Could Volvo and POC end the helmet debate? Swedish firms partner for "world first" car and cycle helmet crash tests (+ video)

The Gavalier wrote:

You’ve accused me of ‘spraying weak arguments’, trying to ‘educate’ people, and coming on here for ‘love and respect’ when all I did was share my experiences. Utter hypocrisy and deflection to now say I’m name calling and not listening. 

Same old bollocks yet again.

Your experiences are not in question - we all have those - but your reasoning and your refusal to listen to any other point of view.

Accusing multiple contributors of having conspiracy theories (even though they are likely to be better educated on this topic than you) and using the term 'tin foil hat' looks like name-calling to me.

Looks to me like YOU are the one deflecting.

Simon E wrote:

The Gavalier wrote:

You’ve accused me of ‘spraying weak arguments’, trying to ‘educate’ people, and coming on here for ‘love and respect’ when all I did was share my experiences. Utter hypocrisy and deflection to now say I’m name calling and not listening. 

Same old bollocks yet again.

Your experiences are not in question - we all have those - but your reasoning and your refusal to listen to any other point of view.

What’s wrong with my reasoning, and how have I refused to listen to other point of view?

I fully agree that part of reducing risk is to reduce likelihood, but to reduce risk overall there also needs to include action taken to reduce severity.

The Gavalier wrote:

If I’m making any assumptions they are:

I’ve had 2 head injuries as a result of coming off my bike, therefore it could happen again. 

If I smack my head off the tarmac at 20mph I’d rather it had a helmet on it.

These are based on my experiences, if that’s bias then I hold my hands up. 

The reason I don’t wear one all the time (or a stab vest for that matter) is also based on my experiences.

Personally, I've never hit my head when coming off my bike - typical injuries have been to hands, elbows, knees and hips (though nothing more than a scrape or a bruise, luckily).

However, I've bumped my head several times whilst not cycling. Usually it's if there's a low door-frame or I've been crawling under a desk or table. Does this mean that I should be wearing a helmet whenever I'm not cycling?

Also, in my experience, I'm much more likely to bump my head on a low door-frame when wearing a bike helmet.

The Gavalier wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

The Gavalier wrote:

Simon E wrote:

The Gavalier wrote:

If I were to come off my bike, for whatever reason, and hit my head off a kerb, wall, railing, bollard etc. I’d fancy my chances a lot more if I had a helmet on. 

I recommend that you acquaint yourself with some facts about helmets. You might then be less convinced of their effectiveness in any and all situations.

The premise of this test is that a slightly better helmet is a good move but the people who disagree are looking at the bigger picture (and have probably read more about the topic).

By all means wear one if you wish but it really is NOT the solution.

Thanks for assuming that I’m not acquainted with both sides of the argument. Risk is based on both likelihood and severity - I wear a helmet to reduce the severity. 

 

You don't cite anything that quanitifies those risk though.  I just suspect the real reason people wear helmets when cylcing is due to social pressure.  People seem oblivious to how social norms affect their judgements about such probabilities, hence you don't wear a 'walking down stairs' helmet because that isn't socially expected, nobody is ever victim-blamed for failing to wear one.

 

  Social norms determine what people consider reasonable.  A big clue they are involved is if people start referring to 'common sense'.

Loving all the assumptions people are making about me on here. I’ve only had 2 visits to hospital in recent years, both after coming off my bike, no cars involved, both due to road surface (oil). Therefore, for me, this raises the ‘likelihood’ side of the equation. On both occasions my head went down hard yet I suffered no serious injury - therefore, I believe, my helmet reduced the severity. I also try to reduce the likelihood by being more aware of the road surface etc. The anti-helmet argument seems mainly to focus on likelihood. 

To be honest, the assumptions that I made about you were based on your over simplistic comment that a helmet provides some protection. Although this is true, it is also true that wearing full plate armour would most likely prevent even more injuries. In your opinion, why is wearing a helmet (only on a bike, mind) acceptable and full plate armour (again, only whilst riding a bike) not acceptable?

The Gavalier wrote:

 I also try to reduce the likelihood by being more aware of the road surface etc. The anti-helmet argument seems mainly to focus on likelihood. 

