasing motorist awareness of cyclist behavior and thus increasing the amount of accidents caused when the two finally do meet. To quote the article, cyclists no longer enjoyed the "safety in numbers" that caused motorists to be more aware of them in traffic and drive accordingly. Anyone who's ever driven their car around a city with heavy bike activity knows this to be fact. The more of them there are, the more you pay attention to what they do and adjust your driving accordingly. The final effect of the combination of these three things, motorists taking more risks + cyclists taking more risks + less cyclists on the roads so motorists and cyclists don't meet in traffic as often = more accidents among the remaining cyclists. Spread the total amount of cyclist accidents out over the entire population and you get roughly the same number of accidents per capita as you had before introducing the MHL's. The only actual documented health effect of MHL's is a negative one. Less people engage in the very healthy act of cycling, meaning less people get regular exercise, which increases the amount of fat people, putting a much larger strain on the medical system than the relatively few cases of severe head trauma caused by cycling accidents. To directly quote the article: "Cycling is generally a safe activity, the health benefits outweighing the risks from traffic accidents by a large margin. British research suggests life years gained through cycling outweigh years lost in cycling fatalities by a factor of 20:1. A recent study of users of Barcelona's public bike hire scheme puts this ratio at 77:1." EDIT: I'd like to stress again that this is in no way me advocating not wearing a helmet. I still believe helmets are a good idea in general, but that a serious look into design is needed to make them better. This is just a recap of the results of other people's research, not an account of my opinion on wearing a helmet vs. not wearing one.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 6, 2015 1:32:18 GMT
not quite - unless your bicycle helmets have a different design than ours. So, you wouldn't say that this design... ...where the helmet has a brim that sticks out at least an inch from the head all the way around bears any similarity at all to a fireman's helmet in terms of there being a brim that can cause neck contusions? I know it's not as large a brim as the fireman's helmet, but it's there and it protrudes conciderably more from the head than the one you've shown below. When you fall, the force will try to "flatten you" against the ground. Common sense tells me that in order to do that, a helmet with a brim like the one I've shown above will force your neck to bend until your jaw is flat against the ground and the angle required to do that seems immediately more severe to me than it would be with the "skater helmet" you've shown below. we DO have some companies that make a more full coverage helmet - the problem is that the skeleton frame racing helmets are seen as cooler by all except a certain fringe - with the amusing thing being that the particular fringe that likes the less "cool" helmets is also the fringe that is more likely to use the helmet for its intended purpose. I don't know if that type of helmet provides better protection against serious injury, but compared to the racing type helmet shown above that most cyclists use these days, it certainly seems at first glance that not only does it protect more of the head better agains scrapes because it just has better overall coverage, but it also hasn't got the protruding rim that could increase the risk of neck injury. Again, I don't know that it makes a difference, but common sense (to me at least) says it should. EDIT: Of course, if you take a nose dive like the dude in the picture, there are no guarantees that ANY helmet, no matter how good, will protect you from neck injury. Sometimes you just put yourself in a situation where even a belt and two pairs of suspenders still isn't enough to hold up your pants. the brim on my fire helmet sticks a good 3-4 inches out on the short dimension. if I were to fall on my side with my bike helmet on - my shoulder would still hit the ground before my helmet - and if I fell on my face or back, there is plenty of flex in my neck to accommodate the thickness of the helmet.
|
|
|
Post by kharnynb on Feb 6, 2015 4:53:03 GMT
As a dutch person, who has spent a lot of time cycling in finland as well, I refuse to wear a helmet. Luckily it isn't a law yet here, but to me it sounds as dumb as requiring pedestrians to wear helmets.
The Netherlands has less cycling related accidents and deaths per km traveled than either the UK, USA or Australia. The main reason is the fact that cyclists are everywhere and motorists are used to them and basic traffic design has incorporated them a lot better. If you want cyclists to be safe, make decent paths and/or lanes that they can use, avoid them sharing the road with either pedestrians or cars.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Feb 6, 2015 7:30:07 GMT
The best idea yet.
