Swedish safety research recommends three helmets out of 23 tested

Sounds rather like an example of an association fallacy.

Me binary you binary with your same old dull ‘ binary ‘ view.

Another incoherent sentence.

eburtthebike wrote:

...you're just another pseudo-road safety group flogging helmets.

For someone who talks such a lot of common sense on other subjects you have such a massive blindspot on this issue. The RST is an independent charity that runs (through a subsidiary) the National Driver Retraining Scheme (i.e. speed awareness courses) and invests all profits from that into a range of road safety research. You can disagree with them by all means but accusing them of "flogging helmets" is absurd.

Joeinpoole wrote:

Cycling helmets are designed to pass EU standard EN1078, whilst also being as light and comfortable as possible.

It is hardly surprising, when you subject helmets to tests that they were not designed for, that some helmets do worse/better than others.

I don't wear a helmet  myself but I'd assume that most who do wear it to cushion impacts rather than rotational forces. Is there any evidence that 'rotational forces' are a significant issue in KSI incidents? If not then what is the point of this study?

People who wear a helmet do so because they want to be safe(r) - although clearly the desire to be safe is weighed against comfort and convenience as otherwise we'd all be wearing full-face motorbike helmets and body armour the whole time (including while out for a walk around the park).

One problem with standards like EN1078 is that they set a pretty low bar and don't do a very good job of accurately assessing the amount of safety provided in real crashes. I can't promise that the testing protocol used does a better job, although if you read their report, the whole point was they think it does more closely reflect real crashes.

Another problem is that the standards are pass or fail - there is no graduation. Even if you only care about cushioning impacts as per the EN1078 test protocol, some helmets do that better than others.

And yes, there is substantial evidence that rotational forces are a serious issue in crashes - see e.g. this article: https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/latest-news/concussion-life-saving-fa...

OnYerBike wrote:

One problem with standards like EN1078 is that they set a pretty low bar and don't do a very good job of accurately assessing the amount of safety provided in real crashes.

The Snell Foundation test is a better test than EN1078 so I suggest that helmets built to pass that are a better choice. I'm not surprised that Specialised Align scored well in this testing since they are built to pass Snell.

I owe my life to a Specialised Propero II that I destroyed, K&S Air Ambulance, and Kings College Hospital A&E Surgeons.

Your milage may vary, however no part of life is improved with reduced brain function.

I'm very much liking the POC Kortal Race Mips, which doesn't score particularly well on this test, only just above average, but does come up to Dutch NTA 8776 electric bicycle standard, which seems to be a stringent test, meant to help more at speed.  Who knows though, I like POCs ethos, and their XL/XXL does seem to fit my rather large head, even with a thermal scull cap, well my Trbec Race Mips does anyway, and the amount of coverage looks good.

OnYerBike wrote:

Joeinpoole wrote:

Cycling helmets are designed to pass EU standard EN1078, whilst also being as light and comfortable as possible.

It is hardly surprising, when you subject helmets to tests that they were not designed for, that some helmets do worse/better than others.

I don't wear a helmet  myself but I'd assume that most who do wear it to cushion impacts rather than rotational forces. Is there any evidence that 'rotational forces' are a significant issue in KSI incidents? If not then what is the point of this study?

People who wear a helmet do so because they want to be safe(r) - although clearly the desire to be safe is weighed against comfort and convenience as otherwise we'd all be wearing full-face motorbike helmets and body armour the whole time (including while out for a walk around the park).

One problem with standards like EN1078 is that they set a pretty low bar and don't do a very good job of accurately assessing the amount of safety provided in real crashes. I can't promise that the testing protocol used does a better job, although if you read their report, the whole point was they think it does more closely reflect real crashes.

Another problem is that the standards are pass or fail - there is no graduation. Even if you only care about cushioning impacts as per the EN1078 test protocol, some helmets do that better than others.

And yes, there is substantial evidence that rotational forces are a serious issue in crashes - see e.g. this article: https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/latest-news/concussion-life-saving-fa...

Some people only wear a helmet because of incessant nagging about it from their Significant Other...

A lot of real crashes on the road are falling from cycling speed. E.g. in groups and often when one hits a pothole. Or when a car pulls out from a side junction causing you to hit it at whatever speed you are cycling at. 

