This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
I have been biking (road and mtb) a few years now and almost always wear my helmet, though it must be said that i never really thought i would hit my head so hard that i would need one. No, not entirely rational thinking i know
However, 2 days ago i fell on my road bike and hit my head so hard, that my helmet split. Without a doubt i would now be either dead or a vegetable had i not been wearing one.
And no, i wasn't going so fast, prob around 20kph and it happened so fast, there was absolutely nothing i could have done about it.
So, really just sharing my experience and, although i think it was a bit of a one in a million accident, i shan't be going out again with a bare head!
However, 2 days ago i fell on my road bike and hit my head so hard, that my helmet split. Without a doubt i would now be either dead or a vegetable had i not been wearing one.
And no, i wasn't going so fast, prob around 20kph and it happened so fast, there was absolutely nothing i could have done about it.
So, really just sharing my experience and, although i think it was a bit of a one in a million accident, i shan't be going out again with a bare head!
In reply to Kimono:
Cycle helmets absorb impacts by crushing: if it split, it didn't absorb even the rated impact, and may not have helped a great deal at all. There's just no way to tell how much difference it made.
That's no reason not to wear one of course, especially if it makes you feel safer.
Cycle helmets absorb impacts by crushing: if it split, it didn't absorb even the rated impact, and may not have helped a great deal at all. There's just no way to tell how much difference it made.
That's no reason not to wear one of course, especially if it makes you feel safer.
1
1
In reply to Kimono:
Always a mixed message regarding cycling helmets. I always wear one off-road but for road use it's a bit of a grey area - if a car hits you at 30mph then there's going to be a lot of damage to other parts of your body that a helmet isn't going to be of use. Even with the best will in the world a couple of hundred grammes of polystyrene isn't going to withstand the energy of a tonne and a half of metal travelling at 50Kmh though it does depend on how and where you hit your head.
As it happens we had an incident yesterday while mountain biking. On a steady track when I saw the rider in front of me somersault off the track. (I checked my Strava log last night and we were doing somewhere between 19-24kph at the time). As luck would have it he came off at the one point on the track where he could have got hurt and fell head first in to a bouldery stream bed. He was about 50 metres ahead of me when it happened. I don't know if he lost consciousness but by the time I got to him he was conscious. He'd got quite a set of lacerations to his forehead, his bike helmet had a dint in the shell but on the inside you could see a split along the polystyrene. He certainly had concussion as he couldn't state where he was. We weren't far from the road as it happened so we got an ambulance out and they got him to hospital. Fortunately after checking him over he was fine, though he's likely to have lots of bruising for a while.
Always a mixed message regarding cycling helmets. I always wear one off-road but for road use it's a bit of a grey area - if a car hits you at 30mph then there's going to be a lot of damage to other parts of your body that a helmet isn't going to be of use. Even with the best will in the world a couple of hundred grammes of polystyrene isn't going to withstand the energy of a tonne and a half of metal travelling at 50Kmh though it does depend on how and where you hit your head.
As it happens we had an incident yesterday while mountain biking. On a steady track when I saw the rider in front of me somersault off the track. (I checked my Strava log last night and we were doing somewhere between 19-24kph at the time). As luck would have it he came off at the one point on the track where he could have got hurt and fell head first in to a bouldery stream bed. He was about 50 metres ahead of me when it happened. I don't know if he lost consciousness but by the time I got to him he was conscious. He'd got quite a set of lacerations to his forehead, his bike helmet had a dint in the shell but on the inside you could see a split along the polystyrene. He certainly had concussion as he couldn't state where he was. We weren't far from the road as it happened so we got an ambulance out and they got him to hospital. Fortunately after checking him over he was fine, though he's likely to have lots of bruising for a while.
In reply to Kimono:
I thought Chris Boardman's comments on this were quite telling:
“I had the audacity to ride a bicycle in normal clothes and was pilloried for it,” he said.
“I dressed as I would to drive down the shops. I have nothing against helmets.
“If I go on a long ride I wear one – sometimes out of habit, often on a mountain bike – but I am under no illusion about the effect on my safety. I manufacture the things. In an incident with a car they will have almost no effect.
“They are being used to deflect from making real decisions and I won’t waste air time talking about them. The danger for me is being hit by a vehicle doing something it shouldn’t. We should focus on how we stop accidents not what happens to people who have them.”
http://road.cc/content/news/160492-chris-boardman-films-cycle-safety-video-...
I think the moral is they aren't a bad thing if you hit the floor, but they aren't going to make a difference hitting a car due to the speed differential.
Personally I always wear one, but I feel my MTB helmets are more likely to save my life from hitting trees/rocks, than my road helmet saving me from an accident with a vehicle
I thought Chris Boardman's comments on this were quite telling:
“I had the audacity to ride a bicycle in normal clothes and was pilloried for it,” he said.
“I dressed as I would to drive down the shops. I have nothing against helmets.
“If I go on a long ride I wear one – sometimes out of habit, often on a mountain bike – but I am under no illusion about the effect on my safety. I manufacture the things. In an incident with a car they will have almost no effect.
“They are being used to deflect from making real decisions and I won’t waste air time talking about them. The danger for me is being hit by a vehicle doing something it shouldn’t. We should focus on how we stop accidents not what happens to people who have them.”
http://road.cc/content/news/160492-chris-boardman-films-cycle-safety-video-...
I think the moral is they aren't a bad thing if you hit the floor, but they aren't going to make a difference hitting a car due to the speed differential.
Personally I always wear one, but I feel my MTB helmets are more likely to save my life from hitting trees/rocks, than my road helmet saving me from an accident with a vehicle
Post edited at 11:42
7
11
1
In reply to Kimono:
Why is it that it is always 'without a doubt' that you would have been dead or a vegetable? Are you medically trained?
Why is it that it is always 'without a doubt' that you would have been dead or a vegetable? Are you medically trained?
4
5
In reply to Removed User:
I assume that people whose heads would "without a doubt" have split like their polystyrene hat must have heads made of helmet.
> Why is it that it is always 'without a doubt' that you would have been dead or a vegetable? Are you medically trained?
I assume that people whose heads would "without a doubt" have split like their polystyrene hat must have heads made of helmet.
2
1
In reply to Kimono:
I take the attitude that wearing a helmet doesn't impact my enjoyment of cycling on or off road so even if it is going to do some good in a crash I might as well wear it. I agree that the benefit in in a head on collision with a car might be limited but if you don't mind wearing a helmet why not have that limited benefit. I've had a few off road spills where I can't say I would have split my head open but have thought I'm glad those dents and grit in my helmet aren't in my head!
I take the attitude that wearing a helmet doesn't impact my enjoyment of cycling on or off road so even if it is going to do some good in a crash I might as well wear it. I agree that the benefit in in a head on collision with a car might be limited but if you don't mind wearing a helmet why not have that limited benefit. I've had a few off road spills where I can't say I would have split my head open but have thought I'm glad those dents and grit in my helmet aren't in my head!
7
In reply to Andy DB:
I agree with that. There's a very simple experiment that can prove this point (don't try it). First run into a wall head first then find a friend and get them to run into the same wall head first whilst wearing a helmet. Compare notes.
I agree with that. There's a very simple experiment that can prove this point (don't try it). First run into a wall head first then find a friend and get them to run into the same wall head first whilst wearing a helmet. Compare notes.
Post edited at 12:32
4
In reply to turnersi:
Are you sure this is correct?
Surely the slitting of the material will not be an instantaneous thing and will be a result of the material deforming for a period before reaching it's maximum and then splitting, thus increasing the time of the impact and reducing the peak force on the head in the helmet and therefore doing it's job. So the split is just the end result, just like if you hit a kerb hard and split a tyre, just because it burst the tyre doesn't meant that the tyre didn't do it's job up to it's design specification only that the impact it received was greater than it's design spec.
I'm my experience, every helmet I've seen that's taken a significant impact has split into two or more pieces, I managed to split one into 8 in one crash.
> Cycle helmets absorb impacts by crushing: if it split, it didn't absorb even the rated impact, and may not have helped a great deal at all. There's just no way to tell how much difference it made.
Are you sure this is correct?