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Feb 6, 2015 12:46:26 GMT
As a dutch person, who has spent a lot of time cycling in finland as well, I refuse to wear a helmet. Luckily it isn't a law yet here, but to me it sounds as dumb as requiring pedestrians to wear helmets. The Netherlands has less cycling related accidents and deaths per km traveled than either the UK, USA or Australia. The main reason is the fact that cyclists are everywhere and motorists are used to them and basic traffic design has incorporated them a lot better. If you want cyclists to be safe, make decent paths and/or lanes that they can use, avoid them sharing the road with either pedestrians or cars. And, as we do here, have public schools teach the kids good cycling habits at a young age. Every public and most private schools in Denmark take a week out of the calendar each year for the first three years of school to address pedestrian and cyclist safety. They work with local police to have traffic cops come and teach the kids about the law of the road and put them through practical exercises, so they learn how the laws actually translate to real life scenarios. At the end of the week they have a "license" test. Not that they actually get a license, since there's no law requiring one, but the kids receive a diploma with a score, depending on how well they've done on the test and we all know that kids that young want nothing more than to be validated by authority figures, so it works pretty well. They've done this for the past 15 years and in the last 2-3 years, they've started inviting transport companies to come to the schools with their trucks to demonstrate for the kids just how hard it can actually be to keep an eye on everything from the cab of a truck. The kids get to see all the blind spots, how other kids on bikes can "hide" in them and learn where to position themselves so the driver can see them and they're not in any danger. Since this was started, the number of children and teens involved in serious accidents has declined conciderably. IIRC, there's only been a couple of serious/fatal accidents with kids all over the country for the past 5 years. Now we just need to teach the adults too. In comparison, 5 adults died in right turn accidents involving trucks and buses last year alone and 8 more died either in solo accidents or accidents involving other motor vehicles. Only 2 of those deaths resulted in motorists being prosecuted, as all the other ones were caused by bad decisions/illegal behavior by the cyclists themselves. Oh yeah. Only 2 of the 13 dead adults were under 25, suggesting that the early incarnations of the program 15 years ago still have effect on how people in their 20's behave in traffic today. The total annual tally of cycling-related traffic fatalities is still pretty much the same as it was 15 years ago, give or take one or two people each year. The difference is that an incredibly low amount of the fatalities count kids/teenagers/20-somethings that have been part of this program in school. The numbers used to be spread out evenly over the entire population. The majority of fatalities today are people of older generations (mine and older) that never had this training while they were kids, so if this program and this trend continues, then the total tally should go down by the time most of the cyclists left on the roads are the ones that received training as kids. As a side benefit, it seems that this early training also breeds better, or at least more careful and thoughtful young drivers. I'm not sure anyone has officially made this connection yet and if they have, it hasn't been publicly released, but the amount of accidents involving or directly caused by young drivers (18-21 year olds) has been rapidly declining for the past 3 years. The school cycling program started in 2000. The first participants were 6 years old at that time. 12 years later, just when these kids turn 18 and start to take their driver's licenses, accident rates for under 21's start to decline. As the 2001 and 2002 classes start to take their licenses, and the 2000 class turns 21, the rate declines even further. Coincidence?
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 6, 2015 15:04:02 GMT
As a dutch person, who has spent a lot of time cycling in finland as well, I refuse to wear a helmet. Luckily it isn't a law yet here, but to me it sounds as dumb as requiring pedestrians to wear helmets. The Netherlands has less cycling related accidents and deaths per km traveled than either the UK, USA or Australia. The main reason is the fact that cyclists are everywhere and motorists are used to them and basic traffic design has incorporated them a lot better. If you want cyclists to be safe, make decent paths and/or lanes that they can use, avoid them sharing the road with either pedestrians or cars. the other factor determined in a previous discussion of that is that the average speed of bicycle traffic in the netherlands is about half that of bicycle traffic in the US. also, currently, Oregon does not mandate bicycle helmets for adults - only for kids (I forget the cut-off age, but it is based on "old enough to make responsible choices")
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 6, 2015 15:07:52 GMT
My elementary school had a much more simple and direct bicycle safety class. one of my brother's classmates wobbled out into traffic and was struck by a car - which cost him a thumb.
