Building a Better Bike Helmet Out of Paper 317
An anonymous reader writes "Inspired by nature, a London man believes the solution to safer bike helmets is to build them out of paper. '"The animal that stood out was the woodpecker. It pecks at about ten times per second and every time it pecks it sustains the same amount of force as us crashing at 50 miles per hour," says Surabhi. "It's the only bird in the world where the skull and the beak are completely disjointed, and there's a soft corrugated cartilage in the middle that absorbs all the impact and stops it from getting a headache." In order to mimic the woodpecker's crumple zone, Anirudha turned to a cheap and easily accessible source — paper. He engineered it into a double-layer of honeycomb that could then be cut and constructed into a functioning helmet. "What you end up with is with tiny little airbags throughout the helmet," he says.'"
Tiny little airbags like the polystyrene foam? (Score:5, Insightful)
I wonder how this compares? Does this absorb more energy?
Re:Tiny little airbags like the polystyrene foam? (Score:5, Interesting)
If I had to guess I'd say polystyrene is slower to compress and returns some of the energy (elastic deformation), while cardboard tends to deform permanently, absorbing all of the energy. As for being "disposable", I've read that conventional helmets should be discarded after an impact; these make sure you do.
Re:Tiny little airbags like the polystyrene foam? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe the NFL should consider this for the longstanding concussion problem that's been getting a lot of publicity lately. They could afford to throw them away as often as needed.
Re:Tiny little airbags like the polystyrene foam? (Score:4, Informative)
Helmets are the _source_ of NFL concussion problem, not the solution.
http://www.pelhamrugby.com/2012/05/08/concussions-american-football-versus-rugby/ [pelhamrugby.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I can't imagine concussions going down if the players left off their helmets. However, if you mean that the rules should be changed so that helmets are no longer needed, (American) Football would be a fundamentally different game. Or, as the article you cite neatly puts it, "Football is a collision sport, while rugby is a contact sport." I think people who prefer Rugby rules already have a very nice game that uses them.
Get these overly critical people a dictionary (Score:2)
The important thing in this case is the energy absorbed - which can be derived from the relationship between force and displacement and not just one of those. So it's related to the area under the force versus displacement curve (or directly found from the area under the stress strain curve). Or you could just hit it with
Re:Tiny little airbags like the polystyrene foam? (Score:5, Insightful)
15 mph = 6.7 m/s. 220 Gs = 220*9.81 m/s^2 = 2158 m/s^2. To generate 220 Gs decelerating from 6.7 ms, you need to decelerate in 6.7 / 2158 = 0.003 sec.
At a constant deceleration, that's a distance of v^2 = 2ad, or d = v^2 / 2a = (6.7)^2 / (2*220*9.81) = 0.0104 meters = 1 cm.
To generate 70 Gs, you need to decelerate in 6.7 m/s / (70*9.81 m/s^2) = 0.0098 sec.
At a constant deceleration, that's d = v^2 / 2a = (6.7)^2 / (2*70*9.81) = 0.0327 meters = 3.3 cm.
The speed at which polystyrene springs back is so slow you almost need time lapse photography to watch it (crush a styrofoam coffee cup and see how long it takes to uncrush itself). The decreased G forces are entirely due to the distance the structure collapses. Polystyrene is a stiffer, closed-cell material with limited deformation due to the cells resisting popping (indeed, breakage is usually due to adjacent cells shearing apart, rather than the cells popping). While cardboard is essentially open cell and more likely to collapse its entire thickness.
That's a double-edged sword though. The cardboard helmet is more likely to be ruined or structurally compromised from lesser impacts, like having the bike fall on top of it while you're transporting it in the back of your truck. Stuff the polystyrene helmet can survive because such impacts do not have sufficient force to pop the cells or shear adjacent cells. The air in the cells just gets compressed more, and springs the cell back to shape once the load is removed. Since the cardboard is open cell, it has to rely entirely upon the paper's ability to spring back to shape to survive such loads intact.