The pro-helmet argument relies heavily on the likelihood that one is going to come off their bike or get hit by a motorist. In the last 5 years I’ve covered possibly 40,000 miles. In that time I’ve come off ONCE when negotiating a tight turn and my toe caught my guards causing me to drop my bike. I badly staved my wrist as a result.

The helmet wearing argument is a red herring to road safety. By all means wear one if you feel comfortable in doing so. But it is NOT a catch all to road safety. Motorists road skills need to radically change. Anyone who climbs in behind a steering wheel needs to read the road not just 6 feet in front but also upwards of half a mile. Those same people need to be aware that the lump of machinery that they throw about the roads without any care, consideration or courtesy can result in catastrophic consequences for vulnerable road users. 

Energy needs to be put into making our roads safer environments for all. The developing of more robust helmets will not in anyway change the attitude of motorists towards those more vulnerable.  All they think is helmet therefore protected and do not change their way of driving. 

The Gavalier wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

The Gavalier wrote:

Simon E wrote:

The Gavalier wrote:

If I were to come off my bike, for whatever reason, and hit my head off a kerb, wall, railing, bollard etc. I’d fancy my chances a lot more if I had a helmet on. 

I recommend that you acquaint yourself with some facts about helmets. You might then be less convinced of their effectiveness in any and all situations.

The premise of this test is that a slightly better helmet is a good move but the people who disagree are looking at the bigger picture (and have probably read more about the topic).

By all means wear one if you wish but it really is NOT the solution.

Thanks for assuming that I’m not acquainted with both sides of the argument. Risk is based on both likelihood and severity - I wear a helmet to reduce the severity. 

 

You don't cite anything that quanitifies those risk though.  I just suspect the real reason people wear helmets when cylcing is due to social pressure.  People seem oblivious to how social norms affect their judgements about such probabilities, hence you don't wear a 'walking down stairs' helmet because that isn't socially expected, nobody is ever victim-blamed for failing to wear one.

 

  Social norms determine what people consider reasonable.  A big clue they are involved is if people start referring to 'common sense'.

Loving all the assumptions people are making about me on here. I’ve only had 2 visits to hospital in recent years, both after coming off my bike, no cars involved, both due to road surface (oil). Therefore, for me, this raises the ‘likelihood’ side of the equation. On both occasions my head went down hard yet I suffered no serious injury - therefore, I believe, my helmet reduced the severity. I also try to reduce the likelihood by being more aware of the road surface etc. The anti-helmet argument seems mainly to focus on likelihood. 

No assumptions, merely conclusions based on what you actually _said_. Are you now restrospectively changing your original comment?  You now seem to be adding in an  (anecdote-based) 'for me', that wasn't in your first unqualified comment.

Dammit, my first double-post.

You know, if people regualrly double post (someone repeated a post over a dozen times recently) then maybe it's not just individual ineptitude, but it indicates a problem with unforgiving design?

Maybe don't accept multiple posts that occur within a second of each other?

Or we could just have posting proficiency classes, I guess, and books on postcraft.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

The Gavalier wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

The Gavalier wrote:

Simon E wrote:

The Gavalier wrote:

If I were to come off my bike, for whatever reason, and hit my head off a kerb, wall, railing, bollard etc. I’d fancy my chances a lot more if I had a helmet on. 

I recommend that you acquaint yourself with some facts about helmets. You might then be less convinced of their effectiveness in any and all situations.

The premise of this test is that a slightly better helmet is a good move but the people who disagree are looking at the bigger picture (and have probably read more about the topic).

By all means wear one if you wish but it really is NOT the solution.

Thanks for assuming that I’m not acquainted with both sides of the argument. Risk is based on both likelihood and severity - I wear a helmet to reduce the severity. 

 

You don't cite anything that quanitifies those risk though.  I just suspect the real reason people wear helmets when cylcing is due to social pressure.  People seem oblivious to how social norms affect their judgements about such probabilities, hence you don't wear a 'walking down stairs' helmet because that isn't socially expected, nobody is ever victim-blamed for failing to wear one.