Surely the slitting of the material will not be an instantaneous thing and will be a result of the material deforming for a period before reaching it's maximum and then splitting, thus increasing the time of the impact and reducing the peak force on the head in the helmet and therefore doing it's job. So the split is just the end result, just like if you hit a kerb hard and split a tyre, just because it burst the tyre doesn't meant that the tyre didn't do it's job up to it's design specification only that the impact it received was greater than it's design spec.
I'm my experience, every helmet I've seen that's taken a significant impact has split into two or more pieces, I managed to split one into 8 in one crash.
8
In reply to balmybaldwin:
"In an incident with a car they will have almost no effect."
The important qualifier here is "almost", if wearing a helmet has even the slightest effect in protecting my head in a crash surely that's better than nothing. Who's to tell at what point that crash that concusses you becomes a crash that turns you into a cabbage.
I can somewhat see his point here when you read stories about someone being flattened by a tipper truck and the anti cycling people pipe up that the they weren't wearing a helmet as if to absolve the driver of any blame in the incident.
Personally I always wear a helmet, it's super light and comfortable and I don't really notice I'm wearing it, which was evident after my last ride when I sat in the kitchen recovering for an hour only noticing I was still wearing my helmet when I went to have a shower.
"In an incident with a car they will have almost no effect."
The important qualifier here is "almost", if wearing a helmet has even the slightest effect in protecting my head in a crash surely that's better than nothing. Who's to tell at what point that crash that concusses you becomes a crash that turns you into a cabbage.
> “They are being used to deflect from making real decisions and I won’t waste air time talking about them. The danger for me is being hit by a vehicle doing something it shouldn’t."
I can somewhat see his point here when you read stories about someone being flattened by a tipper truck and the anti cycling people pipe up that the they weren't wearing a helmet as if to absolve the driver of any blame in the incident.
Personally I always wear a helmet, it's super light and comfortable and I don't really notice I'm wearing it, which was evident after my last ride when I sat in the kitchen recovering for an hour only noticing I was still wearing my helmet when I went to have a shower.
1
In reply to Kimono:
A few weeks ago I mentioned on here an accident to my brother. Basically he landed on his head after going over a low wall and down a 10 foot drop onto concrete at the other side. His helmet split into 4 or 5 big pieces, and many more little ones.
He suffered 4 cracked vertebrae, and a fully fractured c7, which results in him wearing a full body and head brace which basically means he is immobile from the waist up for the 5 weeks since the accident, and the next two weeks at least.
The doctors said these injuries were caused by compression of the spine resulting from an impact to the top of the head. They also said that without a helmet, he would most likely have died. His skull could not have withstood that amount of force.
It is currently a full time job caring for him.
I'm a roadie myself, and have always worn a helmet, just got into the habit, after acquiring a wife and kids, but was previously unsure of the merits of wearing it.
I now feel like accosting every roadie I see without a helmet and telling him all this, but I've resisted so far.
A few weeks ago I mentioned on here an accident to my brother. Basically he landed on his head after going over a low wall and down a 10 foot drop onto concrete at the other side. His helmet split into 4 or 5 big pieces, and many more little ones.
He suffered 4 cracked vertebrae, and a fully fractured c7, which results in him wearing a full body and head brace which basically means he is immobile from the waist up for the 5 weeks since the accident, and the next two weeks at least.
The doctors said these injuries were caused by compression of the spine resulting from an impact to the top of the head. They also said that without a helmet, he would most likely have died. His skull could not have withstood that amount of force.
It is currently a full time job caring for him.
I'm a roadie myself, and have always worn a helmet, just got into the habit, after acquiring a wife and kids, but was previously unsure of the merits of wearing it.
I now feel like accosting every roadie I see without a helmet and telling him all this, but I've resisted so far.
14
In reply to Greasy Prusiks:
Ethics committee unfortunately rejected this experimental methodology even considering the sub-human life forms I refer to as friends. However having observed the experiments that don't have a control sample by both other researcher and myself. I still conclude that a helmet is likely to reduce injuries for the same impact, compared to not wearing one. However future research is require in the area of whether the action of wearing a helmet makes you more likely to test it's protective ability.
Ethics committee unfortunately rejected this experimental methodology even considering the sub-human life forms I refer to as friends. However having observed the experiments that don't have a control sample by both other researcher and myself. I still conclude that a helmet is likely to reduce injuries for the same impact, compared to not wearing one. However future research is require in the area of whether the action of wearing a helmet makes you more likely to test it's protective ability.
3
In reply to Kimono:
Overall I don't think there is much of a case to argue against helmets. They're light and comfortable (some may even reduce aerodynamic drag) and do not detract at all from the activity of riding a bike. It's not like climbing where there is sometimes a valid decision to be made about whether your helmet will get in the way or limit freedom of movement.
Granted, if a vehicle hits you full on, your going to be badly injured with or without a helmet. However if I made a mistake on a 45mph descent, it could be the difference between getting back up or not.
Overall I don't think there is much of a case to argue against helmets. They're light and comfortable (some may even reduce aerodynamic drag) and do not detract at all from the activity of riding a bike. It's not like climbing where there is sometimes a valid decision to be made about whether your helmet will get in the way or limit freedom of movement.
Granted, if a vehicle hits you full on, your going to be badly injured with or without a helmet. However if I made a mistake on a 45mph descent, it could be the difference between getting back up or not.
In reply to Andy DB:
An excellent suggestion. However I predict technical difficulties in future double blind studies on the probability of a 'helmet test event' in amateur cyclists.
An excellent suggestion. However I predict technical difficulties in future double blind studies on the probability of a 'helmet test event' in amateur cyclists.
In reply to Kimono:
Plenty of information here that may interest people:
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1139.html
Plenty of information here that may interest people:
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1139.html
In reply to Removed User:
Because my head hit the ground so f@cking hard my friend, that I didn't need to be a medical expert to know that my skull would have opened.
I suspect you're in 'helmet-denial'?
> Why is it that it is always 'without a doubt' that you would have been dead or a vegetable? Are you medically trained?
Because my head hit the ground so f@cking hard my friend, that I didn't need to be a medical expert to know that my skull would have opened.
I suspect you're in 'helmet-denial'?
1
2
In reply to turnersi:
My helmet split rather than crushed after headbutting the drystone wall near to where you can park at Surprise view, hard enough to give me neck ache for a day or two and concussion for two and a bit weeks, by the third week I still felt a bit 'slow' when I went back to Spanish classes, but my speech had stopped randomly being slurred for a couple of seconds before returning to normal again.
I think I've decided that while helmets don't seem to have a lot of effect on a population level to injury/death rates, on an individual basis they're probably very helpful when it comes to stopping anything pointy (like a stone in a drystone wall) from concentrating forces on a particular part of the skull, leading to a skull fracture or bigger breakage and any serious consequences stemming from that.
Even though the safer feeling might mean that people take more risks than if they were without a helmet, for me a bike crash at close to 30mph has led to me being more cautious in general, because I don't want to feel the cold knot in my stomach again which I felt when I knew I was going to come off in a fairly big way.
My helmet is always on my head now when cycling. People can die just from falling over and hitting their head on the kerb, so it makes sense to me to wear one.
> Cycle helmets absorb impacts by crushing: if it split, it didn't absorb even the rated impact, and may not have helped a great deal at all. There's just no way to tell how much difference it made.
> That's no reason not to wear one of course, especially if it makes you feel safer.
My helmet split rather than crushed after headbutting the drystone wall near to where you can park at Surprise view, hard enough to give me neck ache for a day or two and concussion for two and a bit weeks, by the third week I still felt a bit 'slow' when I went back to Spanish classes, but my speech had stopped randomly being slurred for a couple of seconds before returning to normal again.
I think I've decided that while helmets don't seem to have a lot of effect on a population level to injury/death rates, on an individual basis they're probably very helpful when it comes to stopping anything pointy (like a stone in a drystone wall) from concentrating forces on a particular part of the skull, leading to a skull fracture or bigger breakage and any serious consequences stemming from that.
Even though the safer feeling might mean that people take more risks than if they were without a helmet, for me a bike crash at close to 30mph has led to me being more cautious in general, because I don't want to feel the cold knot in my stomach again which I felt when I knew I was going to come off in a fairly big way.
