Road Cycling Essentials

Status
Not open for further replies.
Some of the comments people are making about helmets are astounding.

HELMETS DO NOT INCREASE SAFETY FOR CYCLISTS. Reporting the misconception that cyclists should or must wear helmets is very damaging to the proliferation of cycling - increasing the number of cyclists is the most proven way of increasing safety.
Click to expand...

This is clearly coming from a cyclist, yet 100% of UK sportives require as a rule that all entrants wear a helmet, and the entire industry as a whole promotes the wearing of helmets. How it's damaging to cycling is beyond me.

Plenty more here: http://www.confused.com/car-insurance/motorists-v-cyclists/cycling-issues-video

There are some hilarious ones. For example:

Adam is annoyed by cyclists who don't wear helmets; why? the only reason i can think of is that he intends to hit a cyclist but doesn't really want to kill them
Click to expand...

Seeing a pregnant woman smoke annoys me. It doesn't harm or affect me in any way, and it doesn't mean I want to kill them, it's just annoying to see someone with low regard.
 
The reality is a lot of cyclists are mongos. That is why there are mongo bikes out there that people buy. The sort of person who wears a helmet but it's sitting over the back of their head. WAY TO GO MANNNNNNNNN WAY TO GO!

Most 'proper' cyclist wear a helmet these days, some of the older guys 50/60+ don't wear them but that's because they never used to anyway.

I think a more strict US test tests how well it can take an impact to a kerb or a certain sized object.
 
[DOD]Asprilla;20634829 said:
=Helmets are not rated to provide any protection at all in case of accidents at any greater speed than about 15mph.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but i very much doubt that as soon as you go above 15mph the protection of a helmet drops off to zero.

Either way, i go through roundabouts and approach junctions below those speeds, so if i'm safe during those moments then it's still clearly a massive benefit to wear a helmet.
 
touch said:
Well, post your source for this so we can all see it and decide for ourselves if the benefits are worth the risks.
Click to expand...

Google it yourself. This, as shown here, is a contentious issue and there are thousands os sites pages and discussion about it. Most of the intesting information relates to arguments in Australia where helmet usage was made compulsory some years ago.
 
touch said:
I have and i cant find the scientific study which says that helmets have no benefit above 15mph, do you still have the link?
Click to expand...

Ok Mr pedantic, go find one that says they are. You won't find one that says there is no protection above a certain limit because no serious scientific document would every say such a thing. That's not how responsible research works.

My point is that helmets are built to a budget and the British and European Standards they conform to are the ones I've stated. Anyone who thinks the helmet companies are going to make them stronger than that are deluding themselves.

If you compare a motorcycle helmet to a bike helmet there just isn't any comparison in protection and yet they are both supposed to protect their users in collisions on the road.

I have nothing against helmets and I wear one whenever I'm on the bike and on balance I think I'm much better off with one than without, but to simply say helmets are better for you because it's a helmet is just foolish.

Back in the early 90's Audi designed a driver safety system called Procon10. It put the driver's seat on an air ram so that in case of an impact it moved the driver backwards, away from the dashboard and nasty chest / head impact. It went into production and can be found on thousands of Audi 80s, 90s and 100s on the road today.

Of course, until it was used in real world conditions no one had realised that moving the driver's seat backwards quickly tended to break the legs of anyone sat behind them.

Law of unintended consequences means that not everything designed to protect you is necessarily safe or helpful in all circumstances.

I knew I should't have waded into this; helmet debates always end up as a holy war between those who are willing to look at their effectiveness and those who put their fingers in their ears and go 'Lalalalala I can't hear you! It's a helmet so it must be safe'.
 
[DOD]Asprilla;20637441 said:
My point is that helmets are built to a budget and the British and European Standards they conform to are the ones I've stated.
Click to expand...
Why would helmets be different from anything else? Are cars not built to a budget and various standards? If they all just meet these standards and no more, why do NCAP give different ratings?


[DOD]Asprilla;20637441 said:
Ok Mr pedantic, go find one that says they are. You won't find one that says there is no protection above a certain limit because no serious scientific document would every say such a thing. That's not how responsible research works.
Click to expand...

This lack of research is the problem. This is what Russ was asking for a few posts ago but people keep quoting completely irrelevant studies on how close cars pass as justification of saying that helmets are useless.

What about backing up your computer? The more times you take a backup, the more read/write actions you perform on your backup media, so therefor there is slightly more chance it will become corrupted. To me, this is similar to the argument that you are more likely to get knocked off if you are wearing a helmet. IMO the benefits of having recent backups and wearing a helmet far outweigh the risks that they pose.

Anyway, i will continue to wear my helmet until i see any evidence to suggest that it doesnt actually carry any benefit.
 
Last edited:
touch said:
Why would helmets be different from anything else? Are cars not built to a budget and various standards? If they all just meet these standards and no more, why do NCAP give different ratings?
Click to expand...

I'm stating that the helmet is rated to be effective at protecting your head from static fall from 2m and no more. A car impact is likely to carry much, much greater force than that and so the effectiveness of a helmet in such a scenario should be questioned and not relied upon.

touch said:
This lack of research is the problem. This is what Russ was asking for a few posts ago but people keep quoting completely irrelevant studies on how close cars pass as justification of saying that helmets are useless.
Click to expand...

No they didn't. They stated, as the research does, that cyclists who wear helmets tend to take more risks and drivers take more risks with them thus increasing the likelihood of an accident.

No-one has said helmets are useless.
 
Last edited:
[DOD]Asprilla;20637718 said:
I'm stating that the helmet is rated to be effective at protecting your head from static fall from 2m and no more. A car impact is likely to carry much, much greater force than that and so the effectiveness of a helmet in such a scenario should be questioned and not relied upon.
Click to expand...

Yes, and thats what i am doing. I am questioning the effectiveness of a helmet in such a scenario. So far, i have found no answers to the question.

My point was that some cars (and many, many other things) are clearly over-engineered well above the standards required, so it is possible that some helmets are also. But the lack of information means i dont know.
 
Last edited:
There's a simple experiment to resolve this. Go outside and at jogging speed take a dive onto a road surface ensuring you land on your head. Now go and do the same with your crash helmet on. Compare the injuries.

In one situation you'll have a sore neck; in the other you'll have a torn scalp needing some stitches, a very nasty bump and a sore neck. I'll leave you all to decide which is which :)
 
touch said:
My point was that some cars (and many, many other things) are clearly over-engineered well above the standards required, so it is possible that some helmets are also.
Click to expand...

Surely the fact that a car is effectively a massive cage around the driver and can be built to protect the driver very well in a high percentage of accident possibilities is one of the reasons it can be over engineered, as well as the fact that it can be used as a marketing point.

I'm not sure there's enough money in cycle helmets to over engineer them, without adding weight. A helmet also only covers a very small amount of a persons body, a very simple way to "over engineer" them would be to turn them into full face helmets, except nobody would buy or wear one on the streets.

In my opinion, to over engineer a road cycling helmet would be like a car manufacturer over engineering a safety device that will keep a car driver uninjured in the case of hitting a lampost at 50mph side on.
 
First ride this morning after my caudal injection* on Wednesday. Took it easy and probably should have used the geared bike, but meh, you only live once eh? Doesn't seem to have aggravated it at all, which is good news and I can run on it as well.

*steroid injection into base of spine.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom