Cycling has been changed forever - safer helmet thread

[nooneline]

Originally Posted by sitzmark

All well and good, but is there real world data that correlates to test lab results on a dummy head as measured against concussion mitigation for real people ... CPSC or revised oblique testing? I’ve not seen data for bike or ski helmets that shows a dramatic shift in general death rates or head injury - specifically none that proves a better test score returns a better outcome.

when you say real world data, are you proposing a study wherein people are... knocked off of their bikes, and evaluated for head trauma, while wearing different helmets? Let me know when you find an IRB that will approve that study...

I can tell you - as a research scientist - that this is the kind of situation where the best you can get, more or less, is lab results. You can base your methods on sounds research and assumptions about what you're measuring; and yes, you can report its limitations. But you're never going to be able to do a controlled "real world" study of it; you're never going to have the numbers that will let you do a case-control study, either, and "real world" data is going to be too full of variables to draw any meaningful conclusions. Sorry! Limits of practicing science ethically.

It doesn't mean we can't generate knowledge.

[sitzmark]

Yes - that is the challenge and why there won’t be definitive evidence. Death rates are not declining. Unless a controlled study is developed to log degree of concussion to specific helmet used then even a rough correlation can’t be made. Even such a study couldn’t control for force/vector of impact.

I’m in the camp of helmets can’t hurt, but are certainly not revolutionizing cycling (or skiing). Maybe widespread use of wavecel will correlate to a drastic change to general statistics - that would be welcome. Just doubt it. Higher speed collisions with vehicles and obstacles that result in death are often due to blunt force trauma to head or chest that even wavecel isn’t likely to address. If ultimate head safety is the goal, a motor sports helmet is the way to go. Most of us would not wear a motor sports helmet for cycling due to heat and weight - so some degree of compromise is endorsed for comfort/etc.

For competitive cycling better helmet tech probably returns rewards. For general cycling it isn’t helmets that revolutionize safety, as proved by high cycling participation in the Netherlands and very low use of helmets.

[quickfeet]

Just went for a 50 mile ride in my new specter helmet, helmet is super comfy and didn’t make any weird noises or rattles. It was cold as all get out and windy so I can’t speak for ventilation yet.

[nooneline]

Originally Posted by sitzmark

Yes - that is the challenge and why there won’t be definitive evidence. Death rates are not declining. Unless a controlled study is developed to log degree of concussion to specific helmet used then even a rough correlation can’t be made. Even such a study couldn’t control for force/vector of impact.

I’m in the camp of helmets can’t hurt, but are certainly not revolutionizing cycling (or skiing). Maybe widespread use of wavecel will correlate to a drastic change to general statistics - that would be welcome. Just doubt it. Higher speed collisions with vehicles and obstacles that result in death are often due to blunt force trauma to head or chest that even wavecel isn’t likely to address. If ultimate head safety is the goal, a motor sports helmet is the way to go. Most of us would not wear a motor sports helmet for cycling due to heat and weight - so some degree of compromise is endorsed for comfort/etc.

For competitive cycling better helmet tech probably returns rewards. For general cycling it isn’t helmets that revolutionize safety, as proved by high cycling participation in the Netherlands and very low use of helmets.

yeah, you've got it right. you could put a wavecel helmet on everybody who ever rides a bike, and it probably wouldn't affect death rates or anything, because there are other, more significant things that affect deaths: safer streets, fewer cars, etc.

however, research is starting to understand the impact of minor concussions. having experienced one, i can say they are no laughing matter. things that used to be shrugged off - "well, you didn't lose consciousness and you're not dizzy right now, so you're probably fine" - are now, we realize, still injuries of significant concern and delayed effect. if these helmets prevent those, then that's great. existing helmet standards aren't required to protect against these less traumatic impacts; they're designed to prevent your skull from breaking. more protection from these smaller impacts (i hit my head against soft ground and grass for my concussion, had symptoms appear 10 days later and stick around for months) is reason for optimism.

[mcteague]

Curious. REI had the helmet on their website right after product announcement and then it went to "404 not found" page for a while. Today, it is back and the price for a Specter is reduced. REI rarely has sales for new product. Wonder what is up?

https://www.rei.com/product/153008/b...wavecel-helmet

Bontrager Specter WaveCel Helmet

Item #153008
$119.99 $150.00*

REDUCED PRICE You Save 20%


Tim

[quickfeet]

It’s Trek Fest right now so all Bontrager stuff is 20% off at participating shops and on trekbikes.com

[martl]

Originally Posted by sitzmark

Yes - that is the challenge and why there won’t be definitive evidence. Death rates are not declining. Unless a controlled study is developed to log degree of concussion to specific helmet used then even a rough correlation can’t be made. Even such a study couldn’t control for force/vector of impact.

