TJ see the post above this one.

I saw it GeeTee – my conclusion is that the design of the helmet needs to be adjusted – other styles of helmet perform better in these oblique impact situations.

I want a slippy outside shell – like the POC or the helmet with the sliding layer discussed recently, less sticky out bits, chinbar containing poly and close to the face like roadracing motorcycle helmets.

I am not arguing against wearing helmets – I am trying to show the limitations and am arguing for better helmets tested to higher standards and to include rotational impacts.

As you say anecdotally there is a lot of evidence about both diffuse axon injury and neck breaks.

Anything we can do to reduce this must be a good idea.

However on here I am seen as a heretic so am shouted down and rubbished by folk who have not looked at the data.

FFS – I got suck into this again

Can I make a suggestion, that a sticky is added called the 'Helmet thread', as this comes up about every week, or at least TJ drags theads in this direction about every other week.

Juan started this thread to talk about a nice looking Urge helmet, and some others have then added a link to talk about some very nice looking POC ones.

Is it just me, or are there others getting increasingly bored with the predictable way that any thread on here talking about new safety kit (helmets, armour, Leatt braces etc) always ends up with a game of 'internet table tennis'?

btw – I'm perfectly happy for TJ and others to carry on debating this until the cows come home (and probably a long time after that), but it just seems that potentially interesting threads are getting hijacked time and again by the same old arguments.

TJ
Even teh TRL – which is a body well know for its evangelical approach towards protective kit states that in some circumstances rotational injuries can be made worse by helmets and that further research is needed as well as a recommendation that rotational impacts are tested for in cycle helmets

Hmm despite your advocacy of science your conclusions are not scientific, you have committed a bit of a logical fallacy here – just because the TRl have said we need an oblique standard does not mean that ff lids do cause neck injuries, they just recognise that the current standard does not take account of it.

That quote also makes no mention of ff vs not ff they just talk about helmets, they point they are making there is that any helmeted head at a very oblique angle (ie scraping along the ground) will rotate, but only gives a marginal increase in risk.

I think TJ needs to chill out (and consider that mtb is a different sport than skiing/horse riding and motorcycling therefore helmet needs to tick different boxes) and I think we need to get bock to the original topic.
Urge helmet are nice factomnudo.

Geetee – you are absolutely right and I do apologise. I got called for stuff I have never said before I had even posted and tried to set the record straight. Foolish of me. 4 times was what I say quoted wrongly before I posted

Toys – you need to read all the research as I have done. The TRL stuff is a part of it. The larger the diameter of the helmet the greater the risk of rotational injury. "sticky out bits" also increase the risk. the form of the chinbar on most cycle helmets does both these things.

Go on – do yourself a favour. Follow the reference I have provided back to the research and read it. You will be suprised.

Some research puts this increased risk in the 50% range. Thats significant.

EDit – Juan – that may be true but in testing cycle helmets perform worse than other types of helmet – that surely means cycle helmets could be better?
I won't answer anymore.

Urge helmet are nice factomnudo.

Mmmm, think I'm preferring the look of the POC, and also like the fact that it doesn't look like a graffiti artists masterpiece which most of the TLD ones do.

TJ, having just crashed I read all your links overnight with interest. I came to a very different conclusion than you.

Juan, I think they look sexy too, if I hadn't got a cheap and lightweight 661 evolution helmet (which TJ will be glad to note, is light and not bulky so its increase in diameter is smaller) which has proven to save my bonce in a few decent crashes I think I'd go for one too.

POC, as Alpine tested by Mark. He did look buff in it.

I was initially trained as a scientist and my reading of the research is that while there is a potential, but as yet unproven, risk that the helmet could make injuries worse in a very small percentage of accident situations, but that in the majority of accident situations it's proven to have a positive impact. Many of the same arguments were trotted out by groups like MAG in their anti motorcycle helmet days.

Using that research to justify an anti-helmet crusade would appear irresponsible. Using that research to justify additional work on making helmets even more beneficial in accident situations is however reasonable.

epicsteve – Member

I was initially trained as a scientist and my reading of the research is that while there is a potential, but as yet unproven, risk that the helmet could make injuries worse in a very small percentage of accident situations, but that in the majority of accident situations it's proven to have a positive impact. Many of the same arguments were trotted out by groups like MAG in their anti motorcycle helmet days.

Using that research to justify an anti-helmet crusade would appear irresponsible. Using that research to justify additional work on making helmets even more beneficial in accident situations is however reasonable.

Exactly.

Can we go back on topic please… Helmet match the corporate kit or helmet matching the bike 😉

Matching the kit IMHO.

Well I think unless I can sell a kidney It's going to be none 🙁