 

  Social norms determine what people consider reasonable.  A big clue they are involved is if people start referring to 'common sense'.

Loving all the assumptions people are making about me on here. I’ve only had 2 visits to hospital in recent years, both after coming off my bike, no cars involved, both due to road surface (oil). Therefore, for me, this raises the ‘likelihood’ side of the equation. On both occasions my head went down hard yet I suffered no serious injury - therefore, I believe, my helmet reduced the severity. I also try to reduce the likelihood by being more aware of the road surface etc. The anti-helmet argument seems mainly to focus on likelihood. 

 

No assumptions, merely conclusions based on what you actually _said_. Are you now restrospectively changing your original comment?  You now seem to be adding in an  (anecdote-based) 'for me', that wasn't in your first unqualified comment.

Original comment said “I wear a helmet to reduce the severity”, not “helmets should be compulsory to reduce the severity”. 

The Gavalier wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

No assumptions, merely conclusions based on what you actually _said_. Are you now restrospectively changing your original comment?  You now seem to be adding in an  (anecdote-based) 'for me', that wasn't in your first unqualified comment.

Original comment said “I wear a helmet to reduce the severity”, not “helmets should be compulsory to reduce the severity”. 

But you originally said

The Gavalier wrote:

If I were to come off my bike, for whatever reason, and hit my head off a kerb, wall, railing, bollard etc. I’d fancy my chances a lot more if I had a helmet on. 

Saying that out of nowhere, without any explanation or justification, when nobody asked you why you wear a helmet, carries a very strong implication of justifying helmet-wearing and promotion in general.  I don't get what other point it would be making.  What is supposed to follow from it?

It was a hypothetical scenario that could just as easily been constructed about walking down stairs. 

I've come off twice, once with and once without a helmet, and both times had some reason to wish I'd been wearing gloves, but I didn't hit my head (and didn't suffer any real injury)

The only time I've ever had a serious head injury was running around in the playground as a small child.  That was largely becaue in those days schools really didn't do 'health and safety' when it came to playground 'infrastructure' (I notice in the decades since the deadly architectual element has since been completely rebuilt to remove the killing potential).  Back then they didn't even let you leave class untill you turned green and started vomitting!

I don't think I can conclude from that that all children at school should wear helmets, though, it does remind me that we really do worry more about children's safety so much more than we used to.

The Gavalier wrote:

Original comment said “I wear a helmet to reduce the severity”, not “helmets should be compulsory to reduce the severity”. 

How do you know this will occur, what % of any given incident/s does a helmet reduce severity and how do you come to that figure, how do you know that this is accurate?

How much severity of any given impact does a helmet reduce, is this enough to mitigate the injury/prevent injury, how do you know this. One presumes you've seen the cracked/broken helmets in so many 'helmet saved my life' stories, would you care to hazard a guess how much of the total energy was absorbed by a bit of polystyrene foam that does not compress but splits apart due to the loading?

Have you ever thought that wearing a helmet increases severity, increases chances of having the incident i.e. with greater circumference increased chances of actually striking your head or indeed catching your head via the various holes and straps?

Do you not think that the increased mass of your head and from that the increased kinetic energy when you come/thrown/knocked off changes how far your head will travel, where it will travel and with how much force copared to unhelmetted? In children adding a helmet is very significant both in terms of bigger target/more head to hit and increased mass.

I'll repeat it here again, UK hospital/medical facility stats show 1.3Million reported head injuries annually, circa 160,000 of those stay in hospital, not all serious head injuries require a stay so serious head injuries (not brain injuries) of the general population is at the very least 160,000. Whilst not all serious cycling injuries will come under the road stats, the vast majority do, the most recent figures show us that there were 3100 cycling serious injuries of all types on the road, from that the estimates are between 800-1200 being to the head.

Now compare the numbers, firstly risk factor is relatively low despite the appauling level of motorists criminal actions and lack of support to reduce such by gov/police et al. We already know that chances of children being killed on a cycle (by any injury type) is less numerically than that for children who die in motorvehicles by head injury alone, that's despite the latter being encased in specially designed cages, airbags and restraint systems. We also know that more children die in playgrounds from head injuries than total children die on cycles also. 