My helmet is always on my head now when cycling. People can die just from falling over and hitting their head on the kerb, so it makes sense to me to wear one.
Post edited at 14:00
In reply to Andy DB:
From my sample of 1, I find that wearing a road helmet on road does not make me more likely to take risks, however, the difference when I put on my full face helmet off-road is considerable. (even though I'm aware of the levering effect of the chin guard)
From my sample of 1, I find that wearing a road helmet on road does not make me more likely to take risks, however, the difference when I put on my full face helmet off-road is considerable. (even though I'm aware of the levering effect of the chin guard)
In reply to Kimono:
No what hit the ground was your helmet not your head. and it's a bigger target.
Had you had the same accident without a helmet your head might have hit the ground as hard or it might not. You have no way of knowing.
> Because my head hit the ground so f@cking hard my friend, that I didn't need to be a medical expert to know that my skull would have opened.
No what hit the ground was your helmet not your head. and it's a bigger target.
Had you had the same accident without a helmet your head might have hit the ground as hard or it might not. You have no way of knowing.
1
2
In reply to Kimono:
People can have balance problems and things from crushing their temple after falling over/falling off their bike without a helmet, even if they don't open their skull as it were. I read about a guy who came off at 12mph and struck his head on something and had to relearn how to balance to ride his bikes, when his wife was out to not perturb her.
> Because my head hit the ground so f@cking hard my friend, that I didn't need to be a medical expert to know that my skull would have opened.
> I suspect you're in 'helmet-denial'?
People can have balance problems and things from crushing their temple after falling over/falling off their bike without a helmet, even if they don't open their skull as it were. I read about a guy who came off at 12mph and struck his head on something and had to relearn how to balance to ride his bikes, when his wife was out to not perturb her.
Post edited at 13:58
In reply to Removed UserArdverikie2:
But he's still capable of guessing!
> No what hit the ground was your helmet not your head. and it's a bigger target.
> Had you had the same accident without a helmet your head might have hit the ground as hard or it might not. You have no way of knowing.
But he's still capable of guessing!
5
In reply to Jimbo C:
It might mess up my hair.
I have to carry it around with me whilst shopping etc or leave it vulnerable to damage.
Its ok for people riding for ridings sake but what about for someone visiting the shops?
> Overall I don't think there is much of a case to argue against helmets.
It might mess up my hair.
I have to carry it around with me whilst shopping etc or leave it vulnerable to damage.
Its ok for people riding for ridings sake but what about for someone visiting the shops?
1
In reply to Timmd:
And that, FWIW, is precisely what they are tested and certified to do. Not, of course, that they won't provide *some* protection in the case of something more serious; that much seems obvious.
I tend not to bother for low-speed utility cycling (which is the vast majority of the cycling I do, and as I'm in MK most of it is off-road Dutch style cycleways) as I tend to subscribe to the "normal daily activity, normal clothes" line for that, but I certainly would for mountain biking (high chance of falling off) or if I took up proper road cycling. Main problem I have is of overheating - I seem to rely a lot on losing heat through my head and as such pretty much never wear a hat of any kind - so I'd have to go shopping for a very well ventilated one.
I have a cheapo-crappo one for wearing on Scout activities where the rules mandate it, but I really do get uncomfortably hot while wearing that.
Neil
> My helmet is always on my head now when cycling. People can die just from falling over and hitting their head on the kerb, so it makes sense to me to wear one.
And that, FWIW, is precisely what they are tested and certified to do. Not, of course, that they won't provide *some* protection in the case of something more serious; that much seems obvious.
I tend not to bother for low-speed utility cycling (which is the vast majority of the cycling I do, and as I'm in MK most of it is off-road Dutch style cycleways) as I tend to subscribe to the "normal daily activity, normal clothes" line for that, but I certainly would for mountain biking (high chance of falling off) or if I took up proper road cycling. Main problem I have is of overheating - I seem to rely a lot on losing heat through my head and as such pretty much never wear a hat of any kind - so I'd have to go shopping for a very well ventilated one.
I have a cheapo-crappo one for wearing on Scout activities where the rules mandate it, but I really do get uncomfortably hot while wearing that.
Neil
Post edited at 14:32
In reply to KevinD:
Most of them have vents big enough to put your cable lock for your front wheel through them and lock them to the bike.
Neil
> Its ok for people riding for ridings sake but what about for someone visiting the shops?
Most of them have vents big enough to put your cable lock for your front wheel through them and lock them to the bike.
Neil
1
In reply to Kimono:
Nothing to do with being in "helmet denial" - it's simply calling out the nonsense that's trotted out when people say "that would have happened to my head". It almost certainly wouldn't - your head is not (well, probably not) made of polystyrene foam. So its behaviour on hitting something is very unlikely to be the same. I think that in virtually every case where you bang your head a helmet will help - but it's not made of pixie dust.
I wear a helmet all the time on my road bike - but never do when riding a Boris Bike in London. The reason for the latter is I reason that the inconvenience of carrying a helmet around outweighs the small likelihood of having an accident on a bike I ride for about ten minutes at a time, at very low speed, and where the most likely (though very unlikely) accident is getting squished by a bus. Where my magic hat is unlikely to help much.
Nothing to do with being in "helmet denial" - it's simply calling out the nonsense that's trotted out when people say "that would have happened to my head". It almost certainly wouldn't - your head is not (well, probably not) made of polystyrene foam. So its behaviour on hitting something is very unlikely to be the same. I think that in virtually every case where you bang your head a helmet will help - but it's not made of pixie dust.
I wear a helmet all the time on my road bike - but never do when riding a Boris Bike in London. The reason for the latter is I reason that the inconvenience of carrying a helmet around outweighs the small likelihood of having an accident on a bike I ride for about ten minutes at a time, at very low speed, and where the most likely (though very unlikely) accident is getting squished by a bus. Where my magic hat is unlikely to help much.
In reply to Kimono:
There's a confusion between "a helmet may reduce the risk of head injury in a crash" and "you aren't safe cycling without a helmet" (this is for on-road cycling). Whilst arguments may be presented for and against the former, the latter is patently untrue.
There's a confusion between "a helmet may reduce the risk of head injury in a crash" and "you aren't safe cycling without a helmet" (this is for on-road cycling). Whilst arguments may be presented for and against the former, the latter is patently untrue.
1
In reply to Bob:
What the latter does is tries to make safety absolute. It never is in any situation, ever; it's always relative.
For me, utility cycling is safe enough without a helmet, but mountain biking is not. For some, no unhelmeted cycling is safe enough, while for others all of it is.
I think people in this kind of debate need to accept that others have different acceptable levels of risk.
What the latter does is tries to make safety absolute. It never is in any situation, ever; it's always relative.
For me, utility cycling is safe enough without a helmet, but mountain biking is not. For some, no unhelmeted cycling is safe enough, while for others all of it is.
I think people in this kind of debate need to accept that others have different acceptable levels of risk.
In reply to andy:
nevertheless if I go flying through the air, no vehicle involved, I'd rather give my head a chance, unlike the cyclist outside our house whose brains in the gutter were described by my sister's friend to us when we were kids. No vehicle involved, just a head and a kerb descending a hill. (Crawleyside above Stanhope, county Durham).
nevertheless if I go flying through the air, no vehicle involved, I'd rather give my head a chance, unlike the cyclist outside our house whose brains in the gutter were described by my sister's friend to us when we were kids. No vehicle involved, just a head and a kerb descending a hill. (Crawleyside above Stanhope, county Durham).
In reply to Kimono:
Utter nonsense of course unless of course you have previously split your skull open and thus have some sort of reference.
I wear a helmet at all times on my bike BTW - it's not polystyrene but sensationalist bollocks I object to.
> Because my head hit the ground so f@cking hard my friend, that I didn't need to be a medical expert to know that my skull would have opened.
> I suspect you're in 'helmet-denial'?
Utter nonsense of course unless of course you have previously split your skull open and thus have some sort of reference.
I wear a helmet at all times on my bike BTW - it's not polystyrene but sensationalist bollocks I object to.