And (judging from the pictures) if you hit at the wrong angle, you can cause the cardboard to collapse by twisting and falling over rather than crushing, thus greatly reducing its protection. Standardized tests are great in that they're reproducible, but they suck because by always testing in the exact same manner you allow designers to optimize for the test instead of for real-life conditions. i.e. You can improve performance in tested orientations by reducing crash protection in non-tested orientations. The more solid structure of polystyrene allows forces to be better transmitted between cells thus helping even out its crash protection at all orientations. The cardboard helmet looks like it's traded off that uniformity for anisotropic crash protection which peaks in the orientations which are being tested (longitudinal and transverse). A better design would mesh the cardboard into triangles, not squares. Squares are notorious for collapsing without using any of the structural material's innate strength. It's why the most common fiberglass weaves are 0/30/60 degrees, or 0/90 layered at 30 or 45 degree increments so you're not putting all your strength along just 0 and 90 degrees like this cardboard helmet does).
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, FTA, this absorbs 4 times more energy in a typical collision than a styrofoam helmet.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Tiny little airbags like the polystyrene foam?
I like bubble wrap better (for reasons not related tp bike helmets). Besides, I assume "a soft corrugated cartilage" collected from the interstice between woodpeckers' skull and beak would do the job better.
(ducks)
Yeah - the problem with the bubble wrap helmets is that people got addicted to popping the bubbles in the wrap so the helmets didn't work. It's that "I know I shouldn't be doing this but i can't stop" thing.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually that's the entire point of the collapsable foam and this thing - to absorb a lot of the impact that is going to make your brain bounce inside the skull. We've gone a long way from the hard shell helmets of a few years ago.
Bike helmets are directly analogous to bullet proof vests and that's probably a much easier way to understand it. The impact is spread out and absorbed in compressing the protective material and/or destro
don't ride in the rain (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:don't ride in the rain (Score:5, Informative)
Although the article didn't make it explicit, I'm assuming that the helmet gets a coat of resin or something to water-proof it. Speaking for myself, I don't need rain to get a helmet wet -- I don't have great strength, endurance, or aerobic capacity, but I sweat like a champ.
Re: (Score:2)
Paper had one characteristic that might make it less than suitable for use in rain. One foam helmet might be cheaper in the long run than a bunch of soggy paper helmets.
Try some guinit helmets [proboards.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Just add slight coating of durable paraffin wax.
Re:don't ride in the rain (Score:5, Insightful)
Because you know... you can't apply a waterproof coating. We don't use paper to wrap up all kinds of wet things, like milk, or orange juice.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm personally way more interested in Hövding (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
It's also freaking expensive.
So are car airbags, but you don't notice the expense because it's hidden in the $30,000 purchase price of the car.
Re: (Score:2)
It's also freaking expensive.
So are car airbags, but you don't notice the expense because it's hidden in the $30,000 purchase price of the car.
So... we should increase the price of bicycles?
Re: (Score:2)
It's also freaking expensive.
So are car airbags, but you don't notice the expense because it's hidden in the $30,000 purchase price of the car.
So... we should increase the price of bicycles?
Either that, or those that want an airbag for their heads can use the money they saved by buying a $1,000 bike instead of a $30,000 car and use it to buy a $700 biking airbag.
Re: (Score:2)
Same question is applied to traditional helmets. But I suppose you're talking about the time between helmet reacting and fully deployed airbag.
Re: (Score:2)
That looks pretty cool but what happens if you fall face first?
Looks like it still protects your forehead, even if your face ultimately hits the ground:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7Oud3iGXWY [youtube.com]
(The face down crash starts around 3:30 (there's a couple slow-motion replays after the full speed crash)
Re: (Score:2)
That's the purpose of the extension of the helmet forward over the forehead.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
That looks pretty cool but what happens if you fall face first?
http://www.hovding.com/content/images/startpage/03_what_is_hovding/girl-helmet.jpg
Looking at the videos, I don't see why they don't airbag the whole head. What do you need to see when you're crashing? And even if you do need to see, why not extend nose and cheek pieces all the way around? Or just make a section of the airbag with clear plastic instead of white.
Sadly, Not the Worst Patent Troll Ever (Score:2)
Rain (Score:2)
One word says it all, "rain."
Re: (Score:3)
A second word negates your first word.
Waterproofing.
Re:Rain (Score:5, Insightful)
I actually thought about that. However, there are very few cost effective methods of waterproofing paper that work. Think of the waterproof corrugated paper packaging you have seen. It is fine for short exposure; but, it does not hold up to prolonged immersion and exposure.
A bike helmet will sit in puddles; it will spend hours in downpours. If you waterproof for the exposure conditions that bicycle helmets see, at some point it ceases to be paper.
