Helmet laws again - looks like there's now a legal precedent

[wespelarno]

I'm with floody on this one. I would love to know the potential risk due to friction between scalp and bitumen, and once the scalp has worn away, bone and bitumen.

Seen first hand the result of a slow speed (approx 35km/h) motorbike accident without a helmet. There wasn't much scalp left after friction with the tarmac, and the rider was bleeding from his ears. So while the motorcyclist may have had increased risk of brain whiplash if he had a helmet on, he would still have been in better state. As pointed out, very similair to the issue of seatbelts causing whiplash; diffuse external injury will be the least of your concerns.

Cyclists on footpaths or cyclepaths NOT assosciated with a road, fine, helmet probably isn't neccesary. But when on roads, or cycle paths attatched to a road, helmet is a must.

 

[donny70]

Does a helmet cause the same friction when it passes over the top of a polished vehicle?

 

[Choppa73]

repeal the law.

I take it just about everyone on this forum would wear a helmet law or no law. Why because most of us have an IQ over 1 and understand that wearing a helmet may reduce injuries to your head in the event of an accident.

The only people that wouldn't wear a helmet would be the same people that would have ridden without one anyway, so really what is the law there for?

Personal freedom and choice should be paramount, if I take my dog for a run in the park I don't wear my helmet as I am simply coasting around a grass paddock. However if I am riding through bushland or single trails I choose to wear my helmet along with my gloves, goggles, knee/shin and elbow guards. Personal protection is just that a personal responsibility, it's not law to wear additional protection (yes we really do wear all the protective gear on trails, and sometimes to the ridicule of other riders) but I do because I take responsibility for my own health. If someone chooses to not wear a helmet or any protective gear then so be it, no skin off my nose but it may take more than the skin off their nose.

I don't feel I need a law imposed on me that is only there for the 1% of dumb morons who cant understand the importance of safety gear, who most probably wont obey the law to begin with. Mmmm, Darwin's theory comes to mind right now.

 

[Rodders]

Seat belt laws are also made to protect said morons.

If you hit one of them when you're driving (because morons don't tend to adhere to road rules as well) and cause a lot more injury or death due to their lack of helmet, you would wish it was a compulsory requirement.

 

[Choppa73]

Seat belt laws are also made to protect said morons.

If you hit one of them when you're driving (because morons don't tend to adhere to road rules as well) and cause a lot more injury or death due to their lack of helmet, you would wish it was a compulsory requirement.

I'm not sure what you are saying here, seat belt laws are made to protect morons but if I hit a moron that isn't wearing a seat belt and cause him more injury or death because they weren't wearing a helmet then I will wish what was more compulsory? seat belts or helmets.

Not sure what you do in your spare time but I don't go out looking to hit morons who don't wear seat belts or helmets. If said moron became involved in an accident and was worse off because they didn't wear said seat belt or helmet then that's their problem not mine as I would be wearing my seat belt or helmet.

 

[Knopey]

Irrelevant maybe, but,
- in many Euro countries, helmets are not compulsory
- cycling participation is much higher (generally)
- driver patience with cyclists on the roads is higher (generally)
- people don't think it's their job to tell other people what they can't do (so much, anyway)

... so people are free to wear a helmet if commuting on a busy road to work, or not wear one if just tootling down the footpath to grab a pint of milk. Win/win?

 

[Arete]

To drag it out of the old one and put some perspective on a helmet's role in a cyclist-car crash:

- The threshold for brain injury from direct impact lies between 103 +/- 30g's http://scitation.aip.org/journals/do...s_2/226_1.html
- Snell testing is the most rigorous testing of helmets with a drop from 2.2m onto a flat hard surface and a drop of 1.3m onto a hemispherical surface, and a right angle kerbstone.
- All impacts must register a minimum force of 110 Joules
- A 5kg human analogous headform inside the helmet during the drop must register less than 300g at impact.
- as above helmets, are tested at 110 J/m and a 1400kg car hitting you at 50km/h imparts about 1944445 J/m. If such an accident occurs your helmet will absorb 0.0005% of the force.

 

[top_oz_bloke]

Well you've confused me for starters with the strange use of units, but I can't really see the point to what you've posted.

Surely it is ridiculous to try and link the amount of energy that a helmet can absorb with such a complex and variable event like a collision with a vehicle.

I'd love to see the math behind "1944445 J/m".

 

[Arete]

mass = 1400 000g
speed = 180ms-1
force =1400 000 x 180ms-1 = 2 5200 000g/ms-1

convert to joules

=1944445j/m

Pictorially - 64km/h frontal offest crash test:

bicycle helmet test:

The point is the role of helmet in a car hitting you at speed is negligible - they're designed and tested to protect you falling off and hitting your head on the road at moderate speed - not being hit by a tonne and a half of metal at 50km/h.
I mean I wear my helmet commuting but I'm under no pretense that it's going to make one iota of difference if I'm gonna get t-boned by car going at speed. Justifying helmet use by suggesting they'll protect you in a serious cyclist - car collision is like advocating wearing a hoodie for bullet protection.

