Kask unveils Utopia, “fastest ever road helmet” + video

RTB wrote:

Another helmet article and yet again polarised debate with the usual suspects using it as an excuse to point out (with no firsthand experience and mere hearsay) how bicylce helmets fail to protect.

Whatever your anecdote, two of our most pre-eminent experts have written in the British Medical Journal that the benefits of helmets are too modest to capture. Now would you choose a health intervention  based on a bloke down the pub's anecdote or on rigorous clinical trials data on safety and effectiveness?

Tony wrote:

RTB wrote:

Another helmet article and yet again polarised debate with the usual suspects using it as an excuse to point out (with no firsthand experience and mere hearsay) how bicylce helmets fail to protect.

Whatever your anecdote, two of our most pre-eminent experts have written in the British Medical Journal that the benefits of helmets are too modest to capture. Now would you choose a health intervention  based on a bloke down the pub's anecdote or on rigorous clinical trials data on safety and effectiveness?

have you a citation for this Tony?

lork wrote:

have you a citation for this Tony?

Possibly this:

http://road.cc/content/news/85306-top-scientists-cycle-helmets-debate-wi...

Simon E wrote:

lork wrote:

have you a citation for this Tony?

Possibly this:

http://road.cc/content/news/85306-top-scientists-cycle-helmets-debate-wi...

that looks like the one. 

Tony wrote:

RTB wrote:

Another helmet article and yet again polarised debate with the usual suspects using it as an excuse to point out (with no firsthand experience and mere hearsay) how bicylce helmets fail to protect.

Whatever your anecdote, two of our most pre-eminent experts have written in the British Medical Journal that the benefits of helmets are too modest to capture. Now would you choose a health intervention  based on a bloke down the pub's anecdote or on rigorous clinical trials data on safety and effectiveness?

Nah, but I might look at something like this:

A computational simulation study of the influence of helmet wearing on head injury risk in adult cyclists, D.S. McNally, S. Whitehead, Accident Analysis and Prevention 60 (2013) 15– 23

ABSTRACT - Evidence for the effectiveness of cycle helmets has relied either on simplified experiments or complex statistical analysis of patient cohorts or populations. This study directly assesses the effectiveness of cycle helmets over a range of accident scenarios, from basic loss of control to vehicle impact, using computational modelling. Simulations were performed using dynamics modelling software (MADYMO) and models of a 50% Hybrid III dummy, a hybrid cross bicycle and a car. Loss of control was simulated by a sudden turn of the handlebars and striking a curb, side and rear-on impacts by a car were also simulated. Simulations were run over a representative range of cycle speeds (2.0–14.0 m s−1) and vehicle speeds (4.5–17.9 m s−1). Bicycle helmets were found to be effective in reducing the severity of head injuries sustained in common accidents. They reduced the risk of an AIS > 3 injury, in cases with head impacts, by an average of 40%. In accidents that would cause up to moderate (AIS = 2) injuries to a non-helmeted rider, helmets eliminated the risk of injury. Helmets were also found to be effective in preventing fatal head injuries in some instances. The effectiveness of helmets was demonstrated over the entire range of cycle speeds studied, up to and including 14 m s−1. There was no evidence that helmet wearing increased the risk of neck injury, indeed helmets were found to be protective of neck injuries in many cases. Similarly, helmets were found to offer an increase in protection even when an increase in cycle speed due to risk compensation was taken into consideration.

Or this:

Bicycle helmets are highly effective at preventing head injury during head impact: Head-form accelerations and injury criteria for helmeted and unhelmeted impacts; Peter A. Cripton, Daniel M. Dresslera, Cameron A. Stuart,Christopher R. Dennison, Darrin Richards, Accident Analysis and Prevention 70 (2014) 1–7.

ABSTRACT - Cycling is a popular form of recreation and method of commuting with clear health benefits. However, cycling is not without risk. In Canada, cycling injuries are more common than in any other summer sport;and according to the US National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration, 52,000 cyclists were injured in the US in 2010. Head injuries account for approximately two-thirds of hospital admissions and three-quarters of fatal injuries among injured cyclists. In many jurisdictions and across all age levels, helmets have been adopted to mitigate risk of serious head injuries among cyclists and the majority of epidemio-logical literature suggests that helmets effectively reduce risk of injury. Critics have raised questions over the actual efficacy of helmets by pointing to weaknesses in existing helmet epidemiology including selection bias and lack of appropriate control for the type of impact sustained by the cyclist and the severityof the head impact. These criticisms demonstrate the difficulty in conducting epidemiology studies thatwill be regarded as definitive and the need for complementary biomechanical studies where confoundingfactors can be adequately controlled. In the bicycle helmet context, there is a paucity of biomechanical data comparing helmeted to unhelmeted head impacts and, to our knowledge, there is no data of this type available with contemporary helmets. In this research, our objective was to perform biomechanical testing of paired helmeted and unhelmeted head impacts using a validated anthropomorphic test head-form and a range of drop heights between 0.5 m and 3.0 m, while measuring headform acceleration and Head Injury Criterion (HIC). In the 2 m (6.3 m/s) drops, the middle of our drop height range, the helmet reduced peak accelerations from 824 g (unhelmeted) to 181 g (helmeted) and HIC was reduced from 9667(unhelmeted) to 1250 (helmeted). At realistic impact speeds of 5.4 m/s (1.5 m drop) and 6.3 m/s (2.0 mdrop), bicycle helmets changed the probability of severe brain injury from extremely likely (99.9% risk at both 5.4 and 6.3 m/s) to unlikely (9.3% and 30.6% risk at 1.5 m and 2.0 m drops respectively). These biomechanical results for acceleration and HIC, and the corresponding results for reduced risk of severebrain injury show that contemporary bicycle helmets are highly effective at reducing head injury metricsand the risk for severe brain injury in head impacts characteristic of bicycle crashes.

RTB wrote:

Another helmet article and yet again polarised debate with the usual suspects using it as an excuse to point out (with no firsthand experience and mere hearsay) how bicylce helmets fail to protect.

Did I say that?

Or was I, in fact, asking a question about whether a top of the range helmet - meeting the same test criteria as a cheap one - is really worth the silly money they charge?

Sorry to hear about your smash. Get well soon.

Simon E wrote:

If it's the "fastest" I hope it also provides better protection in a crash than its competitors? After all, that is what a helmet is supposed to do. Isn't it...?

Otherwise you might as well buy one costing £30 (which may also look less silly) and spend the rest on saving the "up to 6" watts elsewhere.

If you want protection, then you'd be much better off with a full-face helmet.

This type of helmet won't provide much protection, so the marketing for bike helmets is now concentrating on aerodynamics/speed.