Re: (Score:2)
Read between the lines (Score:4, Interesting)
I think you have to read between the lines carefully to find the real value in the article. I think it can be equally valid to build a bicycle helmet from corrugated or expanded cardboard as is is with styrofoam + shell. (OK, styrofoam is a trademart for Expanded Polystyrene.) As others have commented, cardboard is suseptible to damage from moisture, so it has to be sealed against it. In addition, I'm not convinced that the cardboard design is cheaper to manufacture than the styrofoam designs.
To me, the relevant signal is the reduction in maximum G force. The article suggests that the design limit is 300G, and conventional helmets achieve 225G - while his design gets to 70G. Presumably, the mechanism for doing that is to absorb the impact energy over a significant period of time before transmitting the forces to the wearer. Given the velocity of the collision, this means that the helment has to be built with a greater distance between the outside and inside of the helment than existing designs. If people are willing to wear thicker helmets (appropriately designed), such helmets could be reasonably expected to perform better - I'd think comparable designs could be easily built from the styrofoam + shell technology that's commonly in use.
Finally, the inventor says he was inspired by observing that his helmet was broken in the collision. THAT'S WHAT THEY ARE MEANT TO DO. In absorbing the forces of the collision, the helmet is permanently deformed. If your head is saved from destruction by a helment - buy a new helment to replace it.
Re: (Score:2)
Please sed -e 's/helment/helmet/g' to the above.
Re: (Score:3)
Why would you assume that absorbing energy more slowly implies that it's thicker? Simply absorbing more energy per unit time would do this too (as it would rapidly slow the deceleration, and hence extend the period of movement).
Overlooking the obvious? (Score:5, Funny)
After RTFA, it seems that the most obvious material to make the helmet from is woodpecker skulls. Didn't anyone else get that?
Re: (Score:2)
The article? I thought it was obvious from the summary, but the solution: separating our forehead from the rest of our skull with woodpecker cartilage, did not seem like a real option. Maybe these were the prosthetic foreheads everyone was talking about in that They Might Be Giants song?
Cardboard works great (Score:5, Interesting)
Better helmet design? Excellent. (Score:2)
I'm all for a better designed bicycle helmet, and I'd use it in some circumstances. But I'm vehemently against the government mandating that I must wear one.
Re:Bike helmet? (Score:5, Funny)
And most of you survived to adulthood -- although, as your post illustrates, some did suffer lasting cognitive issues.
Re:Bike helmet? (Score:5, Interesting)
As has been posted to Slashdot before, the data on helmet protection is equivocal. In many large scale studies, increase in helmet use does not reduce severe brain injuries, and could possibly increase the rate.
Why? 1) Helmets might make bikers less cautious; 2) helmets might make car drivers less cautious; 3) a helmet can only absorb so much energy, and in many categories of severe crashes you're going to cross the threshold of severe brain injury regardless of a helmet (in other words the range of energies a helmet can protect you from might not overlap well with the kinds of crashes you need to worry about).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, 4) many severe head injuries from cycling crashes are caused by rotational forces, which helmets can exacerbate. 5) helmet requirements almost universally reduce the number of cyclists (or reduce the growth in cycling), leaving the cycling pool with more adventurous and risk-prone bikers; 6) corollary of #5, fewer cyclists means less road time experience between cyclists and car drivers.
See http://cyclehelmets.org/.
Re:Bike helmet? (Score:5, Insightful)
I hate to say it, but my impression is that linking to http://cyclehelmets.org/ [cyclehelmets.org] for issues of helmets is like linking to WUWT for issues on climate change. It has a particular position, and runs with it (whether that is intentional or not). They are by no means unique in this, and are also not the only position in the discussion to do it.
That said:
1. Dumb cyclists will be dumb, and if someone rides less cautiously because they think a helmet will protect them they are dumb
2. Dumb drivers will be dumb, and if a driver is really driving less cautiously around a cyclist on the basis that a helmet will protect the cyclist they are not only dumb but outright dangeous
3. Crossing the threshold with 100% of the force is still probably going to be more damaging than crossing it with 50% of the force (if 50% is absorbed by the helmet)
4. And many are caused by non-rotational impacts, which helmets reduce
5. Dumb cyclists are dumb, and if the pool of cyclists is largely made up of dumb cyclists then that doesn't mean helmets reduce safety, just that if a bunch of less dumb cyclists were added to the pool they would dilute the apparent stupidity of the group overall. Not saying cyclists are stupid, but rather that the number of stupid cyclists is the same irrespective of whether it is 100 stupid cyclists in 101 total cyclists, or 100 stupid cyclists in 1000 total cyclists.