 

[top_oz_bloke]

ok, I don't get your maths.

50 km/hr = 13.9 m/s for starters. Have a think about it. A car travelling past you on a suburban street does not travel 200m in 1 second. 180 m/s is 648km/hr.

F = mass x acceleration, not mass x velocity and therefore the rest of your numbers are meaningless (notwithstanding this, the force number is wrong btw as is the way you've derived the units).

And I'm not sure exactly how (or why) you are converting this to Joules?

Captain Obvious can tell you that a bike helmet, or in fact any protective equipment is not going to absorb a massive square on impact if someone lines you up and mows you down at full speed. I don't think anyone is suggesting this.

A helmet might however improve your chances. Which is why I wear one and will continue to do so.

 

[Arete]

ok, I don't get your maths.

50 km/hr = 13.9 m/s for starters. Have a think about it. A car travelling past you on a suburban street does not travel 200m in 1 second. 180 m/s is 648km/hr.

F = mass x acceleration, not mass x velocity and therefore the rest of your numbers are meaningless (notwithstanding this, the force number is wrong btw as is the way you've derived the units).

And I'm not sure exactly how (or why) you are converting this to Joules?

Captain Obvious can tell you that a bike helmet, or in fact any protective equipment is not going to absorb a massive square on impact if someone lines you up and mows you down at full speed. I don't think anyone is suggesting this.

A helmet might however improve your chances. Which is why I wear one and will continue to do so.

you're right - my maths = bad I both got the km/h and m/s-1 conversion backwards and incorrectly appled F=ma. Been a long time since I did high school physics, but the point I was trying to convey is that the amount of force imparted when being struck by a car vastly exceeds the conditions under which helmet are designed to protect you in. On second look it's going to be a lot harder to work out as you'd need to know the rate of deceleration as the vehicle struck you...

The conversion to Joules was due to the fact the amount of force that needs to be imparted to a helmet according to Snell testing guidelines is 110 Joules.

The point is the chance of being belted by a car and your helmet making a lifesaving difference is negligible. As stated I wear a helmet commuting too. Just putting that the "I/my friend got mowed down by a car at 80km/h and his helment save his/my life" tales in perspective - it's unlikely that the helmet was the difference.

 

[Lukas]

mass = 1400 000g
speed = 180ms-1
force =1400 000 x 180ms-1 = 2 5200 000g/ms-1

convert to joules

=1944445j/m

Pictorially - 64km/h frontal offest crash test:

bicycle helmet test:

The point is the role of helmet in a car hitting you at speed is negligible - they're designed and tested to protect you falling off and hitting your head on the road at moderate speed - not being hit by a tonne and a half of metal at 50km/h.
I mean I wear my helmet commuting but I'm under no pretense that it's going to make one iota of difference if I'm gonna get t-boned by car going at speed. Justifying helmet use by suggesting they'll protect you in a serious cyclist - car collision is like advocating wearing a hoodie for bullet protection.

I just dont understand your example and math around car crash test and helmet test.

No one is expecting that you will survive crash where car will crunch your head protected or not with helmet against the wall an those accidents are not common.

Most of the Car and cyclist collision scenarios is: car is hitting cyclist (no matter of the direction) on his body, then cyclist performing airborne and finish on the kerb or any type of the ground and that's is the point make sense to wear helmet.

 

[Lukas]

mass = 1400 000g
speed = 180ms-1
force =1400 000 x 180ms-1 = 2 5200 000g/ms-1

convert to joules

=1944445j/m

Pictorially - 64km/h frontal offest crash test:

bicycle helmet test:

The point is the role of helmet in a car hitting you at speed is negligible - they're designed and tested to protect you falling off and hitting your head on the road at moderate speed - not being hit by a tonne and a half of metal at 50km/h.
I mean I wear my helmet commuting but I'm under no pretense that it's going to make one iota of difference if I'm gonna get t-boned by car going at speed. Justifying helmet use by suggesting they'll protect you in a serious cyclist - car collision is like advocating wearing a hoodie for bullet protection.

I just dont understand your example and math around car crash test and helmet test.

No one is expecting that you will survive crash where car will crunch your head protected or not with helmet against the wall an those accidents are not common.

Most of the Car and cyclist collision scenarios is: car is hitting cyclist (no matter of the direction) on his body, then cyclist performing airborne and finish on the kerb or any type of the ground and that's is the point make sense to wear helmet.

 

[wengji]

I read that artical and this does not mean there is a legal precedents for niot wearing a helmet.

She was found guilty of committing the offence but was not fined for it.

 

[Arete]

I just dont understand your example and math around car crash test and helmet test.

No one is expecting that you will survive crash where car will crunch your head protected or not with helmet against the wall an those accidents are not common.

Most of the Car and cyclist collision scenarios is: car is hitting cyclist (no matter of the direction) on his body, then cyclist performing airborne and finish on the kerb or any type of the ground and that's is the point make sense to wear helmet.

