Bicycle helmets are mostly designed for slow, vertical falls. The testing methodology is to drop the weighted (11 lbs/5 kilos) helmet from a height of 1.2 meters onto a round anvil and/or a curb-shaped anvil and from a height of 2 meters onto a flat anvil. The headform measures the amount of impact attenuation when the helmet comes to rest, expressed in joules. A helmet which “passes the test” can permit a maximum of 98 joules at the headform. Failure threshold is 300 g, which happens to be the level at which you can expect to lose consciousness, and probably suffer some injury which hopefully will not be permanent.
Real world impacts are going to look a lot different from the testing methodology in that they are much more likely to include: multiple impacts, irregularly shaped “anvils,” and rotational forces (think crack the whip or water skiing outside of the wake when the boat turns). Real world impacts are also much more likely to occur with some significant horizontal speed (which has both advantages and disadvantages).
I bought my first helmet in about 1988. It was a thick styrofoam, poorly vented Specialized helmet which had a nylon fabric cover stretched over it and bore certification stickers to the 1984 Snell and ANSI standards. The unfinished styrofoam design was abandoned within five years for the hard shell finish due to the observation of increased neck and brain injury related to rotational forces exerted upon a helmet which was too “grippy” when it contacted pavement.
Riding a bicycle can improve cardiovascular fitness and improve Body Mass Index, but it doesn’t change certain hard-wired physiological traits or cognitive functions that assist in making you a “safer” bicyclist. We all have differences in strength (including the composition of slow-twitch vs. fast-twitch muscles), balance, visual acuity, (including depth perception and ability to detect motion), hearing, proprioception, and judgment, to name just a few. I have seen at least a half a dozen bicyclists in the past week, after dark, wearing a helmet, with no lights on the front or the back of their bicycle. I have told two of them they’re going to need a bigger helmet.
As stated, I am opposed to head injuries and particularly traumatic brain injuries. My brain has remained a solid second on my list of favorite organs since adolescence. If I’m ever in a bicycle accident with a car, I want to be dressed like the guy in “The Hurt Locker.” Most studies of the efficacy of bicycle helmets have found them to be effective at reducing the risk of head injury. In my estimation, that takes the risk down from remote to infinitesimal.
Mandatory helmet laws increase the rate of helmet use, but reduce the number of cyclists on the road (Australia, New Zealand, Canada - British Columbia and Nova Scotia).
More cyclists on the road make all cyclists safer. In 1994, 796 bicyclists were killed in crashes with motor vehicles; in 2009, 630 bicyclists were killed in crashes with motor vehicles (-21%). Trips by bicycle have increased from 0.7% in 1990 to 1.0% in 2009 (+43%).
Tags:
You both understand I have a head that's pretty difficult to replicate?
H3N3 said:That would be great . . . we could have a lot of fun by swapping helmets and confusing our friends and coworkers.
Lee Diamond said:What if I make you a helmet that looks exactly like your existing head?
I know if won't solve the added weight, or larger size and such, but from a distance, you would look the same, if not somewhat...swolen.
Kevin Conway said:Almost anything I have to say as lawyer isn't going to get posted on the chainlink. The fact that available insurers are taking steps to exclude coverage of events such as yours' on the basis of helmet usage is wrong. I guess I'm limited to the planning rides.
Lee Diamond said:There are several places one can get insurance to do bike events. All of them that I am aware of require the use of helmets as part of their policy. Speaking personally, without insurance, I can't do my rides hence the requirement. If someone gets injured on a ride and they aren't wearing one, well....you're the lawyer.
fuck helmits u die u die and theres no one to blame but ur self fro not wearing one
I also think wearing a helmet during group rides is a GREAT IDEA. Setting aside the insurance issues organizers face (which are real), there are so many people in those rides that have no concept of how to ride in a group, that the danger of some moron in a group ride doing something that brings me down is probably 1000 times greater than the danger I face riding to the grocery store.
That being said, I don't want mandatory helmet laws, for the reasons that others have cited. I don't want to create barriers to having someone ride a bike. With a group ride, though, that's a different ticket.
if only they made bacon-flavored helmets!!!!!
Kevin Conway said:I have already conceded the argument that a bicycle helmet provides some measure of protection not afforded to an unprotected head. I wear a helmet sometimes and I hope that anytime I crash, I am wearing a helmet. My issue relates more to the marketing of bicycling and the benefits that everyone derives from having more cyclists on the road (helmeted and unhelmeted). Mandatory helmet use reduces the number of cyclists and sends the message that danger lurks around every corner. I prefer to see cycling promoted as an everyday activity that everyone can enjoy and from which everyone can benefit.
I also eat bacon.
Funny thing about this picture is that even in the "Right" picture he's wearing the helmet backwards!
"Mandatory helmet laws increase the rate of helmet use, but reduce the number of cyclists on the road." Kevin do you have a citation for this?
I think I am for mandatory helmet laws. (I could perhaps be talked down from this position.)
Thanks for this interesting post Kevin.
Brendan
I recognize the irony in the fact that an Active Trans ride is exactly the type of ride where I'd wear a helmet (for all of the reasons you stated), but I wouldn't participate in the ride because the requirement of a helmet has the broader effect of reducing the number of cyclists on the road.
Joe Studer said:
I also think wearing a helmet during group rides is a GREAT IDEA. Setting aside the insurance issues organizers face (which are real), there are so many people in those rides that have no concept of how to ride in a group, that the danger of some moron in a group ride doing something that brings me down is probably 1000 times greater than the danger I face riding to the grocery store.
That being said, I don't want mandatory helmet laws, for the reasons that others have cited. I don't want to create barriers to having someone ride a bike. With a group ride, though, that's a different ticket.
I guess what I'm not understanding is how requiring a helmet at an event causes fewer cyclists on the road?
Take a look at the articles in reply to Brendan's request. Many countries, provinces and some states that have enacted mandatory helmet laws have experienced a reduction in the number of cyclists on the road. The insurance industry-mandated policy of Active Trans to require helmets at Active Trans events is a de facto mandatory helmet law. Particularly interesting in light of Ethan's post in which he revealed that ATA opposed state helmet legislation this year.
Liz said:I guess what I'm not understanding is how requiring a helmet at an event causes fewer cyclists on the road?
262 members
203 members
269 members
63 members
172 members