6. If #5 is in fact true (and there is little agreement on it) then this is true, and indeed having more cyclists on the road very likely does make it safer for all cyclists.
There in another arguments for not requiring helmets, also based on the idea that requiring helmets reduces the number of cyclists: even if helmets do reduce the likelihood of death or brain injury in an accident, the advantage of improvement in overall community health as a result of more cyclists offsets the disadvantage of a subset of these being dead or brain injured.
Re:Bike helmet? (Score:5, Insightful)
Your post is based on the assumption that car-cyclist collisions are the only significant kind of accident.
I've gone down because of ice (x2), rain, and recklessness. If you'll look up the statistics, you'll see that borne out in the larger numbers as well.
And human-caused climate change is real. Watch insurance prices rather than listening to politicians that are owned by the oil and coal industries.
Re:Bike helmet? (Score:4)
I'm not sure I communicated my position. I don't trust cyclehelmets.org, which I think is anti-mandatory-helmet-wearing, to present balanced information, in the same way I don't trust WUWT, which variously seems to deny either climate change or the anthropogenic aspect of climate change, depending on the line de jour.
I absolutely acknowledge that car-cyclist collisions are only one of many types of serious accidents. I personally do wear a bicycle helmet, and have smashed up several helmets through: being hit by a car (x1), sliding on oil on the road (x2), catching on tram tracks (x2).
Mainly, what I was saying is that many of the arguments levelled against having mandatory helmet wearing (or indeed helmet-wearing at all) are not actually about the effectiveness of helmets per se, but about the supposed broader effects of wearing helmets. I also think they're mostly, though not universally, bullshit arguments.
I should point out: I'm in Victoria, Australia, which has both mandatory helmet wearing and mandatory seatbelt wearing. There is a bit of a movement in Victoria to eliminate the requirement to wear helmets, but it isn't one I care about either way.
Re:Bike helmet? (Score:5, Informative)
Responding to oneself is generally bad form, but:
http://www.badscience.net/wp-content/uploads/Screenshot-2013-12-13-17.12.05.png [badscience.net]
In summary (and partially concordant with the person I initially criticised): On a community-wide level, requiring people wear helmets may not reduce head injuries, but on an individual level if you are cycling and can add a helmet to your cycling without changing your behaviour, you are probably safer with the helmet.
(This requires a bit of reading into the paper, and a couple of assumptions: Assumptions are: drivers don't suddenly start being dickheads around you because you're wearing a helmet, and you don't start being a dickhead because you put on a helmet. If those two hold, then the case-control rather than community-wide studies are more applicable to the individual choosing whether or not to wear a helmet).
Re: (Score:3)
"Assumptions are: drivers don't suddenly start being dickheads around you because you're wearing a helmet,"
Your assumption is incorrect, study has shown that drivers drive worse around cyclists that wear helmets, so much so that it could well be safer not to wear one. The theory is that the safer you look, the more risk drivers take around you.
Re:Bike helmet? (Score:4, Interesting)
See also the discussion section of that report:
Research suggests drivers tend to believe helmeted cyclists are more serious and less likely to make unexpected moves [2,3]; the helmet effect seen here is likely a behavioural manifestation of this belief.
Drivers expect helmeted cyclists to behave more predictably. What are the obvious conclusions?
1. As helmet use becomes more prevalent, drivers may be less likely to interpret it as a sign of competence.
2. If you want drivers to give you space, do your best to look and act like an incompetent idiot. Note: this works for motor vehicle operators as well.
Re:Bike helmet? (Score:5, Interesting)
He was talking about helmet-vs-no-helmet, not trad-helmet-vs-paper-helmet.
If you're cycling at 30MPH, come off cornering on ice, and hit your head on a kerb, a helmet may well save your life.
I do have quite a lot of sympathy for the view that there are circumstances where a fall is so unlikely that a helmet is a waste of time -- cycling in light traffic, with warm dry weather and no recklessness.
I finally bought a comfortable helmet, and since it's comfortable I always wear it. It's easier to do that than to evaluate the conditions every morning.
Re:Bike helmet? (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, 4) many severe head injuries from cycling crashes are caused by rotational forces, which helmets can exacerbate. 5) helmet requirements almost universally reduce the number of cyclists (or reduce the growth in cycling), leaving the cycling pool with more adventurous and risk-prone bikers; 6) corollary of #5, fewer cyclists means less road time experience between cyclists and car drivers.