I know of and have been unfortunate to have personally seen such crashes.

Other reasons include slipping on dirt, gravel or ice that was on the road. 

Yes, if a cat hits you at high speed you are likely dead anyway. But thankfully most falls are not like that. 

Holland: much lower speed, upright cycles (can see where going and slower). No downhills. Great infrastructure, little mixing with other road users. I know a Dutch cyclist who came to the UK and he immediately wanted a helmet as he felt so unsafe here compared to Holland. He even thought about giving it up at first he found it so scary. Still wears his helmet today. Yet never wears one in Holland. It's list way safer there, the lower speeds of everyone, the lack of potholes, the upright town bikes. A lacks of cars in the way to dodge (e..g pulling out in front of you causing you to go OTB). 

All this makes me think none of the "you don't need a helmet" comments I have seen here make any kind of common sense. Yet oddly get lots of upvotes. 

Joeinpoole wrote:

Is there any evidence that 'rotational forces' are a significant issue in KSI incidents? If not then what is the point of this study?

Well, it has been shown by experiments on monkees that rotational injuries are more dangerous than direct impacts, and since almost all road collision impacts will involve some degree of rotation, then the answer to your question is yes.  Helmets increase the risk of rotational injuries and MIPS has not been proven to reduce that risk, with some research showing no benefit.

I'm so sorry, what was the point of your question?

"has been shown by experiments on monkees that rotational injuries are more dangerous than direct impacts" you can't really make claims like that without including links to the article or paper that includes the evidence for those claims.

Mickey, or Davey, maybe Peter?

just seen on Twitter "hi folks I see you're loading up your new 50" TV set - you won't mind dropping it to the ground will you? It's ok, it's got its polystyrene around it. No? how about you hold it up and I'll drive into it?"

Double.

Wibbly wrote:

"has been shown by experiments on monkees that rotational injuries are more dangerous than direct impacts" you can't really make claims like that without including links to the article or paper that includes the evidence for those claims.

It's here somewhere cyclehelmets.org I just can't bothered to find it for you.

eburtthebike wrote:

Well, it has been shown by experiments on monkees that rotational injuries are more dangerous than direct impacts

I know their career was a while ago, but don't they still earn enough from royalties that they don't need to volunteer for this kind of research to make ends meet?

mdavidford wrote:

eburtthebike wrote:

Well, it has been shown by experiments on monkees that rotational injuries are more dangerous than direct impacts

I know their career was a while ago, but don't they still earn enough from royalties that they don't need to volunteer for this kind of research to make ends meet?

I really thought my wife was joking when she said she wanted to see a Monkees tribute band play in Switzerland.

And then I saw her face, now I’m in Geneva...

hawkinspeter wrote:

mdavidford wrote:

eburtthebike wrote:

Well, it has been shown by experiments on monkees that rotational injuries are more dangerous than direct impacts

I know their career was a while ago, but don't they still earn enough from royalties that they don't need to volunteer for this kind of research to make ends meet?

I really thought my wife was joking when she said she wanted to see a Monkees tribute band play in Switzerland.

And then I saw her face, now I’m in Geneva...

Chortle😂

eburtthebike wrote:

Well, it has been shown by experiments on monkees that rotational injuries are more dangerous than direct impacts...

Crikey, I must admit I wouldn't shed a tear if I never heard Daydream Believer again but using them as crash test dummies is a bit harsh.

I wear a helmet to cushion my head in the event of me having an accident all by myself. If I get hit by 2 tonnes of steel travelling at 60 mph then the helmet is going to do f-all, the shattered bones and bleeding internal organs will render the helmet pointless.

agreed-  they could all be amazingly good, but if they are equally amazingly good, none gets recommended.

sounds like a flawed model.

Sounds almost deliberately designed to spike the sales or a few random manufacturers each year.  Pretty pointless criteria for consumers to make an informe choice.  Surely just better than average would have been good enough to improve safety?

Equally, they could all be crap, but any that are sufficiently less crap than the average crapness would still be 'recommended'.

if you open the link to the full report - more of which should be visible in teh above articel - you will see there is a significant range of results