In the UK Motorists deaths solely by head injury (most deaths are by multiple injuries with head injuries as secondary factor in 1/4 of all other cases) number four times that for people on bikes (Journal of Transport and Health June 2018) 

Given the facts, which of the groups mentioned would wearing helmets have the greater effect on reducing severity of outcome (your own words) of serious head injuries/reportable head injuries and hospital stays due to such as well as deaths from head injuries either directly or as a secondary cause IF helmets were effective in the way you beleive?

Would that be the general population/motorists/those in motor vehicles or people on bikes?

I'm presuming you can differentiate between large and small numbers and factors of numbers of course - I know given your previous comments that we should not presume anything about you but I think you're reasonably educated to understand the rudimentaries of math.

I don't think these are unreasonable questions to ask in this debate so I await your answers.

The Gavalier wrote:

 

Original comment said “I wear a helmet to reduce the severity”, not “helmets should be compulsory to reduce the severity”. 

Respect and kudos for arguing the pro-helmet raison d'etre but you will never convince the dark ages' "flat-earthers" who inhabit these helmet centric threads that the earth is in fact spherical.  The obvious just flies right over their heads (no pun intended) and it all becomes rather akin to banging your head repeatedly on a hard surface (no pun intended).

Always the same usual suspects, you listed some, spoiling for a fight and raging against King Canute on the beach for dissenting from their 'world view' whilst wallowing in self aggrandisement afforded them by an echo chamber.

All quite delusional and self serving really.  When you dig in the objectives behind this are quite basic, flawed and superficial.  I kind of gave up some time ago trying to reason with such closed minds and share actual experiences (sadly negative) which just get shouted down (not that I care) with increasing vitriol and profanity (yes notably you BtBS).

No matter it's all virtual world narcissism and self indulgence.  Meanwhile (and with no little irony) in the real world it is a sea of helmet wearers all by positive choice, essentially ubiquitously, in the cycling community.  The argument, the battle, the war is over and done.

RTB wrote:

The Gavalier wrote:

 

Original comment said “I wear a helmet to reduce the severity”, not “helmets should be compulsory to reduce the severity”. 

Respect and kudos for arguing the pro-helmet raison d'etre but you will never convince the dark ages' "flat-earthers" who inhabit these helmet centric threads that the earth is in fact spherical.  The obvious just flies right over their heads (no pun intended) and it all becomes rather akin to banging your head repeatedly on a hard surface (no pun intended).

Always the same usual suspects, you listed some, spoiling for a fight and raging against King Canute on the beach for dissenting from their 'world view' whilst wallowing in self aggrandisement afforded them by an echo chamber.

All quite delusional and self serving really.  When you dig in the objectives behind this are quite basic, flawed and superficial.  I kind of gave up some time ago trying to reason with such closed minds and share actual experiences (sadly negative) which just get shouted down (not that I care) with increasing vitriol and profanity (yes notably you BtBS).

No matter it's all virtual world narcissism and self indulgence.  Meanwhile (and with no little irony) in the real world it is a sea of helmet wearers all by positive choice, essentially ubiquitously, in the cycling community.  The argument, the battle, the war is over and done.

Do you ever look in the mirror?

RTB wrote:

The Gavalier wrote:

 

Original comment said “I wear a helmet to reduce the severity”, not “helmets should be compulsory to reduce the severity”. 

Respect and kudos for arguing the pro-helmet raison d'etre but you will never convince the dark ages' "flat-earthers" who inhabit these helmet centric threads that the earth is in fact spherical.  The obvious just flies right over their heads (no pun intended) and it all becomes rather akin to banging your head repeatedly on a hard surface (no pun intended).

Always the same usual suspects, you listed some, spoiling for a fight and raging against King Canute on the beach for dissenting from their 'world view' whilst wallowing in self aggrandisement afforded them by an echo chamber.

All quite delusional and self serving really.  When you dig in the objectives behind this are quite basic, flawed and superficial.  I kind of gave up some time ago trying to reason with such closed minds and share actual experiences (sadly negative) which just get shouted down (not that I care) with increasing vitriol and profanity (yes notably you BtBS).