2
2
In reply to Kimono:
Almost everyone would recommend riding a motorbike with a helmet but very few would recommend wearing a helmet as a pedestrian. The way I see it is that cycling is somewhere in between the two extremes which is why there is so much debate on the issue.
I don't think the protective nature of a helmet is up for question but some people view the slight benefit of wearing it as outweighing the slight disadvantages, others don't. It's probably not an issue to get too worked up over as long as you can justify your own behaviour to yourself.
On a related note, I think that attitudes of people towards helmets give interesting reflection of the psychology of risk taking. You are balancing a rarely occurring strong benefit (crashing and helmet protecting), with a commonly occurring small disadvantage (comfort, convinience etc.). I wonder if climbers are representative of the population in the average distribution of risk taking behaviours?
Almost everyone would recommend riding a motorbike with a helmet but very few would recommend wearing a helmet as a pedestrian. The way I see it is that cycling is somewhere in between the two extremes which is why there is so much debate on the issue.
I don't think the protective nature of a helmet is up for question but some people view the slight benefit of wearing it as outweighing the slight disadvantages, others don't. It's probably not an issue to get too worked up over as long as you can justify your own behaviour to yourself.
On a related note, I think that attitudes of people towards helmets give interesting reflection of the psychology of risk taking. You are balancing a rarely occurring strong benefit (crashing and helmet protecting), with a commonly occurring small disadvantage (comfort, convinience etc.). I wonder if climbers are representative of the population in the average distribution of risk taking behaviours?
In reply to Neil Williams:
True. Sadly the train of thought seems to be: not wearing helmet => irresponsible => not the fault of driver for crashing in to them.
I am almost as likely to hurt my head tripping up when walking as when falling off a bike so should I wear a helmet whilst walking down the street? Utility cycling needs to be seen as being as safe as being a pedestrian and so long as people fixate on "cyclists must wear a helmet" then this will not happen.
True. Sadly the train of thought seems to be: not wearing helmet => irresponsible => not the fault of driver for crashing in to them.
I am almost as likely to hurt my head tripping up when walking as when falling off a bike so should I wear a helmet whilst walking down the street? Utility cycling needs to be seen as being as safe as being a pedestrian and so long as people fixate on "cyclists must wear a helmet" then this will not happen.
2
In reply to Angrypenguin:
For me the point is that you are balancing one unquantified thing against another.
In some crash situations there may be a benefit. In others, where the helmet might hit something but a bare head wouldn't there may be a disadvantage. In most it will make no difference.
In climbing the equation, of course, is very different.
For me the point is that you are balancing one unquantified thing against another.
In some crash situations there may be a benefit. In others, where the helmet might hit something but a bare head wouldn't there may be a disadvantage. In most it will make no difference.
In climbing the equation, of course, is very different.
> On a related note, I think that attitudes of people towards helmets give interesting reflection of the psychology of risk taking. You are balancing a rarely occurring strong benefit (crashing and helmet protecting), with a commonly occurring small disadvantage (comfort, convinience etc.). I wonder if climbers are representative of the population in the average distribution of risk taking behaviours?
In reply to Angrypenguin:
It's an extreme out-lying case, but I quite regularly ride my motorbike on quiet country lanes without a helmet and it's about as safe as my recreational motorcycling ever gets. (Because I'll generally be pootling along at about 20-25mph with a big stupid grin on my face, as opposed to 50-60mph with helmet and visor.)
> Almost everyone would recommend riding a motorbike with a helmet
It's an extreme out-lying case, but I quite regularly ride my motorbike on quiet country lanes without a helmet and it's about as safe as my recreational motorcycling ever gets. (Because I'll generally be pootling along at about 20-25mph with a big stupid grin on my face, as opposed to 50-60mph with helmet and visor.)
1
In reply to Bob: a couple of interesting obsevations:
Just back from Barcelona, where they have a similar bike hire scheme to London, and lots of other cyclists too. In four days of hanging around outside shops (did a lot of this) and riding round on buses, I saw one person wearing a helmet. Same in Holland - nobody does.
Secondly, my observation would be that virtually all the roadies you see wearing a little cap but no helmet are leathery septugenarians who look like they've been riding for decades!
Just back from Barcelona, where they have a similar bike hire scheme to London, and lots of other cyclists too. In four days of hanging around outside shops (did a lot of this) and riding round on buses, I saw one person wearing a helmet. Same in Holland - nobody does.
Secondly, my observation would be that virtually all the roadies you see wearing a little cap but no helmet are leathery septugenarians who look like they've been riding for decades!
In reply to gethin_allen:
Well, that's how expanded polystyrene absorbs energy. If it crushes, the entire crushed area absorbed some energy. If it (just) splits, the only energy absorbed was at the interface between the split sections. It might crush flat and then break into pieces, of course, but I assumed "split" was the operative bit.
According to this: http://bjsportmed.com/content/24/1/55.full.pdf
that isn't the case.
Well cycle helmets are specifically intended to absorb energy by destructive deformation of the structure, and crushing deforms more of the structure - removing more energy - than splitting. If the elastic deformation you suggest smears the impact over a longer period of time it might still be useful, but splitting still absorbs less energy than crushing.
I guess you could try making a material that absorbed energy by shearing or splitting instead of crushing, but expanded polystyrene isn't it.
Sure, but I could split my cycle helmet with an axe, and it would absorb almost no energy. The fact that a helmet split tells us nothing about how much energy was transmitted to the skull, or how much was absorbed.
> > Cycle helmets absorb impacts by crushing
> Are you sure this is correct?
> Are you sure this is correct?
Well, that's how expanded polystyrene absorbs energy. If it crushes, the entire crushed area absorbed some energy. If it (just) splits, the only energy absorbed was at the interface between the split sections. It might crush flat and then break into pieces, of course, but I assumed "split" was the operative bit.
> Surely the slitting of the material will not be an instantaneous thing and will be a result of the material deforming for a period before reaching it's maximum and then splitting, thus increasing the time of the impact and reducing the peak force on the head in the helmet and therefore doing it's job.
According to this: http://bjsportmed.com/content/24/1/55.full.pdf
> the loading force-deflection graph from impacts to
> the side or front of bicycle helmets will be dominated
> by the polystyrene foam crushing response.
> the side or front of bicycle helmets will be dominated
> by the polystyrene foam crushing response.
that isn't the case.
> So the split is just the end result, just like if you hit a kerb hard and split a tyre, just because it burst the tyre doesn't meant that the tyre didn't do it's job up to it's design specification only that the impact it received was greater than it's design spec.
Well cycle helmets are specifically intended to absorb energy by destructive deformation of the structure, and crushing deforms more of the structure - removing more energy - than splitting. If the elastic deformation you suggest smears the impact over a longer period of time it might still be useful, but splitting still absorbs less energy than crushing.
I guess you could try making a material that absorbed energy by shearing or splitting instead of crushing, but expanded polystyrene isn't it.
> I'm my experience, every helmet I've seen that's taken a significant impact has split into two or more pieces, I managed to split one into 8 in one crash.
Sure, but I could split my cycle helmet with an axe, and it would absorb almost no energy. The fact that a helmet split tells us nothing about how much energy was transmitted to the skull, or how much was absorbed.
In reply to turnersi:
Presumably it crushed, absorbing lots of energy, then split. The split it self won't cushion the fall much but provided crushing occurs before (and perhaps after) splitting, it will still do its job.
Presumably it crushed, absorbing lots of energy, then split. The split it self won't cushion the fall much but provided crushing occurs before (and perhaps after) splitting, it will still do its job.
In reply to turnersi:
But even if the polystyrene splits the large chunks will still be between your head and the object so will then have a chance to absorb the impact in a more traditional manner.
But even if the polystyrene splits the large chunks will still be between your head and the object so will then have a chance to absorb the impact in a more traditional manner.
In reply to andy:
That's not a peaked cap, it's their furrowed brow!
We've just had two weeks in France and very few of the locals (other than on the mountain bike trails round Chamonix) were wearing helmets. It's just a means of getting around. We stopped one night on a campsite next to Lake Annecy and virtually every plot had one or more bikes lying around.