See http://cyclehelmets.org/.
You're just trying to rationalize your personal dislike for helmets.
Saying helmets don't protect your head is like saying water isn't wet. It's fucking risible. Trying to prove helmets don't protect by using statistics from different groups (cyclists who wear helmets are a different type of rider from cyclists who don't) smacks of desperation.
Tell you what. I get to smack you upside your granite skull with a car door. You can put on a helmet or not. Your choice.
But the brain damage has already been done.
Re:Bike helmet? (Score:5, Informative)
However, honeycombs make excellent single-use shock absorbers, so those surely have a place in helmets as well.
Even if the site you link to were reasonable there is every reason to believe that helmets can be made truly excellent and made to give incredible protection both against shocks and rotational forces.
Re:Bike helmet? (Score:5, Funny)
Well, given we know the forces and situations involved: Helmets are clearly only addressing the symptom of the bigger problem.
The solution is to correct the design flaw and build structures where the chest houses the brain instead of a ridiculous appendage.
If input lag was a problem then why put the visual cortex in the back of the skull, and motor cortex so far from the feet?
Let's upgrade to impact resistant brains and bodies that can survive in the vacuum of space while we're at it.
Intelligently Designed... Pah!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I have a Request for Enhancement: please put my balls on the inside ;-)
Re:Bike helmet? (Score:5, Interesting)
None of the reasons you post support your suggestion that helmet use does not reduce severe brain injuries or actually increase it. They are ludicrous at best.
In 30 years on a bike, I've never ever seen someone say, oh, I have this helmet, lets see if I can skid right under that semi and out the other side. People who take ridiculous risks will take them without helmets just as often as with.
The research only supports one assertion about increased injuries caused by helmets, and that is a marginal increase in neck injuries from the helmet catching on the roadway surface as you go sliding along. However, even this research recognizes this increase in neck injuries is a trade off compared to abraded to the bone head road-rash that would otherwise occur in the identical crash.
That being said, when broadsided by a semi, a helmet won't help you. And its probably pointless to require them by law.
Re:Bike helmet? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why do these arguments sound so familiar? Probably because they're so similar to the arguments people used to make against seat belts.
"They'll increase accidents because they make it harder for drivers to stretch and look around!"
"They'll trap me in a burning or sinking car!"
And, my all-time personal favorite (yes, I've actually heard people say this):
"They'll prevent me from being thrown clear of the collision!"
People will persistently find the very stupidest reasons for not doing something that bugs them. Yes, each of these eventualities might have killed a few drivers who would've been spared if not for their safety belts. But those numbers are absolutely dwarfed by the number of lives saved and serious injuries prevented.
I've only been in one significant bike accident, and I was lucky enough in that one that my helmet didn't come into play. But looking back at the accident and the pattern of my injuries, I can't explain how the helmet was spared. I sure as hell am not tempted at this point to ride out without it.
Re:Bike helmet? (Score:4, Informative)
My favourite of these arguments is the argument against speed-limiters on car:
"I may at some point need to go really fast to avoid an accident".
Often used by people who don't like the idea of limiting a car to 150 km/h despite the fact that their country doesn't allow travel faster than 120 km/h anywhere. Because of this, they come up with all sorts of extremely unlikely scenarios where travelling really fast may save them. They also try very hard to ignore other solutions than driving really fast.
Re:Bike helmet? (Score:5, Insightful)
They argued against it in the beginning. I remember reading about those idiots, and even now, there are people who'd use those arguments. They need to be loudly and derisively laughed at.
Re:Bike helmet? (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't confuse the questions of "should I wear a helmet" with "should helmets be compulsory".
Same with drugs - laws can make things worse, despite good intentions.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
In today's world, saying that something is a good idea is tantamount to saying it should be compulsory. And if you object and tell them it's none of your business, they'll point to healthcare costs and say it is.
Re: (Score:3)
Cycle lanes (at least in the UK) are purely optional and as a UK tax payer, I pay more than my fair share
Re: (Score:3)
Just like how banking laws would make bankers less cautious, causing the 2007 financial disaster. We should make banking safer by removing all banking laws...
Oh wait. NO! You are a FUCKING IDIOT if you claim helmets make bikers less cautious. Just like those idiots who claim seat belts causes more deaths.
