4mph? See James Cracknell video above. 70mph. That’s not even recent by today’s standards. Technology has improved enormously to include MIPS which reduces rotational forces. I can’t even take your replies seriously now. Most of the negative reports surrounding wearing a cycling helmet are that it may prevent people from cycling if they have to wear a helmet - why would you not want to be safer.
That's a silly argument, and nothing to to do with the conversation, however to try and put it back on track, statistically collisions increased with the introduction of seat belts, and one argument is that, like plastic hats, they give a false sense of security and cause people to take more risks. There is an argument that the best safety a feature a car could have is a large metal spike poking out of the centre of the steering wheel. It'd make people consider how quickly they may want to stop.
Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute - What are the limits of bike helmet protection? Bicycle helmets are designed as a compromise among impact management, cooling, weight, cost and many other factors. Within all of the constraints, current helmets do a good job. But no helmet can protect you against all impacts, even a motorcycle helmet. Under US standards bike helmets are tested in 2 meter drops that achieve about 14 miles per hour (22.5 kph) on the flat anvil. In Europe the drop height is only 1.5 meters. Why so low, when bicyclists frequently exceed 14 mph in forward speed? The typical road or trail bike crash involves a drop to pavement. The important energy in that crash is supplied by gravity, not by forward speed. Although forward speed can contribute some additional energy, the main force is the attraction of gravity, and the impact severity is determined by the height of your head above the pavement when the fall begins. It is gravity that determines how fast your helmet closes with the pavement. Some of the crash energy is often "scrubbed off" by hitting first with other body parts. The typical bicycle crash impact occurs at a force level equating to about 1 meter (3 feet) of drop, or a falling speed of 10 MPH. The rider's forward speed before the crash may be considerably higher than that, but the speed of the head closing with the ground, plus a component of the forward speed, less any energy "scrubbed off" in other ways, normally average out at about 10 MPH. So bike helmets are tested with a 2 meter (6.56 feet) drop. Motorcycle helmets are tested at 3 meters, about 17 mph. A really good bicycle helmet can handle that. As a 2009 study shows, helmets prevent between 63 and 88 per cent of brain injuries. Those are good odds. But that means that helmets did not prevent all brain injury for 12 to 37 percent of the riders. They are optimized to prevent life-threatening catastrophic brain injury, not the milder forms of concussion. If they are softened to prevent mild concussions they will compress too fast and bottom out in the more severe impacts. Today's helmets may or may not be perfect in striking the balance, but we know they work well. Still, every bike helmet sold in the US has a sticker inside warning you that "no helmet can protect the wearer from all foreseeable impacts." That sticker is required by law. If you have the misfortune to impact head first against a bridge abutment at the bottom of a screaming 55 mph downhill, your helmet will not prevent a head injury. That is not very important, since the rest of your body will be mush anyway. Fortunately that very seldom happens. Most of the cases where the helmet's limits are exceeded involve crashes with cars. Every rider understands that it is very important to avoid being hit by a car. Obviously a helmet covers only your head, leaving the rest of your body unprotected. In sum, your helmet will do a good job of protecting you in a fall, but the limits can be exceeded. It should be clear that nothing about wearing a helmet affects the need to ride safely, or the need for safe riding facilities.
You think a cycle helmet is designed to offer protection at 70mph, despite the manufacturers stated design spec, and still expect to be taken seriously.
Anyone can google to try to support their confirmation bias. Repeat that with an open mind and you'll find the responses to it.
Due to the conversation taking place, I thought some confirmation on how they were tested and their limitations would be beneficial, that particular post wasn't actually an attempt to support anything.
I didn’t say it was tested to 70mph. I said his head was hit by a wing mirror of a lorry travelling at 70mph. That demonstrates that a helmet offers protection above the testing requirements. Watch the video
It's bad enough driving a car on those Supertram tracks never mind a cycle. Sheffield was a place I visited frequently many years ago and you really had to take great care driving especially on a wet road. https://www.irwinmitchell.com/newsa...rs-of-supertram-following-supertram-accidents
My daughter works in Edinburgh city centre Early last year she was going to work and the road was shut off . It was a wet day and a girl had tried to go across the tram lines on her bike . She skidded into the tram lines got her wheels stuck and fell into an oncoming tram and killed instantly . Bikes shouldn't be near trans rails
I think you’re wrong. If you get hit by a car at speed a helmet isn’t going to do anything but give potential cyclists the impression that cycling is dangerous and put them off, raising emissions, pollution linked deaths and global warming. It’s not just cycling helmets either, motorcycle helmets are just as bad. Most people who die in motorcycle accidents would die anyway. Similar to seatbelts in cars, they’re stupid and cause more injuries than they prevent.
Whenever I cross the road I like to aim a loaded sawn-off shotgun at my head, just to remind me to check my shoelaces are tied and look both ways before I set off.
Can anyone point me to a study that proves cycling helmets don’t prevent or even make accidents worse? Because I’ve been looking, and there are many, but all I can find are results saying they prevented different amounts of injuries (between 30% to 80%). All I can find against cycle helmets is that they might make cyclists feel safer and take more risks, and they might put off prospective cyclists seeing helmets and giving them the impression that it’s more dangerous than it is. In other words, the only reason NOT not to wear a helmet is because some people are idiots. And indeed, if these no helmet types were to fall off and hit their head, it might actually have a positive outcome.