No matter it's all virtual world narcissism and self indulgence.  Meanwhile (and with no little irony) in the real world it is a sea of helmet wearers all by positive choice, essentially ubiquitously, in the cycling community.  The argument, the battle, the war is over and done.

Usually, the way to argue with flat-earthers is to present evidence that contradicts their world-view which is obviously extremely easy to find.

With that in mind, would you care to present some evidence that helmets provide a significant addition to cycle/road safety? (As there are several disputed studies, it'd be useful if you can present some good quality research rather than anecdotes)

In the meantime, here's the next level in road safety (modelled by Tufty)

hawkinspeter wrote:

RTB wrote:

The Gavalier wrote:

 

Original comment said “I wear a helmet to reduce the severity”, not “helmets should be compulsory to reduce the severity”. 

Respect and kudos for arguing the pro-helmet raison d'etre but you will never convince the dark ages' "flat-earthers" who inhabit these helmet centric threads that the earth is in fact spherical.  The obvious just flies right over their heads (no pun intended) and it all becomes rather akin to banging your head repeatedly on a hard surface (no pun intended).

Always the same usual suspects, you listed some, spoiling for a fight and raging against King Canute on the beach for dissenting from their 'world view' whilst wallowing in self aggrandisement afforded them by an echo chamber.

All quite delusional and self serving really.  When you dig in the objectives behind this are quite basic, flawed and superficial.  I kind of gave up some time ago trying to reason with such closed minds and share actual experiences (sadly negative) which just get shouted down (not that I care) with increasing vitriol and profanity (yes notably you BtBS).

No matter it's all virtual world narcissism and self indulgence.  Meanwhile (and with no little irony) in the real world it is a sea of helmet wearers all by positive choice, essentially ubiquitously, in the cycling community.  The argument, the battle, the war is over and done.

Usually, the way to argue with flat-earthers is to present evidence that contradicts their world-view which is obviously extremely easy to find.

With that in mind, would you care to present some evidence that helmets provide a significant addition to cycle/road safety? (As there are several disputed studies, it'd be useful if you can present some good quality research rather than anecdotes)

In the meantime, here's the next level in road safety (modelled by Tufty)

 

Crikey, if only someone was to conduct some research into helmet efficacy, that would surely settle the debate pretty quickly and stop all this pointless arguing.

WCGW?

RTB wrote:

The Gavalier wrote:

 

Original comment said “I wear a helmet to reduce the severity”, not “helmets should be compulsory to reduce the severity”. 

Respect and kudos for arguing the pro-helmet raison d'etre but you will never convince the dark ages' "flat-earthers" who inhabit these helmet centric threads that the earth is in fact spherical.  The obvious just flies right over their heads (no pun intended) and it all becomes rather akin to banging your head repeatedly on a hard surface (no pun intended).

Always the same usual suspects, you listed some, spoiling for a fight and raging against King Canute on the beach for dissenting from their 'world view' whilst wallowing in self aggrandisement afforded them by an echo chamber.

All quite delusional and self serving really.  When you dig in the objectives behind this are quite basic, flawed and superficial.  I kind of gave up some time ago trying to reason with such closed minds and share actual experiences (sadly negative) which just get shouted down (not that I care) with increasing vitriol and profanity (yes notably you BtBS).

No matter it's all virtual world narcissism and self indulgence.  Meanwhile (and with no little irony) in the real world it is a sea of helmet wearers all by positive choice, essentially ubiquitously, in the cycling community.  The argument, the battle, the war is over and done.

Wonderfully self-descriptive comment there.  No attempt at reasoned argument just the usual insistence that your rightness is 'obvious', some generic abuse, and bizarre accusations of 'shouting down' in a text based discussion!  Why not actually try constructing an argument?  Ever considered that?

Oh, and in 'the real world' it's a sea of people who don't ride bikes. 

RTB wrote:

The Gavalier wrote:

 

Original comment said “I wear a helmet to reduce the severity”, not “helmets should be compulsory to reduce the severity”. 

