Gresp15C

Oddly enough it was like that by social convention in the neighborhood where I grew up. It was a suburb of Detroit, and there was car traffic in the streets, but kids played in the streets too. We played street hockey and all sorts of games. When a car was coming, someone yelled "car" and we cleared out of the street. We all rode bikes, probably not very well behaved. But the drivers were careful.

Today, same neighborhood, there are a lot more cars, and more traffic. So the streets are parked up with cars, and they're big cars -- SUV's and pickup trucks. And no kids playing in the streets. A difference between then and now is simply a lot more traffic. Not just cars, but more delivery and service vehicles as well.

In the town where I live, there's a street along my commute where the residents appear to have reclaimed their street. A sequence of maybe 4 or 5 houses all have kids, they put up some signs asking cars to slow down, and the kids are out playing. Usually, among those houses, there are one or two adults out, or at least keeping an eye on things. And it seems to be respected by the drivers and cyclists like myself.

mr_pedro

We have experienced the same increase in traffic sinds the 50s, it does require city planning to achieve this. For example when I drive home, the largest part of the journey is on the highway and looks like this.

Then, the last 10 minutes before I get home, there is a major road, with no bikes allowed and separate bike path: link.

Then we start getting into the residential areas, but it is still a road that has traffic needing to go further than just this block: link. Narrow street, cobble stones, no separate bike lane. Speed limit is 15 mph, but streets are so narrow that cars can't really drive faster.

Then, for residential areas with only local traffic to that block, we sometimes see the one-road approach I mentioned above: link

wphamilton

I am explaining - not arguing actually - that we don't know *enough* about the cycling habits, not that we don't know something "exactly". The available data might fit either hypothesis.

If for example, most of the fatalities and serious injuries in the USA were from either commuters in high traffic areas and from casual riders (on a bike once or twice a year), then your hypothesis wouldn't necessarily hold. I'm not saying that is the case, but I AM saying that it's only one scenario out of a multitude of them. Without knowing the distribution of these, it's a mathematical fact that you can draw no specific conclusions from your (extremely) general data.

mr_bill

What you are arguing is that you are arguing. It’s all you do.

A few ounces of fabric will protect you though.

F’n 2020. 2019. 2018. 2017. 2016. 2015. 2014.

And that’s only everlasting gobstopper thread 2.


-mr. bill

wphamilton

It's funny when I peak under "This user is on your Ignore List." and it's always the same comment, with variations in phrasing.

mr_bill

365 posts. You’re number one!

You’ll never run out of nothing to say.

-mr. bill

jmcullough101

A newb here. Just to be clear, is this a thread debating whether helmet is useful at all in the event of accident? Is this a mask-debate thing in cycling world?

alanf

Another more traditional model:

Gresp15C

It is simply the repository of all helmet related thread.

wphamilton

Why is the thread dead? Did everyone decide to agree?

Mods, I guess you can unsticky and close this now

invalid.user

This subject is not as black and white as either side claims. What I see in this thread isn't people arguing whether helmets increase safety (to any degree, from marginal to significant), I think we can all agree that they do. What I do see are mainly 2 more reasonable/logical sides that people are getting too defensive about:

A: Helmets increase safety, and even if that increase is marginal, people should wear them, because any increase in safety is a good thing.

B: Helmets increase safety, but the increase is too minute to warrant the burden of regulation/mandating their use.

I also believe that there is a side C, that people like wphamilton (correct me if I'm wrong) are arguing: Helmets increase safety, but the increase is marginal, and we would benefit from focusing our attention on other lower hanging fruit, such as infrastructure, enforcing road laws, etc.

I suppose there must also a side D that counter-argues C: Sure, there are lower hanging fruits in cycling safety that we could tackle, but that this stance is a false dilemma in that we could tackle those issues AND encourage helmet use.

Very few people in this thread are arguing that helmets are completely useless and do nothing whatsoever to increase safety. Sure, some have brought up helmet safety concerns, such as strangulation, etc., but those are few and far between. I think we can all agree that helmets do increase safety, but that this discussion is far more nuanced. No side is "stupid" for having their opinion, because most of those opinions hold at least some merit.

As for me, personally, I agree with wphamilton, that helmets have unfortunately stolen the spotlight when it comes to cycling safety. Additionally, 'cycling' is a vast category, and riding styles differ significantly. For my riding style (almost exclusively on dedicated paved paths in the city), I don't think a helmet is crucial. Forcing me to wear a helmet is tantamount to forcing every car to come with a fire extinguisher, racing cage, and forcing all drivers to wear helmets. Sure, it would probably increase safety marginally, but it is not worth the burden it would place on people. However, when it comes to race tracks (for cars), many enforce helmet/extinguisher/roll cage usage, just as many bike parks enforce helmet usage for cyclists. In those cases of an increased likelihood of injury, I fully support mandatory helmet regulations.