Re: (Score:3)
increase in helmet use does not reduce severe brain injuries
4) You're more likely to die than be brain damaged if you don't wear a helmet.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I'll tell that to my brother who is now permanently disabled due to brain damage, as a result of not wearing a bike helmet and hitting a rock going down a hill at high speed.
Thanks, jerk.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This. Years ago now I was riding to school and was clipped by a car - in a bike lane (we aren't allowed to ride on the footpaths over here) - and the doctor said that if I hadn't been wearing the helmet I wouldn't be here now. You might be slightly uncomfortable wearing a helmet, and some people might joke about how it looks but it really can save a life.
Just like you teach your kids not to run with scissors, you should wear a helmet when riding a bike and you should teach your kids to do so as well.
Re:Bike helmet? (Score:5, Interesting)
Hitting something going downhill at high speed is going to cause brain damage or worse whether you have a helmet or not. Crashing on descents is very, very bad news.
Styrofoam will only protect you in low speed collisions. Somebody was killed in the Giro d'Italia last year descending from hitting his head on a siderail. He was wearing a helmet, of course.
This is the problem with these kind of anecdotes: If somebody crashes wearing a helmet, and is OK, it's just assumed that the helmet saved him. If somebody is hurt and was not wearing a helmet, it's assumed that he would have been ok if he was. In reality, this is a completely fallacious assumption, and is not borne out by the data.
Helmets probably have a positive impact on low speed crashes, but it is small. Motorists would have significantly reduced fatalities if they wore motorcycle helmets (which are much more effective but impractical for bicycles), like race car drivers do, but they don't. Pedestrians have higher fatalities per kilometer than cyclists (and pedestrian fatalities are often due to brain damage), but they don't wear helmets. Why is this one activity singled out to wear a bulky safety yarmulke?
Re:Bike helmet? (Score:5, Insightful)
No it isn't. If somebody crashes wearing a helmet and the side of the helmet is smashed in but the rider is OK then it's assumed that the helmet saved them. That happens enough for it to be worth it.
I remember hearing this same stupid argument about motorcycle helmets, seatbelts and lawnmowers with naked blades. An easily complied with safety feature does not have to stop 100% of injuries to be worth it.
Re: (Score:3)
I got stuck with the rear wheel in a rail track once and had a short and ugly flight over the handlebar. Thanks to the helmet, I was just dizzy for a couple of days. Without it it would have been a concussion.
Re: (Score:2)
Because it's the law in civilised nations such as Australia and New Zealand.
Re:Bike helmet? (Score:4, Insightful)
The science is not a slam dunk for helmets. In many studies--including more recent studies, and meta-studies--helmets increase the injury rate. But even assuming that helmets provide a significant net benefit for cyclists, the reduction in cyclists caused by helmet laws definitely outweighs the benefits of helmets, because the injury rate is so low even without helmets that you're better off having a bunch of helmet-less cyclists losing weight and increasing their cardiovascular health.
Once again intuition and anecdote provide the wrong answer.
People eschewed seat belts for similar reasons--intuitively everybody thought that a seat belt would increase injury by preventing you from escaping from a wreckage, or by keeping you in a poor position.
People: stop using your intuition for this kind of stuff, and read up on real science. And also be critical of the science, because too often even scientists inadvertently seek to prove their intuition, rather than asking the hard questions. In the case of helmets, the emerging, qualitatively better science casts serious doubt on the overall benefits of helmets from an epidemiological perspective.
Helmets will help prevent cuts and mild concussions, but not serious head injuries with permanent damage, which they might even exacerbate. And helmet requirements disincentivize cycling to an extent that they often cause a negative net health outcome in the population.
Takeaway: helmet laws are definitely a bad idea. If you wear a helmet, good for you, but don't judge others who don't.
Re:Bike helmet? (Score:4, Informative)
Helmets will help prevent cuts and mild concussions, but not serious head injuries with permanent damage, which they might even exacerbate.
The level of protection depends on the helmet.
Full face motorcycle helmets really work. Bicycle helmets range from subpar to a joke. Equestrian helmets are a ridiculous farce (worse or similar protection to bicycle helmets but you're higher up on an easily spooked animal).
Nobody wants to cycle/ride with full face helmets, but I believe there's still room somewhere in between for better helmets.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Okay, I didn't see this post before my mocking response about anti-seat-belt arguments.
I am very skeptical of meta-studies that claim helmets increase injury rates (in fact, I'm somewhat skeptical of meta-studies in general -- they smack of running the results repeatedly through the blender until you get the consistency you want). But I haven't done extensive homework, so I can't actually dismiss what you say.
