Paul Allen wrote:
> As a significant proportion of accidents are to the head, yes, even a £10 helmet is better than
> none. The rest of your opinion was either exaggerated or wrong, imho.
Can you quote a proportion? Also, what proportion of incidents were blows to a helmet (resulting in
neck injury or torsional brain injury), where if no helmet had been worn the head (being effectively
smaller) would have escaped contact with the other object?
Of course you can't answer that, no more can I. Reliable figures simply aren't kept.
I don't dispute that there are incidents where a helmet can prevent injury. I *do* dispute your
belief that a cyclist is necessarily less likely to sustain a serious injury when wearing a helmet
than when not.
> Why does it HAVE to be poorly fitting? Re: safety standards, as long as it meets BS or snell
> standards ...
It doesn't have to be poorly fitting, though of course a cheap helmet is less likely to have the
various high tech mechanisms found in many more expensive helmets for adjusting to the perfect fit.
And I see a great many poorly fitting helmets during the summer. When I see children wearing helmets
they are usually not properly fitted, and a poorly fitting helmet is a significant safety hazard.
I had no idea how much childrens' helmets cost, and was going to comment that I would be mightily
impressed if you could find a Snell approved helmet for a tenner. But I've just taken a look at SJS
and found a Snell approved adult helmet for 15 quid. There's also an ANSI approved child helmet for
GBP5.10. OK, I'm impressed. (It might fit me too - it's supposed to fit 52cm to 56cm - but I need a
little more ventilation).
> ... its much better than "air" as a head protector in some accidents.
The crucial word there is "some". There are also some incidents where a helmet is more likely to
cause injury than to prevent it, as well as situations where a helmet might make a crash more likely
in the first place. Which is why I don't wear one in the summer.
> Why aren't you getting this? For the record, *I* do not wear a helmet. So I'm not insisting YOU
> wear one, I'm just trying to say the wearing a helmet is NOT evil or bad, and certainly safer than
> NOT WEARING ONE. Your logic defies belief.
I accept that you're not insisting that anyone should wear a helmet. You *are* insisting that it is
always safer to wear a helmet than not to wear one. This is wrong.
A poorly fitting helmet poses significant safety hazards without offering much benefit. Helmets
(properly fitted or not) may make a crash more likely in certain circumstances and may increase the
likelihood and the severity of certain types of injury in the event of a crash.
I think, on the whole, that I would encourage children to wear helmets, provided the helmets are
properly adjusted, Snell or ANSI approved, and not seen as a substitute for road sense or bike
handling skills. But I do not believe that the benefits of helmets are anywhere near as clear cut as
you believe.
--
Danny Colyer (remove safety to reply) (
http://www.juggler.net/danny ) Recumbent cycle page:
http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/recumbents/ "He who dares not offend cannot be honest." -
Thomas Paine
I've seen the photo...