Interestingly there's a pretty impressive "bike lane" there. I say bike lane but effectively it's a road exclusively for bikes: it has priority where minor roads cross it and for major roads there's either an underpass or a bridge. Even the roadies use it. I'm not sure how far it goes but it was certainly most of the way from Annecy to Ugine and might even go as far as Albertville.
That's not a peaked cap, it's their furrowed brow!
We've just had two weeks in France and very few of the locals (other than on the mountain bike trails round Chamonix) were wearing helmets. It's just a means of getting around. We stopped one night on a campsite next to Lake Annecy and virtually every plot had one or more bikes lying around.
Interestingly there's a pretty impressive "bike lane" there. I say bike lane but effectively it's a road exclusively for bikes: it has priority where minor roads cross it and for major roads there's either an underpass or a bridge. Even the roadies use it. I'm not sure how far it goes but it was certainly most of the way from Annecy to Ugine and might even go as far as Albertville.
1
In reply to Bob:
I rode on that about twenty years ago - it didn't even get to the end of the lake then, but I think it's extended by miles now.
I rode on that about twenty years ago - it didn't even get to the end of the lake then, but I think it's extended by miles now.
In reply to KevinD:
I loop my lock through my helmet straps on the basis that nobody is going to cut through the straps to steal it as that would make it useless, unless they go to the trouble of fitting new straps...and somebody who'd go to the trouble of doing that probably wouldn't steal it in the first place, with something helmet theft probably being something opportunistic.
> It might mess up my hair.
> I have to carry it around with me whilst shopping etc or leave it vulnerable to damage.
> Its ok for people riding for ridings sake but what about for someone visiting the shops?
I loop my lock through my helmet straps on the basis that nobody is going to cut through the straps to steal it as that would make it useless, unless they go to the trouble of fitting new straps...and somebody who'd go to the trouble of doing that probably wouldn't steal it in the first place, with something helmet theft probably being something opportunistic.
Post edited at 17:11
In reply to turnersi:
I think this line of argument is a red herring. I would expect a well vented helmet to 'crack', even 'split' as part of the overall 'crushing' effect. This nice clean compression only effect you seem to be looking for seems unlikely.
The important thing is that the helmet design is tested to recognised standards. In this paper, helmets that 'cracked', also had a high probability of preventing injury (page 5).
https://www.bicyclenetwork.com.au/media/vanilla_content/files/Cripton%20AAP...
> Well, that's how expanded polystyrene absorbs energy. If it crushes, the entire crushed area absorbed some energy. If it (just) splits, the only energy absorbed was at the interface between the split sections. It might crush flat and then break into pieces, of course, but I assumed "split" was the operative bit.
I think this line of argument is a red herring. I would expect a well vented helmet to 'crack', even 'split' as part of the overall 'crushing' effect. This nice clean compression only effect you seem to be looking for seems unlikely.
The important thing is that the helmet design is tested to recognised standards. In this paper, helmets that 'cracked', also had a high probability of preventing injury (page 5).
https://www.bicyclenetwork.com.au/media/vanilla_content/files/Cripton%20AAP...
In reply to Kimono:
I hope those advocating Helmet no matter how marginal the benefit also wear them when out walking, in the shower etc, in case of slip or trip.
I hope those advocating Helmet no matter how marginal the benefit also wear them when out walking, in the shower etc, in case of slip or trip.
1
2
In reply to Orgsm:
Why? That's irrational? My helmet saved my skull on several low speed crashes onto rocks and tarmac. Indeed you could slip in the shower and bang your head, but the normal persons righting reactions will help prevent this. Going over your handlebars doesn't allow righting reactions to work.
> I hope those advocating Helmet no matter how marginal the benefit also wear them when out walking, in the shower etc, in case of slip or trip.
Why? That's irrational? My helmet saved my skull on several low speed crashes onto rocks and tarmac. Indeed you could slip in the shower and bang your head, but the normal persons righting reactions will help prevent this. Going over your handlebars doesn't allow righting reactions to work.
In reply to Kimono:
I believe that getting drunk presents a significantly higher desk of head injury than cycling, so we should spend our time worrying about how to get more drinkers to wear helmets.
I believe that getting drunk presents a significantly higher desk of head injury than cycling, so we should spend our time worrying about how to get more drinkers to wear helmets.
1
In reply to Removed UserArdverikie2:
That's actually more likely to do more damage.
The force that the op hit the floor is the same regardless of wearing a helmet or not (skipping over the fact that his mass is slightly higher with the extra weight but that is probably canceled out by the extra aerodynamic drag).
Hitting the floor at a given force with a larger surface area will dissipate the energy better than the smaller surface area of his head.
Ever had your foot stood on by a stiletto? Hurts a lot more than a flat shoe on the same girl.
> No what hit the ground was your helmet not your head. and it's a bigger target.
> Had you had the same accident without a helmet your head might have hit the ground as hard or it might not. You have no way of knowing.
That's actually more likely to do more damage.
The force that the op hit the floor is the same regardless of wearing a helmet or not (skipping over the fact that his mass is slightly higher with the extra weight but that is probably canceled out by the extra aerodynamic drag).
Hitting the floor at a given force with a larger surface area will dissipate the energy better than the smaller surface area of his head.
Ever had your foot stood on by a stiletto? Hurts a lot more than a flat shoe on the same girl.
In reply to turnersi:
Mine must have been faulty then.
It split right down the middle when I decided to use my head to cut a 10 foot long furrow in a forest on a down hill track.
Even though I was not injured other than a sore neck maybe I should try for a refund as it obviously wasn't fit for purpose.
> Cycle helmets absorb impacts by crushing: if it split, it didn't absorb even the rated impact, and may not have helped a great deal at all. There's just no way to tell how much difference it made.
> That's no reason not to wear one of course, especially if it makes you feel safer.
Mine must have been faulty then.
It split right down the middle when I decided to use my head to cut a 10 foot long furrow in a forest on a down hill track.
Even though I was not injured other than a sore neck maybe I should try for a refund as it obviously wasn't fit for purpose.
In reply to Dave the Rave:
I think that is the crucial point. I understood that when people fall over it's usually the hands or wrists that break the fall and hence finger hand wrist or arm injuries are commonly the result. Very very occcasionally the head is injured but this is rarer. I flew headlong on a path down Helvellyn recently as I was running down an easy path. The force was taken mostly by my little finger and arm with the result that the finger burst as the two end bones separated from the rest of the finger bones and dislocated. Spectacularly bloody and a bit uncomfortable but I walked away. If the equivalent happened on a bike I'd expect to go headfirst into something. That is forseeable as a reasonably possible outcome even by the man on the Clapham omnibus. As I said earlier someone died near our house when his head burst open. He certainly wouldn't have been wearing a modern style helmet as they hadn't been developed then.
I think that is the crucial point. I understood that when people fall over it's usually the hands or wrists that break the fall and hence finger hand wrist or arm injuries are commonly the result. Very very occcasionally the head is injured but this is rarer. I flew headlong on a path down Helvellyn recently as I was running down an easy path. The force was taken mostly by my little finger and arm with the result that the finger burst as the two end bones separated from the rest of the finger bones and dislocated. Spectacularly bloody and a bit uncomfortable but I walked away. If the equivalent happened on a bike I'd expect to go headfirst into something. That is forseeable as a reasonably possible outcome even by the man on the Clapham omnibus. As I said earlier someone died near our house when his head burst open. He certainly wouldn't have been wearing a modern style helmet as they hadn't been developed then.
Post edited at 22:23
In reply to Timmd:
True. Are you going to start wearing a helmet when walking...? After all, it makes sense...
> People can die just from falling over and hitting their head on the kerb, so it makes sense to me to wear one.
True. Are you going to start wearing a helmet when walking...? After all, it makes sense...
1
In reply to wercat: why woukd you expect to land head first if you fall off your bike? Hips, wrists and collar bones seem to be the fractures of choice round here.
In reply to Dax H:
That's not correct. The energy of the impact is the same, but, due to the compression of the helmet, the force on the head is lower, but acts over a longer period. Thus, the peak force is reduced, and it's the peak force/acceleration that does the damage. Unless the longer, lower force does something like bending the neck (especially when wearing a lever device such as a helmet) to the point of damage.