I do take issue with one detail, though: the assumption that helmet laws will disincentivize cyclin
Re: Bike helmet? (Score:2)
You're assuming that uneducated and unreasonable attitudes about helmets can't be changed. They were changed for safety belts, and (to a large degree) for cigarettes; why not for helmets?
I can think of a few reasons why bike helmets are different from safety belts:
- Wearing a bike helmets has been legally required in several areas for long enough to draw conclusions about their effectiveness, and yet we are still discussing if they work or not. Thus, it doesn't seem all that uneducated or unreasonable to decide not to wear one, for now.
- Mandatory bike helmets are incompatible with public bicycle sharing systems. There was an attempt to run such a system in Melbourne, Australia [google.com], and the req
Re: (Score:3)
No sure where you get that from. What's wrong with encouraging people to do more biking? You think that running a public bike transit system is expensive? If it makes, say, a hundred fewer cars off the road, you end up paying less for road maintenance, the people that use it spend less time at the hospital because they're healthier, it helps with air pollution in the city, the traffic flow will go a little bit faster and drivers get to be back home sooner after work, etc, etc, etc. I am sick and tired of he
Re:Bike helmet? (Score:4, Insightful)
I do take issue with one detail, though: the assumption that helmet laws will disincentivize cycling.
It's no assumption -- it's a statistically demonstrated fact. In places where helmet laws are passed, cycling does decrease, whether or not there's a good reason that should necessarily happen.
But if you want to know why its different from seatbelt laws, note that seatbelt laws came about in two stages -- first, manufacturers were required to provide seatbelts in every vehicle sold. Then, after almost every vehicle on the road had seatbelts, drivers and passengers were required to use them. The first step, while slightly increasing the price of a new vehicle, didn't cause anyone any practical inconvenience -- anyone who didn't believe in them might grumble a bit about being forced to pay for them (it's not like one would actually refuse to buy a $xxxx car over a $x addition), but he didn't have to use them. And because of the first step, the second step had no up-front cost or inconvenience -- you did have to buckle up every time, but the seatbelt was right there, no need to run down to the garage and get one installed. (AIUI, there are/were exemptions from seatbelt wearing laws in any cars old enough to have legally been sold without seatbelts, and at any rate they were a tiny fraction of the fleet by then.) So neither step caused motorists to quit motoring, especially since most of them had no practical alternative for traveling the same distance.
In contrast, many cyclists who presently ride helmetless have no helmet, and if a mandatory helmet law were passed, they'd have to make time to get to the bike shop and buy one or quit riding -- and if, like many cyclists, you've already got a car that satisfies all your functional transportation requirements, quitting is by far the easier option.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, the only two countries with federally mandated helmet laws, and they've both seen a dramatic decrease in cycling participation since the laws were introduced.
Why lie about this? (Score:2)
Re:Bike helmet? (Score:4, Informative)
Because it's the law in civilised nations such as Australia and New Zealand.
In the United Kingdom. HEAT suggests that a law making helmets compulsory for cyclists may result in an overall increase in 253 premature deaths – 265 extra deaths from reduced cycling less 12 deaths saved among the reduced pool of cyclists receiving fatal head injuries.
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1231.html [cyclehelmets.org]
I for one am glad that I live in a rational nation, rather than one of the civilised ones which you mention!
Re: (Score:2)
You quote a known kook site like cyclehelmets and you give thanks for being rational?
Ad hominem, much?
Re: (Score:3)
So what? If the argument is invalid then point out the flaws in the argument/numbers, not the flaws in the presenter of the argument.
Re: (Score:3)
Cycling in Australia dropped 1/3 overnight when the helmet law was passed. This makes it more risky for existing cyclists, as there is safety in numbers.
The overriding public health effect is that the health benefits of cycling outweigh the risks in expected life by something like 30x. Thus, the 1/3 drop in cyclists results in many more premature deaths from lack of exercists.
Helmets may provide a small benefit in some crashes, but helmet laws are absolutely indefensible from a rational public health standp
Re: (Score:2)
You are just recycling the gun lobby trick, only this time there is no doubt that it is a lie.
Re: (Score:2)
Michael Schumacher is probably the best demonstration of why you want a helmet on your head when doing about 30mph ;)
Re:Bike helmet? (Score:5, Insightful)
I am a regular biker — At least three days a week, I cycle to work. Not a great distance, but I end up making ~1hr on the bike every day I use it.