I have no doubt the majority of the kids in the school went home with the mindset that if they were on a bicycle they would most certainly stay out of reach of cars.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Feb 7, 2015 8:09:37 GMT
I took a truck to school one day. Parked it in the playground. (and removed the keys...) Set out cones, and got a lot of kids to go stand in the cone'd off area. Then one by one they all got to go stand in the cab, climb into the seat and see if they could see anyone at all inside those cones....
It was the simplest way to educate them, and, so I have been told, was the most memorable day in cycle safety they had ever had.
|
|
|
Post by kharnynb on Feb 7, 2015 9:24:44 GMT
My issues tend to not be with truck drivers, most of the local ones are decent enough drivers and the international ones don't drive near cycling area's.
My biggest issue is with cars that go right and don't give way to cyclists and most of the time not even pedestrians. funnily they tend to drive certain german brands starting with a or b.
|
|
|
Post by wvengineer on Feb 8, 2015 13:53:05 GMT
not quite - unless your bicycle helmets have a different design than ours. So, you wouldn't say that this design... ...where the helmet has a brim that sticks out at least an inch from the head all the way around bears any similarity at all to a fireman's helmet in terms of there being a brim that can cause neck contusions? I know it's not as large a brim as the fireman's helmet, but it's there and it protrudes conciderably more from the head than the one you've shown below. When you fall, the force will try to "flatten you" against the ground. Common sense tells me that in order to do that, a helmet with a brim like the one I've shown above will force your neck to bend until your jaw is flat against the ground and the angle required to do that seems immediately more severe to me than it would be with the "skater helmet" you've shown below. One thing to note is that at least in the US, those visors on bike helmets are designed to break away. The designs vary, some are just held on by Velcro, others use plastic pins that shear off easily. I have broken a lot of visors off bike helmets in my day. You really can't compare a fireman's helmet visor that can take a lot of force and still be intact and a bike helmet visor that will break off at the with minimal force. I have seen several people in bike accidents and the visor just snaps off.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 8, 2015 15:31:49 GMT
So, you wouldn't say that this design... ...where the helmet has a brim that sticks out at least an inch from the head all the way around bears any similarity at all to a fireman's helmet in terms of there being a brim that can cause neck contusions? I know it's not as large a brim as the fireman's helmet, but it's there and it protrudes conciderably more from the head than the one you've shown below. When you fall, the force will try to "flatten you" against the ground. Common sense tells me that in order to do that, a helmet with a brim like the one I've shown above will force your neck to bend until your jaw is flat against the ground and the angle required to do that seems immediately more severe to me than it would be with the "skater helmet" you've shown below. One thing to note is that at least in the US, those visors on bike helmets are designed to break away. The designs vary, some are just held on by Velcro, others use plastic pins that shear off easily. I have broken a lot of visors off bike helmets in my day. You really can't compare a fireman's helmet visor that can take a lot of force and still be intact and a bike helmet visor that will break off at the with minimal force. I have seen several people in bike accidents and the visor just snaps off. right - the visor on a bicycle helmet is basically an eyeshade.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Feb 9, 2015 8:58:30 GMT
But by the time its snapped, the initial damage has been done, its already slightly deflected the force, and started a twist action.... How much?.. I dont know, but would that be enough.
On Motorcycle helmets, I have refused the ones with open face and a "peak" as sunshade, as the things catch the wind, bloody annoying having you head tilted back suddenly when you need to change head position to look around you.
The importance of chin guards will never ever be important enough however much its ignored. Kissing the tarmac, tarmac breakfast, eat dirt, however you term it, and I am sue there are many more, ... It HURTS like HELL... Especially if you get a damage there as well. I have a small "Z" shaped scar under my chin that shows up if I get a sun-tan that has been there over 40 yrs now that was caused by a tarmac breakfast ... a Pedal bike accident.