In climbing equivalents, it's like falling on a dynamic rope as opposed to a static rope or sling.
> The force that the op hit the floor is the same regardless of wearing a helmet or not
That's not correct. The energy of the impact is the same, but, due to the compression of the helmet, the force on the head is lower, but acts over a longer period. Thus, the peak force is reduced, and it's the peak force/acceleration that does the damage. Unless the longer, lower force does something like bending the neck (especially when wearing a lever device such as a helmet) to the point of damage.
In climbing equivalents, it's like falling on a dynamic rope as opposed to a static rope or sling.
2
In reply to andy:
I'd expect it as a reasonable possibility, reasonable enough to take a simple measure that would increase the chance of my head suffering less injury if it happens.
I'm normally cycling on country roads and though I try to be careful I don't regard road traffic as the main hazard- the state of some of the roads round here worries me more. If I were riding in town I might feel differently. It was climbing and having a job that involved wearing a helmet that accustomed me to wearing one as for most of my life I have ridden without one, so I'm a late adopter as per usual.
Perhaps I'd feel different about what I'd hurt if I was sitting up and begging rather than being on a road bike?
I'd expect it as a reasonable possibility, reasonable enough to take a simple measure that would increase the chance of my head suffering less injury if it happens.
I'm normally cycling on country roads and though I try to be careful I don't regard road traffic as the main hazard- the state of some of the roads round here worries me more. If I were riding in town I might feel differently. It was climbing and having a job that involved wearing a helmet that accustomed me to wearing one as for most of my life I have ridden without one, so I'm a late adopter as per usual.
Perhaps I'd feel different about what I'd hurt if I was sitting up and begging rather than being on a road bike?
Post edited at 22:24
In reply to KevinD:
It's a fair point. Helmet wearing is uncommon in Holland where most 'bike riders' are just getting from A to B at a pretty relaxed pace.
Personally I like to go fast just for the hell of it, so it's a helmet for me please.
> Its ok for people riding for ridings sake but what about for someone visiting the shops?
It's a fair point. Helmet wearing is uncommon in Holland where most 'bike riders' are just getting from A to B at a pretty relaxed pace.
Personally I like to go fast just for the hell of it, so it's a helmet for me please.
3
In reply to wercat:
Possibly so. A wide tyred hybrid is less likely to have massive issues with bad road conditions, and as you're sitting further back and more vertical you're far less likely to go over the bars. And if you do you're barely going any faster than a jogger.
Neil
Possibly so. A wide tyred hybrid is less likely to have massive issues with bad road conditions, and as you're sitting further back and more vertical you're far less likely to go over the bars. And if you do you're barely going any faster than a jogger.
Neil
Post edited at 23:17
In reply to Jimbo C:
Same here. Particularly after a rather embarrassing trip to A&E after taking my bike out to check some gear indexing and coming off on wet roots/leaves. I wouldnt feel comfortable leaving the bike locked up either outside of the garage or the office secure parking.
Whilst the evidence is slim either way there does seem to be a case that compulsory helmet laws does decrease cycling numbers. So it may be more unhealthy to require them to be worn since some people will stop a regular sensible exercise.
> Personally I like to go fast just for the hell of it, so it's a helmet for me please.
Same here. Particularly after a rather embarrassing trip to A&E after taking my bike out to check some gear indexing and coming off on wet roots/leaves. I wouldnt feel comfortable leaving the bike locked up either outside of the garage or the office secure parking.
Whilst the evidence is slim either way there does seem to be a case that compulsory helmet laws does decrease cycling numbers. So it may be more unhealthy to require them to be worn since some people will stop a regular sensible exercise.
In reply to andy:
Yes. You will put out your hand to save yourself. This is normal. When the momentum stops your upper limb from preventing your head from hitting the ground, it will in spectacular style, with various consequences . Why are people so stupid as to believe that helmets are pointless? Darwin?
> why woukd you expect to land head first if you fall off your bike? Hips, wrists and collar bones seem to be the fractures of choice round here.
Yes. You will put out your hand to save yourself. This is normal. When the momentum stops your upper limb from preventing your head from hitting the ground, it will in spectacular style, with various consequences . Why are people so stupid as to believe that helmets are pointless? Darwin?
In reply to Kimono:
For me, cycling in London, I feel wearing a helmet = instant identification as a cyclist even if drivers can't see my bike through traffic etc, also people crossing roads, helmet = cyclist every little helps on the streets of London
For me, cycling in London, I feel wearing a helmet = instant identification as a cyclist even if drivers can't see my bike through traffic etc, also people crossing roads, helmet = cyclist every little helps on the streets of London
In reply to Dave the Rave:
I don't think anyone has suggested helmets are pointless (certainly not me, as poster earlier I always wear one on my road bike, never wear one on a hire bike in London and rarely on my commuter in Brum - I make a risk assessment of inconvenience vs benefit).
What people are questioning is people who think their head is made of polystyrene (so helmet split = saved from certain death) or who claim that you would almost always land head first if falling off a bike. That's not my experience, as most of the injuries I've seen from falls are hips and collar bones and no signs of any heads hitting anything as (you rightly point out) something else usually hits the ground first and stops the head hitting anything. The exception being a clubmate who went head first into the barriers at a crit who suffered some nasty scalp injuries despite his helmet.
There's far more chance of you getting a serious head injury if you're in a car accident than if you fall off a bike, but I don't see many people driving their Daewoo in a full facer - are they "stupid"? Nope. They make a risk assessment and decide against it.
I have no doubt that if you hit your head you'll probably be better off with a helmet than without, but in a major collision with something big and metally (car, lorry or crash barrier) it'll make no difference - I also think this "no helmet = unsafe" stuff is nonsense and Boardman's right - there's far more things to do that will keep cyclists safe before a bit of polystyrene on their head.
I don't think anyone has suggested helmets are pointless (certainly not me, as poster earlier I always wear one on my road bike, never wear one on a hire bike in London and rarely on my commuter in Brum - I make a risk assessment of inconvenience vs benefit).
What people are questioning is people who think their head is made of polystyrene (so helmet split = saved from certain death) or who claim that you would almost always land head first if falling off a bike. That's not my experience, as most of the injuries I've seen from falls are hips and collar bones and no signs of any heads hitting anything as (you rightly point out) something else usually hits the ground first and stops the head hitting anything. The exception being a clubmate who went head first into the barriers at a crit who suffered some nasty scalp injuries despite his helmet.
There's far more chance of you getting a serious head injury if you're in a car accident than if you fall off a bike, but I don't see many people driving their Daewoo in a full facer - are they "stupid"? Nope. They make a risk assessment and decide against it.
I have no doubt that if you hit your head you'll probably be better off with a helmet than without, but in a major collision with something big and metally (car, lorry or crash barrier) it'll make no difference - I also think this "no helmet = unsafe" stuff is nonsense and Boardman's right - there's far more things to do that will keep cyclists safe before a bit of polystyrene on their head.
Post edited at 06:08
1
1
In reply to Angrypenguin:
Is there "much debate"? You rarely see anyone cycling on the road around here without a helmet (and I get 100s of cyclists go past my door on a sunny summer weekend).
As for myself, I used to wear a helmet off road but not on road. Until a rabbit crossed the road about 3 inches from my front wheel. 4 inches different and I'd have been over the handlebars at 20mph. Getting hit by a car isn't the only way you can get hurt on the road.
> The way I see it is that cycling is somewhere in between the two extremes which is why there is so much debate on the issue.
Is there "much debate"? You rarely see anyone cycling on the road around here without a helmet (and I get 100s of cyclists go past my door on a sunny summer weekend).
As for myself, I used to wear a helmet off road but not on road. Until a rabbit crossed the road about 3 inches from my front wheel. 4 inches different and I'd have been over the handlebars at 20mph. Getting hit by a car isn't the only way you can get hurt on the road.
In reply to Kimono:
Did anyone bother to browse the link I posted up thread, or does everyone just prefer to talk about their own anecdotes and opinions? Look, it even discusses reports and studies and everything:
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1139.html
Did anyone bother to browse the link I posted up thread, or does everyone just prefer to talk about their own anecdotes and opinions? Look, it even discusses reports and studies and everything:
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1139.html
In reply to Mike Peacock:
To be honest, someone posts that link on every discussion of bike helmets - I (despite not being a believer in magical hats' ability to save me from certain death) think it's a bit disingenuous, as it seeks to discount all the pro-helmet arguments, whilst dressing itself as a neutral study of the evidence for and against.