Several years ago, a car hit laterally my rear tire. Quite slowly, fortunately, although it managed to bend the rim ~30 degrees. Of course, cycling at ~20Km/h (~12mph), I fell down to my left.
I stood up right away, scared but not hit. My pants were slightly torn over the pocket where I store my keys. Nothing happened to me, just a scare, right?
When I took my helmet off, it was split in two. Yes, helmets are (and are designed to be) quite more fragile than skulls. Still, I'm very happy I didn't have to land with the side of my head on the road. Were I to be lucky, I'd have an ugly scar on my front left side.
Wear a helmet. Always.
Re: (Score:3)
One time I was taking a jump on my bike at 25 km/h, but was off balance and landed on my side, including the side of my head, at the same speed in rocks and packed dirt. I still have my left ear because I was wearing a helmet.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
I should expand on this: Helmets are styrofoam (with holes in it!), and a thin plastic cover. Next time you buy a thing packed in a big box, try breaking the styrofoam. Turns out it's not very strong.
The only way the deceleration (which causes the brain damage) is reduced is if the helmet crushes in. And this will only help in a low speed crash, otherwises your head will still be decelerating after the foam crushes.
I think people tend to assign more of a protective benefit to helmets because of the psycholo
Re:Bike helmet? (Score:4, Interesting)
As I said in my post, I think that were I not to have my helmet on, I'd have a nasty scar, the product of using my forehead as a brake. It was a fairly low speed hit, but my head did hit the pavement *in* the helmet. So, the helmet absorbed some of the impact — but it also put a good 2cm between my skin and the street.
Also, a helmet is coated in plastic to make it smooth, almost derrapant. It would not be impossible for my head, with a far higher friction, to get stuck while reducing the speed of my body - and could end up in spinal damage, maybe fatal.
Of course, I have no way to know if that would happen were I not wearing a helmet. But I won't take chances.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, we can all die fat and slow instead.
Re:The best bike helmets (Score:5, Insightful)
Sometimes it`s not your fault.
Re: (Score:2)
Your mistake is in using common sense to respond to AC.
Remember, common sense is not that common...
Re: (Score:2)
In such high speed crashes, you would die wearing a styrofoam helmet anyway, so it's rather a non-issue.
Re: (Score:3)
Many urban planners are discussing the opposite - ban inefficient, private use vehicles from cities and provide better cycling infrastructure. Wins all round. Except for lazy people.
Re: (Score:2)
"Many urban planners are discussing the opposite - ban inefficient, private use vehicles from cities and provide better cycling infrastructure."
What about during winter, or don't they have that there? 2 wheeled vehicles don't go so good on ice and snow, or when its too cold for ice and snow (like -30)
"Wins all round. Except for lazy people."
I walk to work,
Re: (Score:2)
Subterranean railway like they have in bike friendly cities like Montreal?
Re: (Score:3)
Many urban planners are discussing the opposite - ban inefficient, private use vehicles from cities and provide better cycling infrastructure. Wins all round. Except for lazy people.
I think you are missing quite a few categories of people who would lose.
1: People who want/need to take more stuff with them when they travel than a bike can reasonablly carry. Plumbers, electricians, builders, many types of service technicians. People going shopping for large items or bulk groceries.
2: People who need to leave the metropolis and travel to rural areas where public transport sucks and will always suck. Maybe some kind of car club could work for this but the ones i've seen are hellishly expen
Re:Old news, but good news (Score:5, Insightful)
Looks like it has a fatal flaw or two.
It's no great trick to make a helmet which will absorb impact. The trick is to do it without too much weight and, unless you only ride in cold weather, without overheating your head. In general, the more you pay for a helmet, the less helmet and more hole you get. That thing is covered with a solid shell. No venting. It's a portable oven. It's also 535g -- about 1.2 pounds. It's a brick (and probably will contribute to neck injuries as a result).
Giro's cheapest MTB helmet has some vents and is 410g. Move up to a helmet you might actually wear in the heat, you've got almost as much vent as helmet and you're down to 316g. Go to one which costs as much as this one -- 80 pounds sterling -- and you're under 300g and have more holes than helmet.
If it was just unventilated it might still have its niche, but it's just too heavy.
Re: (Score:3)
And has been pointed out time and time again: Your freedom of choice ends when you demand someone else (hospital, insurance company) pay for treating your injuries should you survive a helmetless crash.
Get over yourself, already.