Respect and kudos for arguing the pro-helmet raison d'etre but you will never convince the dark ages' "flat-earthers" who inhabit these helmet centric threads that the earth is in fact spherical.  The obvious just flies right over their heads (no pun intended) and it all becomes rather akin to banging your head repeatedly on a hard surface (no pun intended).

 

Aren't the arguments by those opposed to deflecting the blame usually:

If you improve infrastructure and driving standards you'd reduce 95% (or whatever) of fatalities

A helmet is designed to crack, that's why you get many cracked helmets

Wearing a helmet increases head circumference so you get more bangs on the head

You may take more risks when wearing a helmet

If the media continually state whether a victim was wearing a helmet/hi viz are they not shifting the blame

If the car manufacturers actually care why not alter the design and power of their cars

More people die of head injuries as car passengers or pedestrians, why focus on cyclists

More cyclists suffer crush injuries, do you wear full armour

Many of those that discuss these points, myself included, wear a helmet sometimes or all the time. Like others, I feel if my head were to hit concrete then the wearing of a helmet is unlikely to hinder me. However, the way the car drivers, emergency service 'experts', the mainstream media and hell even the general public position it; those who wear helmets are invincible and those who don't deserve to die...

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Dammit, my first double-post.

 

You know, if people regualrly double post (someone repeated a post over a dozen times recently) then maybe it's not just individual ineptitude, but it indicates a problem with unforgiving design?

 

Maybe don't accept multiple posts that occur within a second of each other?

 

Or we could just have posting proficiency classes, I guess, and books on postcraft.

Personally, I wear a little mini helmet on each finger-tip when typing.

You should take responsibility for your own comment-safety rather than just blaming Road.cc's website.

Another_MAMIL wrote:

However, we can all make human errors (e.g. failing to see a pothole at night and crashing). In certain circumstances, a helmet could make a difference.

Indeed, but all the real world, reliable, scientific evidence shows that they don't make a difference, and promoting helmets as the answer to reducing the risks of cycling has significant negative effects and no benefits.  Could we please concentrate on the things that work, and once we've done all those, we can start talking about helmets.

Another_MAMIL wrote:

I’m pleased to see a helmet manufacturer collaborating with Volvo.

Even if it’s good marketing for POC, the Volvo tests look more extensive than standard helmet tests and this could stimulate innovation.

I don’t expect a polystyrene helmet to save me from being hit by a ton of metal. Cyclecraft is clearly more important than a helmet.

However, we can all make human errors (e.g. failing to see a pothole at night and crashing). In certain circumstances, a helmet could make a difference.

and drivercraft is more important than cyclecraft.

as Chris Boardman and many others have pointed out, helmets are way down on the list of priorities. Top of the list is not causing crashes in the first place, and the way to do that is to remove the danger, which is motor vehicles.

ConcordeCX wrote:

Top of the list is not causing crashes in the first place, and the way to do that is to remove the danger, which is motor vehicles.

Another_MAMIL wrote:

However, we can all make human errors (e.g. failing to see a pothole at night and crashing). In certain circumstances, a helmet could make a difference.

Another_MAMIL wrote:

ConcordeCX wrote:

Top of the list is not causing crashes in the first place, and the way to do that is to remove the danger, which is motor vehicles.

Another_MAMIL wrote:

However, we can all make human errors (e.g. failing to see a pothole at night and crashing). In certain circumstances, a helmet could make a difference.

Many normal activities have a higher risk than cycling e.g. using a ladder, showering, but no-one demands or even suggests that a helmet is worn for them.  Walking has the same risk per mile as cycling, but no-one demands or suggests that helmets are worn for it.  If cycling isn't any more dangerous than walking, why aren't we demanding helmets for every activity with similar or higher risk?

The answer is that cycle helmets are a billion dollar industry, cyclists are an out group that the media can lie about without consequences, and there are a huge number of gullible people who believe that helmets make a difference; but only when cycling for some strange reason.

Another_MAMIL wrote:

ConcordeCX wrote:

Top of the list is not causing crashes in the first place, and the way to do that is to remove the danger, which is motor vehicles.

Another_MAMIL wrote:

However, we can all make human errors (e.g. failing to see a pothole at night and crashing). In certain circumstances, a helmet could make a difference.

what circumstances would those be?