If I had my way, any Helmet should come down and cover the chin, and take a line from that all the way around your head. Either cut a hole for seeing out of or fit a proper visor, I dont care what you do at the front, but put a nose guard in there.
Anyone who has ever sneezed in a full face helmet knows why... You need a guard that covers the nose and deflects downwards.
Extra to that, a chin strap with the "seat belt" style extra safe clip that holds it on. Get one, and do a strong tug test to see if it lets go.
A Friend of mine owned a bike shop back in the 80's, I bought a few bikes from there. He tested all helmets, he wouldnt sell bad designs. Method of testing, bounce one off the floor and wall so it got at least 4 hard impacts and a lengthy skid... If anything came off, there had to be a good reason why, if it cracked, fail, if it split, fail. If he sold it, you knew it was good. He would get a free sample from the designers, test it, and report back to them... They used him as product research. Now they have crash test dummies....
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 9, 2015 15:13:49 GMT
But by the time its snapped, the initial damage has been done, its already slightly deflected the force, and started a twist action.... How much?.. I dont know, but would that be enough. On Motorcycle helmets, I have refused the ones with open face and a "peak" as sunshade, as the things catch the wind, bloody annoying having you head tilted back suddenly when you need to change head position to look around you. The importance of chin guards will never ever be important enough however much its ignored. Kissing the tarmac, tarmac breakfast, eat dirt, however you term it, and I am sue there are many more, ... It HURTS like HELL... Especially if you get a damage there as well. I have a small "Z" shaped scar under my chin that shows up if I get a sun-tan that has been there over 40 yrs now that was caused by a tarmac breakfast ... a Pedal bike accident. If I had my way, any Helmet should come down and cover the chin, and take a line from that all the way around your head. Either cut a hole for seeing out of or fit a proper visor, I dont care what you do at the front, but put a nose guard in there. Anyone who has ever sneezed in a full face helmet knows why... You need a guard that covers the nose and deflects downwards. Extra to that, a chin strap with the "seat belt" style extra safe clip that holds it on. Get one, and do a strong tug test to see if it lets go. A Friend of mine owned a bike shop back in the 80's, I bought a few bikes from there. He tested all helmets, he wouldnt sell bad designs. Method of testing, bounce one off the floor and wall so it got at least 4 hard impacts and a lengthy skid... If anything came off, there had to be a good reason why, if it cracked, fail, if it split, fail. If he sold it, you knew it was good. He would get a free sample from the designers, test it, and report back to them... They used him as product research. Now they have crash test dummies.... if your neck is going to be broken by the amount of force it takes to separate velcro or plastic shear pins, your helmet needs to secure to your shoulders.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Feb 10, 2015 6:58:02 GMT
If the initial impact is such that it compresses the contact points, those pins wont shear immediately.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 10, 2015 14:51:27 GMT
If the initial impact is such that it compresses the contact points, those pins wont shear immediately. and if you drop a guillotine blade on your toe just at the back of the steel toe cap, the steel toe cap will cut your toes off. the possibility for a perfect accident to defeat a safety feature does not invalidate the safety feature.
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Feb 11, 2015 0:10:00 GMT
Anyone who has ever sneezed in a full face helmet knows why... I know that can turn very serious very quickly in a real life scanario, but the image of that in my head still has me laughing so hard it hurts!
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Feb 11, 2015 6:01:05 GMT
Anyone who has ever sneezed in a full face helmet knows why... I know that can turn very serious very quickly in a real life scanario, but the image of that in my head still has me laughing so hard it hurts! Its not so much the obscured visor, its the trying your hardest NOT to shut your eyes before you sneeze that is an "Oh Cr@p" moment, especially at 120+ mph on the back straight of Cadwell Park (race track) ..... You grab a handful of brake and hope the guy behind can go around.
|
|