Logic would suggest that in a large proportion of cyclist -car accidents the primary impact with the cyclist's head would be with the vehicle, followed by a secondary impact with the road as is the case with pedestrians.

Helmets are designed to protect you in a fall from a bicycle, not in an impact with a vehicle. The forces in a vehicle accident are far beyond what a bicycle helmet is designed to protect you from. A bike helmet is required to register an impact 3 times the threshold for injury when it falls 1.3m onto a curb. They aren't testing them by smacking them with a car at speed and they won't offer significant protection in that situation.

What I'm trying to indicate is that arguing that a bicycle helmet is significant protection from being hit by a car is not particularly valid. By ignoring the conditions for which a bike helmet is designed and acting as if they are a panacea for head injury reduction you ignore common sense.

Sure bike helmets are a good idea if there's a risk of coming off and whacking your head on the road, but it's frustrating to continually hear the prospect of being struck by a car as a valid reason for wearing one - and that anyone who wouldn't strap a piece of styrofoam to their head in case they get struck by a fast moving 1.5 tonne piece of steel is somehow unintelligent.

If you're going to enforce safety gear be worn in certain circumstances wouldn't the first thing to do be to evaluate exactly what it's designed to protect you from?

 

[flamin'trek]

i still stand by: law = more people with helmet = good thing. Some people will not comply. smart people will -> less brain injury, less health care dollars.

We are not Europe, he have a car culture, not a cycle/walk culture that has developed over many generations.

 

[frensham]

i still stand by: law = more people with helmet = good thing. Some people will not comply. smart people will -> less brain injury, less health care dollars.

Is this the case though? Has the level of brain injury in cycling accidents gone down since the law was introduced? I'm not sure it has and therefore are we spending just as much in health care dollars anyway, and also for those who do not gain the health benefits from riding bicycles because of a law which makes cycling appear dangerous to do? I think the UK got it right when they decided that the introduction of compulsory helmet laws would have a major negative overall effect on the health of the population and therefore to leave the choice to wear a helmet to the individual BUT with an education program to encourage greater usage (which has worked).

 

[JaRedy]

*Whoosh*.....

 

[wespelarno]

Logic would suggest that in a large proportion of cyclist -car accidents the primary impact with the cyclist's head would be with the vehicle, followed by a secondary impact with the road as is the case with pedestrians.

Helmets are designed to protect you in a fall from a bicycle, not in an impact with a vehicle. The forces in a vehicle accident are far beyond what a bicycle helmet is designed to protect you from. A bike helmet is required to register an impact 3 times the threshold for injury when it falls 1.3m onto a curb. They aren't testing them by smacking them with a car at speed and they won't offer significant protection in that situation.

What I'm trying to indicate is that arguing that a bicycle helmet is significant protection from being hit by a car is not particularly valid. By ignoring the conditions for which a bike helmet is designed and acting as if they are a panacea for head injury reduction you ignore common sense.

Sure bike helmets are a good idea if there's a risk of coming off and whacking your head on the road, but it's frustrating to continually hear the prospect of being struck by a car as a valid reason for wearing one - and that anyone who wouldn't strap a piece of styrofoam to their head in case they get struck by a fast moving 1.5 tonne piece of steel is somehow unintelligent.

If you're going to enforce safety gear be worn in certain circumstances wouldn't the first thing to do be to evaluate exactly what it's designed to protect you from?

A helmet isn't a pefect fix, and in the event you are directly struck and your head hits the car you will sustain a lot of damage regardless of what you are wearing. But if a car is moving at 60-sees the bike and manages to slow to 30 then hits you, it may come into effect. The body will be hit first and the head secondary. I thought in most frontal impacts, the head whips down into the bonnet (as opposed to being struck front on), which has quite a bit of flex and again will occur at slower speed than the vehicle is moving. Helmet into bonnet will provide even more dampening, so you aren't hitting anywhere near as hard as implied. Even if the helmet's load limit is exceeded, it will still reduce the impact and reduce damage.

Even better is when the body is hit and the head doesn't hit the car-instead it hits the road. Here a helmet will make a huge difference as it will be a relatively similair force to the helmet protesting procedure.

In the event it is a frontal impact with something like a square front truck where your head is hit at speed, then it won't make any difference. But in most other situations it will.

 

[toodles]

I wonder if helmet laws were repealed, if we wouldn't see more kids wearing helmets in skate parks. For now, helmets are those things you have to use so as a sign of rebellion kids won't wear them. Make them a personal choice and you'd take away half the reason you see so many kids not wearing them.

Everytime the helmet law sag comes up a bunch of people on here seem to think that repealing the laws would make helmets illegal or something. All I'm saying is stop fining people who aren't wearing them. 99% of people are bright enough to wear one by choice anyway.

And comments about funding the care of people in a vegetative state is plain retarded. Do some research into the leading causes of brain injury and then ask why helmets aren't compulsory for football, boxing, driving a car, having a fight down the pub or crossing the road.