Also, after reading since page 115 of this thread, I'm surprised mr_bill has not been banned. He contributes very little to the discussion, and many of his posts are outright trolling.

wphamilton

Close enough, no argument from me. I involve myself here mainly just to provide objective facts and reason, as much as I'm able, and people are going to make up their own minds about what to do with it.

mr_pedro

Regarding your point D, the downside to focusing on helmet usage is that the underlying premise is always that cycling is a dangerous activity. That discourages people from using their bikes for daily tasks, just as a means of transport.
Indeed it is a totally different story when cycling close to your limits, e.g. as a sport, a helmet becomes much more sensible to wear.

invalid.user

Not that I disagree with you, but just to play devil's advocate for a moment, I don't think you can make that argument because the same can be said about seatbelts and cars, for example. To make this claim, you have to have an inherently prejudiced view of helmets, or at least of their burden on cyclists. Some see helmets as something as natural as tying a shoe lace, and those people would never agree with you that helmets discourage people from using their bicycles. However, others see helmets as a major inconvenience, and a large burden on cyclists, and those people would definitely agree with your premise that generalized helmet enforcement will discourage some people from cycling.

Don't get me wrong, I'm just trying to present a counter argument. As I said in my last post, I have the same opinion as you when it comes to helmets; they should be worn in certain scenarios, but should not be enforced for every type of bicycle riding. I personally don't wear a helmet when I'm going on dedicated paved cycling infrastructure or MUP.

mr_pedro

Well, it is exactly that argument that the Dutch cycling federation makes for not promoting helmet wear for regular daily cycling. The claim is even that the health benefits for the entire population from more cycling, outweigh the negative elements of not wearing helmets.


The perceived deterrent is not so much the inconvenience of a helmet, but the message that cycling is dangerous. Especially if you want to promote helmet usage without it being mandatory, you only have the safety argument. Seatbelts are so efficient at preventing damage in almost any car crash that they are mandatory and people can be compelled to wear them just to prevent fines.

wphamilton

Possibly both of those. Whatever the reasons, after Australia imposed mandatory helmet laws, and then made them more stringent, we have some data about that. Some of the participation data is "limited and inconsistent" but nevertheless plausible data.

In a nutshell, cycling participation declined but total cyclist injuries and head injuries increased. Fatalities decreased. We could argue about why and how, but here are the facts:
Pedal cyclist deaths and hospitalizations (Australian government)

thook

i've been pleased with my nutcase. got it on year end close out....cheap

fabiofarelli

The Golden Boy 

I have a Bern- It's a very nice hat.

New Hat by Dave The Golden Boy, on Flickr

gios 

White Giro Synthe. The red Katusha is second.

gearbasher

I only use Limar helmets. I bought one before they were available here in the U.S. It was my first helmet and was advertised as being "The Worlds Lightest Helmet". That first one saved me from becoming a vegetable or dead. That created brand loyalty for for me.

mcgregorj 

I've been using a POC Omne Air Spin for the last year, and really like it. Definitely worth waiting for REI's 20% off coupons though!

Tony P.

Smart move. Helmet makers, retailers and others have been suggesting a 5-year expiration on helmets but that's just not the case. Old undamaged helmets are at least as good as new ones. Here's some information published in the Journal of Biomechanical Engineering. Basically, it shows that old helmets (up to 26 years old) without damage provided protection.

Helmet Impact Performance Proven to Hold Up for Decades

There are reasons to replace your helmet, but simple age is not one of them.

Extensive testing of used (but not crashed) bicycle helmets shows that the foam liners retain their performance over many years. MEA Forensic announced at a May ASTM F08.53 technical meeting the results of their testing of 675 bicycle helmets, some as old as 26 years. "There is no justification for two to ten year replacement recommendations based on impact performance," said MEA's Alyssa DeMarco.

MEA and collaborator Collision Analysis collected 1,500 used helmets from consumers and eliminated any that showed damage or did not have date of manufacture stickers. The helmets studied had dates that ranged from 1987 to 2013. They crash tested them at 3 m/s (a drop of 1.5 ft.) and 6.2 m/s (a drop of 2 meters--the CPSC standard drop) on a flat anvil in the dry ambient condition. There were only four that exceeded the 300g maximum threshold: three of the oldest models made to meet only the old ANSI standard, and one newer model that had been recalled. So 671 of the helmets passed the current CPSC impact performance standard.

MEA's analysis showed that there was no significant impact performance change with age. Their 26 year data including all 675 helmets tested produced only a 0.7g per year increase in impact readings at the higher drop height. On average, road helmet models produced results 40g lower than skate-style models, and extra-small helmets were 21g lower than large helmets. Lower g's registered in the headform means less shock passed through to the head, but since they are averages they may not apply for a particular helmet model.

After crash testing the helmets on a standard test rig, MEA took core samples from an uncrashed area of 63 of the helmets and tested them at the equivalent of a 6.2 m/s helmet impact. This generated data based solely on the foam performance. They collected stress and strain data related to aging of the foam. Again, the findings indicate that helmet liner foam does not deteriorate with age.

MEA usually publishes their studies in a peer-reviewed journal, but that can be a slow process.

This is the first time anyone has applied rigorous science to assessing the effects of age on helmet foam liners. It is a welcome antidote to the strident marketing claims that foam deteriorates with age. There are other reasons to replace a helmet--crash damage, strap deterioration, improving fit--but simple aging of the foam liner is not one of them.

April, 2016 - the study is now published in the Journal of Biomechanical Engineering

thinktubes 

I just replaced my 10+ yo helmet with a Bell Formula. I like it a lot.

Light, comfy, with good ventilation.

johnnyace 

I don't know about favorite (I actually hate helmets, but I like my brain more than I hate helmets, so...), but I just today replaced my 35 year old Giro with a new Specialized Align II. Stuck with purple-ish, though.


Giro helmet, circa 1986

Specialized Align II, circa 2021

The old and the new...