I’m in the camp of helmets can’t hurt, but are certainly not revolutionizing cycling (or skiing). Maybe widespread use of wavecel will correlate to a drastic change to general statistics - that would be welcome. Just doubt it. Higher speed collisions with vehicles and obstacles that result in death are often due to blunt force trauma to head or chest that even wavecel isn’t likely to address. If ultimate head safety is the goal, a motor sports helmet is the way to go. Most of us would not wear a motor sports helmet for cycling due to heat and weight - so some degree of compromise is endorsed for comfort/etc.

For competitive cycling better helmet tech probably returns rewards. For general cycling it isn’t helmets that revolutionize safety, as proved by high cycling participation in the Netherlands and very low use of helmets.

/This.

"can't hurt" - not for the individual, but it *could* hurt the use of a cycle as an everyday transport by subconsciously marketing the notion that cycling is somehow dangerous. Maybe *that* is part of why there are 40% cyclists in the NL and 2% in the US. Try to ignore the "cycling is done with a hgelmet" dogma for a second, and consider: Which other ordinary every-day things do we use special protective gear for? None?

[oldpotatoe]

Originally Posted by martl

/This.

"can't hurt" - not for the individual, but it *could* hurt the use of a cycle as an everyday transport by subconsciously marketing the notion that cycling is somehow dangerous. Maybe *that* is part of why there are 40% cyclists in the NL and 2% in the US. Try to ignore the "cycling is done with a helmet" dogma for a second, and consider: Which other ordinary every-day things do we use special protective gear for? None?

A small part. Our car-centric living design, implemented along with big auto and big oil, are way more responsible.

Car driving and seatbelt use is even 'mandatory'. Skiing....And NO, I don't recommend helmet laws for bike riders.

"Cycling changed forever"?? Not really..

[martl]

a seatbelt isnt really the same thing. one can not use any car any time because one didnt bring ones seatbelt.. part of advocating cycling as a transport is recognizing its strengths. absolute simplicity to use is an ofgen overlooked one.

[GScot]

I was an early adopter and missed the Trek Fest discount but found the Specter to be a good fit for my long oval head. The Boa closure does a good job of tightening around your head instead of just front to back squeezing that sometimes shows up with other systems. I tried with a cycling cap also and had no issues at least for a test.

I'm in Phoenix and it isn't anywhere near hot yet but I don't think it's going to be significantly hotter than other helmets. I'll find out soon enough. I have a hard time finding helmets that aren't too tight front to back so I'm thrilled that they managed to make this one fit.

[Mark McM]

Originally Posted by martl

/This.

"can't hurt" - not for the individual, but it *could* hurt the use of a cycle as an everyday transport by subconsciously marketing the notion that cycling is somehow dangerous. Maybe *that* is part of why there are 40% cyclists in the NL and 2% in the US. Try to ignore the "cycling is done with a hgelmet" dogma for a second, and consider: Which other ordinary every-day things do we use special protective gear for? None?

There's lot's of safety protective gear used daily by many people, such as air bags in cars, or elevator auto-stops (activates in case the cable breaks), or handrails on stairs. But these are typically built-in to the device/structure, and you are probably referring to personal protection devices that are worn. There's plenty of those types of things used in common sports, such as helmets and pads used for football, hockey, lacrosse, ski racing, baseball, or in common jobs, such as hard hats (helmets), steel toed shoes, goggles and eye protection, etc.

If you disregard sports and vocations and just consider daily chores and tasks, then you have things like rubber gloves (for caustic cleaning products), oven mitts, a variety of aprons and smocks, etc. Heck, even shoes, which protect the feet from hazards on the ground (rocks and thorns, etc.), are a type of protective equipment.

Let's face it, we all commonly use some type of wearable protective gear in order to prevent all kinds of injuries for everyday hazards.

[martl]

Originally Posted by Mark McM

If you disregard sports and vocations and just consider daily chores and tasks, then you have things like rubber gloves (for caustic cleaning products), oven mitts, a variety of aprons and smocks, etc. Heck, even shoes, which protect the feet from hazards on the ground (rocks and thorns, etc.), are a type of protective equipment.

Let's face it, we all commonly use some type of wearable protective gear in order to prevent all kinds of injuries for everyday hazards.

The difference between an everyday chore and a sport: i do gear up for sports: Hey the next two hours i'll be running, playing ball, swimming, etc, so i gear up. I don't gear up for doing everyday-y stuff, its literally the very definition of "everyday chore": something i dont gear up for. Telling people thea need to gear up for cycling is removing it from the "everyday thing" category. simple as that. And that is a huge impact.

(btw: if i dont wear oven mittens for retrieving my pizza, i *will* get burnt. If i don't use eye protection when welding, i *will* go blind. 100%. If i dont use a hard hat on the site, my boss gets sued. If i ride my bike, i have down to the 4th digit after the dot the same chance of returning home safe with or without a helmet and no one is my boss.