> Did anyone bother to browse the link I posted up thread, or does everyone just prefer to talk about their own anecdotes and opinions? Look, it even discusses reports and studies and everything:
To be honest, someone posts that link on every discussion of bike helmets - I (despite not being a believer in magical hats' ability to save me from certain death) think it's a bit disingenuous, as it seeks to discount all the pro-helmet arguments, whilst dressing itself as a neutral study of the evidence for and against.
In reply to andy:
It isn't perfect I agree. I thought I'd come across a more neutral source at some point but can't seem to find it, so any suggestions are welcome.
It isn't perfect I agree. I thought I'd come across a more neutral source at some point but can't seem to find it, so any suggestions are welcome.
In reply to Dogwatch:
And yet in MK only a minority of cyclists (the serious ones in lycra on road bikes mainly, plus some but not all kids) wear them. Is that because of the Dutch approach to cycling seen there more generally?
And in London you seem to have two types - road bike, lycra, fast, helmet, or hybrid/Boris bike, normal clothes, slow, no helmet. There is a bit of overlap but surprisingly little.
> Is there "much debate"? You rarely see anyone cycling on the road around here without a helmet (and I get 100s of cyclists go past my door on a sunny summer weekend).
And yet in MK only a minority of cyclists (the serious ones in lycra on road bikes mainly, plus some but not all kids) wear them. Is that because of the Dutch approach to cycling seen there more generally?
And in London you seem to have two types - road bike, lycra, fast, helmet, or hybrid/Boris bike, normal clothes, slow, no helmet. There is a bit of overlap but surprisingly little.
In reply to andy:
I would agree, given that I think there are relatively few arguments why one should not wear one in a given situation. There are however *some* arguments, which is why I would prefer it remained optional but encouraged.
> To be honest, someone posts that link on every discussion of bike helmets - I (despite not being a believer in magical hats' ability to save me from certain death) think it's a bit disingenuous, as it seeks to discount all the pro-helmet arguments, whilst dressing itself as a neutral study of the evidence for and against.
I would agree, given that I think there are relatively few arguments why one should not wear one in a given situation. There are however *some* arguments, which is why I would prefer it remained optional but encouraged.
In reply to Mike Peacock:
It's the only one I've seen, but I'm also pretty sure (this might be skiing helmets) that I've seen quotes from eminent brain specialists stating just as confidently that helmets do reduce serious head injuries as they have them saying they don't! I must say I have read that site quite a lot, but that's possibly because it generally agrees with my opinion, which is that helmets can prevent relatively superficial injury like cuts and bruises, but to believe they'll prevent serious brain injury (which is generally the result of the brain hitting the inside of the skull) is daft.
James Cracknell is a classic - gets hit by a truck from behind and has no memory of it, nor were there any witnesses, yet can say with absolute certainty that the outcome would have been different had he not been wearing a helmet. And of course, his pro-helmet pronouncements have nothing at all to do with his commercial agreements with a helmet manufacturer:
http://www.kimharding.net/blog/?p=1693
I like this bit:
It is perhaps fortunate for Merida UK and Alpina, that Mr. Cracknell wasn’t hit by the truck while he was walking along the road and not wearing a helmet. As the likely outcome would, given the same rapid treatment, have been the same. The only difference being that they would have been unable to take the credit for saving Mr. Cracknell’s life (instead of the timely intervention of the medical team) or use Mr. Cracknell as a “brand ambassador” to promote their products.
It's the only one I've seen, but I'm also pretty sure (this might be skiing helmets) that I've seen quotes from eminent brain specialists stating just as confidently that helmets do reduce serious head injuries as they have them saying they don't! I must say I have read that site quite a lot, but that's possibly because it generally agrees with my opinion, which is that helmets can prevent relatively superficial injury like cuts and bruises, but to believe they'll prevent serious brain injury (which is generally the result of the brain hitting the inside of the skull) is daft.
James Cracknell is a classic - gets hit by a truck from behind and has no memory of it, nor were there any witnesses, yet can say with absolute certainty that the outcome would have been different had he not been wearing a helmet. And of course, his pro-helmet pronouncements have nothing at all to do with his commercial agreements with a helmet manufacturer:
http://www.kimharding.net/blog/?p=1693
I like this bit:
It is perhaps fortunate for Merida UK and Alpina, that Mr. Cracknell wasn’t hit by the truck while he was walking along the road and not wearing a helmet. As the likely outcome would, given the same rapid treatment, have been the same. The only difference being that they would have been unable to take the credit for saving Mr. Cracknell’s life (instead of the timely intervention of the medical team) or use Mr. Cracknell as a “brand ambassador” to promote their products.
I was so delighted to read the first few replies to this as it normally depresses so much. Why people get so rude and obnoxious and come out with such nonsense to support their beliefs is almost like religious fanatics.
Why do you think your helmet will do something that Helmet manufacturers, their lawyers, neurosurgeons and the accident usage data says they will not do (prevent a fatal brain injury or concussion), you are perhaps all fans of homoeopathy?
I wear one in the hope it will do what it's designed for and prevent a head wound or injury as I don't want my hair growing up in tufty patterns over scars and as my friend says, to keep you looking nice in your coffin.
Cheers
Toby (Pro choice)
http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/the-problem-with-bike-helmet-laws
Post edited at 12:34
In reply to Toby_W:
Helmet debates are just sublimated knob envy, as if the English Civil War never happened.
> Why people get so rude and obnoxious and come out with such nonsense to support their beliefs is almost like religious fanatics.
Helmet debates are just sublimated knob envy, as if the English Civil War never happened.
In reply to captain paranoia:
I trust my ability not to fall over when walking along more than I do my ability not to fall off my bike, plus there are generally more variables to account for when cycling along than when walking, and the forces are greater too, so no I'm not.
You generally strike me as somebody who is intelligent enough to work that kind of thing out and who isn't a 'UKC argumentative type', by the way. Genuinely.
> True. Are you going to start wearing a helmet when walking...? After all, it makes sense...
I trust my ability not to fall over when walking along more than I do my ability not to fall off my bike, plus there are generally more variables to account for when cycling along than when walking, and the forces are greater too, so no I'm not.
You generally strike me as somebody who is intelligent enough to work that kind of thing out and who isn't a 'UKC argumentative type', by the way. Genuinely.
Post edited at 12:52
In reply to Timmd:
I was being a little facetious to make a point...
But the forces when falling from standing, and falling from sitting on a bike are very similar.
A helmet won't help either a pedestrian or a cyclist much if they are hit by a car.
You've done a risk assessment of sorts, and decided a helmet is unnecessary when walking.
Some cyclists have done a similar risk assessment and decided a helmet is unnecessary for them.
I was being a little facetious to make a point...
But the forces when falling from standing, and falling from sitting on a bike are very similar.
A helmet won't help either a pedestrian or a cyclist much if they are hit by a car.
You've done a risk assessment of sorts, and decided a helmet is unnecessary when walking.
Some cyclists have done a similar risk assessment and decided a helmet is unnecessary for them.
1
In reply to Toby_W:
High hopes for this post...... then
Where do you get this from? Homoeopathy? what are you talking about?
Do you dispute the findings of this study?
https://www.bicyclenetwork.com.au/media/vanilla_content/files/Cripton%20AAP...
Mike (also pro-choice, but informed choice)
> I was so delighted to read the first few replies to this as it normally depresses so much. Why people get so rude and obnoxious and come out with such nonsense to support their beliefs is almost like religious fanatics.
High hopes for this post...... then
> Why do you think your helmet will do something that Helmet manufacturers, their lawyers, neurosurgeons and the accident usage data says they will not do (prevent a fatal brain injury or concussion), you are perhaps all fans of homoeopathy?
Where do you get this from? Homoeopathy? what are you talking about?
Do you dispute the findings of this study?
https://www.bicyclenetwork.com.au/media/vanilla_content/files/Cripton%20AAP...
