3 ms·

I believe this is directly contradicted by the statistical evidence. I'll see if I can find a reference... Edit: you are correct that at high speeds (over 50k

I believe this is directly contradicted by the statistical evidence. I'll see if I can find a reference... Edit: you are correct that at high speeds (over 50km/h) bike helmets become less effective when hit by a car. However, many car/bike accidents occur at speeds below 50km/h, in which case helmets can and do save lives. [1] One could make a similar statement to yours regarding any safety device. A seatbelt probably won't save me if I hit a truck going 120km/h in my car. But it will help in a lot of other situations, so I'll still wear it. [1] http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/experts-prove-cycle-helmets-can-6581142 http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/experts-prove-cycle-hel...

bigiain 10y ago
I'm not exactly Lance Armstrong, so I can barely make it to 25km/h on my bicycle (without a good tailwind or a downhill run) and I certainly can't maintain it for long. What's the bottom end of that effectiveness curve look like? It's 100% clear that helmets have zero effectiveness at 0km/h[1] - I bet the "effectiveness" of helmets is statistically the same a zero at 1km/h and 3km/h as well - where's the data that shows the shape of that curve? How does that compare with various categories of cycling? I note that what the linked study/article "proves" is that if you have a crash in which you might die, a helmet will improve your outcome in some of those cases. To me that has (at least) two obvious responses: 1) wear a helmet, or 2) don't have those sorts of crashes. Me pedalling to the shops or the cafe at 10-15km/h on cycle paths or quiet backstreets is enormously safer than me riding at 25km/h on a busy or main road, or on a downhill mountain bike course - with or without a helmet. Why to "the helmet guys" get to choose which risk minimisation strategy I'm required to employ? [1] to be more accurate, the benefits of having a helmet on while stationary on a bicycle are no different from the benefits of having a helmet on while standing still - something the safety-crats haven't (yet) suggested is necessary...)
- pricechild 10y ago
  I suspect the speed is the closing speed between the cyclist and whatever they hit? Reading the article, it is unclear and might even be solely the speed of the car. Maybe best to try and find the original paper to clarify that one. EDIT: http://bast.opus.hbz-nrw.de/volltexte/2013/692/pdf/41_Than.pdf http://bast.opus.hbz-nrw.de/volltexte/2013/692/pdf/41_Than.p... looks relevant, but I can't see the claims repeated in e.g. the Mirror article.

bigiain 10y ago

I'm not exactly Lance Armstrong, so I can barely make it to 25km/h on my bicycle (without a good tailwind or a downhill run) and I certainly can't maintain it for long. What's the bottom end of that effectiveness curve look like? It's 100% clear that helmets have zero effectiveness at 0km/h[1] - I bet the "effectiveness" of helmets is statistically the same a zero at 1km/h and 3km/h as well - where's the data that shows the shape of that curve? How does that compare with various categories of cycling? I note that what the linked study/article "proves" is that if you have a crash in which you might die, a helmet will improve your outcome in some of those cases. To me that has (at least) two obvious responses: 1) wear a helmet, or 2) don't have those sorts of crashes. Me pedalling to the shops or the cafe at 10-15km/h on cycle paths or quiet backstreets is enormously safer than me riding at 25km/h on a busy or main road, or on a downhill mountain bike course - with or without a helmet. Why to "the helmet guys" get to choose which risk minimisation strategy I'm required to employ? [1] to be more accurate, the benefits of having a helmet on while stationary on a bicycle are no different from the benefits of having a helmet on while standing still - something the safety-crats haven't (yet) suggested is necessary...)

pricechild 10y ago
I suspect the speed is the closing speed between the cyclist and whatever they hit? Reading the article, it is unclear and might even be solely the speed of the car. Maybe best to try and find the original paper to clarify that one. EDIT: http://bast.opus.hbz-nrw.de/volltexte/2013/692/pdf/41_Than.pdf http://bast.opus.hbz-nrw.de/volltexte/2013/692/pdf/41_Than.p... looks relevant, but I can't see the claims repeated in e.g. the Mirror article.