Mike (also pro-choice, but informed choice)
Post edited at 13:32
In reply to Mike Stretford:
Hi Mike,
The homoeopathy comment was related to lack of evidence. For the study you post, yes absolutely, it's one paper (lab based testing within the design specs of the helmet so you would hope they would be effective), the general sum of papers and research is generally neutral enough for any variation to be noise or error (for fatal and serious brain injuries). Being a cyclist, engineer and research scientist I've taken the time to wade through all the research and re-educate myself on the things I dozed through as an undergraduate so as to fully understand the statistics. The result FOR ME is that I feel a little uncomfortable wearing one (also down to the relative risks) and only do because of that vague feeling it may... and to avoid this conversation (and again pretty in my box). Until I see clear evidence or a serious design change (the cardboard helmets soak up a lot more energy I believe) I won't be changing my views and even then does the risk justify wearing one and could time and effort be best spent on far better means of improving road cyclists safety.
I think the homoeopathy thing also came from this clip but swop NASA scientist for Neurosurgeon, Cambridge stats prof or other idiot who questions helmets.
youtube.com/watch?v=DHVVKAKWXcg&
Happy cycling.
Toby
Hi Mike,
The homoeopathy comment was related to lack of evidence. For the study you post, yes absolutely, it's one paper (lab based testing within the design specs of the helmet so you would hope they would be effective), the general sum of papers and research is generally neutral enough for any variation to be noise or error (for fatal and serious brain injuries). Being a cyclist, engineer and research scientist I've taken the time to wade through all the research and re-educate myself on the things I dozed through as an undergraduate so as to fully understand the statistics. The result FOR ME is that I feel a little uncomfortable wearing one (also down to the relative risks) and only do because of that vague feeling it may... and to avoid this conversation (and again pretty in my box). Until I see clear evidence or a serious design change (the cardboard helmets soak up a lot more energy I believe) I won't be changing my views and even then does the risk justify wearing one and could time and effort be best spent on far better means of improving road cyclists safety.
I think the homoeopathy thing also came from this clip but swop NASA scientist for Neurosurgeon, Cambridge stats prof or other idiot who questions helmets.
youtube.com/watch?v=DHVVKAKWXcg&
Happy cycling.
Toby
2
In reply to captain paranoia:
''People can die just from falling over and hitting their head on the kerb, so it makes sense to me to wear one.''
'Raises hand' I did say it made sense to me to wear one, so I don't know what point you're making? I never said other people should.
> I was being a little facetious to make a point...
> But the forces when falling from standing, and falling from sitting on a bike are very similar.
> A helmet won't help either a pedestrian or a cyclist much if they are hit by a car.
> You've done a risk assessment of sorts, and decided a helmet is unnecessary when walking.
> Some cyclists have done a similar risk assessment and decided a helmet is unnecessary for them.
> But the forces when falling from standing, and falling from sitting on a bike are very similar.
> A helmet won't help either a pedestrian or a cyclist much if they are hit by a car.
> You've done a risk assessment of sorts, and decided a helmet is unnecessary when walking.
> Some cyclists have done a similar risk assessment and decided a helmet is unnecessary for them.
''People can die just from falling over and hitting their head on the kerb, so it makes sense to me to wear one.''
'Raises hand' I did say it made sense to me to wear one, so I don't know what point you're making? I never said other people should.
Post edited at 18:54
In reply to Timmd:
I assumed you meant 'whilst walking', taking the 'just from' to mean 'simply walking or standing on the pavement'. i.e. not cycling.
So, given that people can die from simply falling over from standing, and it 'makes sense to me to wear one', I assumed you meant that it would make sense to you to wear a helmet when walking. So I asked you if you did, in fact, wear a helmet when walking...
> People can die just from falling over and hitting their head on the kerb
I assumed you meant 'whilst walking', taking the 'just from' to mean 'simply walking or standing on the pavement'. i.e. not cycling.
> so it makes sense to me to wear one.
So, given that people can die from simply falling over from standing, and it 'makes sense to me to wear one', I assumed you meant that it would make sense to you to wear a helmet when walking. So I asked you if you did, in fact, wear a helmet when walking...
In reply to Toby_W:
So you agree that bicycle helmets are effective for what they are designed to do? If so that would contradict the claim you made yesterday, unless you take issue with the probability of brain damage for a given acceleration used in that paper?
That's a bit vague. I've read a number of articles on this and the consensus does seem to be that helmets offer reasonable protection (in terms of probability), for collision speeds they are designed for. I'm also a scientist/engineer.
The paper I linked to is one of the better pieces of work I have seen as it does indicate the impact speed (or drop height) at which cycle helmets are of little benefit. I'm not sure you saw that given your earlier comments?
You too!
> Hi Mike,
> The homoeopathy comment was related to lack of evidence. For the study you post, yes absolutely, it's one paper (lab based testing within the design specs of the helmet so you would hope they would be effective),
So you agree that bicycle helmets are effective for what they are designed to do? If so that would contradict the claim you made yesterday, unless you take issue with the probability of brain damage for a given acceleration used in that paper?
> the general sum of papers and research is generally neutral enough for any variation to be noise or error (for fatal and serious brain injuries). Being a cyclist, engineer and research scientist I've taken the time to wade through all the research and re-educate myself on the things I dozed through as an undergraduate so as to fully understand the statistics. The result FOR ME is that I feel a little uncomfortable wearing one (also down to the relative risks) and only do because of that vague feeling it may... and to avoid this conversation (and again pretty in my box).
That's a bit vague. I've read a number of articles on this and the consensus does seem to be that helmets offer reasonable protection (in terms of probability), for collision speeds they are designed for. I'm also a scientist/engineer.
The paper I linked to is one of the better pieces of work I have seen as it does indicate the impact speed (or drop height) at which cycle helmets are of little benefit. I'm not sure you saw that given your earlier comments?
> Happy cycling.
You too!
In reply to Mike Peacock:
Seems to be largely anti-compulsion. Well so am I but that wasn't the question the OP asked or what most here are discussing.
Seems to be largely anti-compulsion. Well so am I but that wasn't the question the OP asked or what most here are discussing.
Post edited at 13:40
In reply to Dogwatch:
Reading last night that representations are being made by doctors/health professionals to the Australian parliament to rescind the compulsory helmet law. Here's a link on the Guardian site about it though that wasn't the page I read http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/aug/12/mandatory-bike-helmet-l...
Reading last night that representations are being made by doctors/health professionals to the Australian parliament to rescind the compulsory helmet law. Here's a link on the Guardian site about it though that wasn't the page I read http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/aug/12/mandatory-bike-helmet-l...
In reply to Dogwatch:
Try some of the other pages on the same site:
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1147.html
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1146.html
Try some of the other pages on the same site:
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1147.html
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1146.html
In reply to Mike Peacock: I've got no axe to grind, and pretty much in the middle of the 2 polarised positions people seem to take, but that site you keep linking to is a joke, and only serves to portray those who legitimately question helmet effectiveness as cranks.
There are some obvious omissions in his 'pro-helmet' references page, and many on his 'anti-helmet' page are fairly neutral.
There are some obvious omissions in his 'pro-helmet' references page, and many on his 'anti-helmet' page are fairly neutral.
In reply to Kimono:
I regularly have to fight the urge to stop people and correct their helmets for them! I wear a helmet for big rides, but for pootling around town I often choose not to. This is a decision which I make taking into account risk vs benefits of each decision. However, someone with a badly fitted helmet (usually perched somewhere on the back of the head) is choosing to wear protection, but not actually getting the protection that they have chosen! (OK, depending on the fall it may well do some good, but not the level that the manufacturer intended, and therefore not the level which they think they are getting).
I regularly have to fight the urge to stop people and correct their helmets for them! I wear a helmet for big rides, but for pootling around town I often choose not to. This is a decision which I make taking into account risk vs benefits of each decision. However, someone with a badly fitted helmet (usually perched somewhere on the back of the head) is choosing to wear protection, but not actually getting the protection that they have chosen! (OK, depending on the fall it may well do some good, but not the level that the manufacturer intended, and therefore not the level which they think they are getting).
In reply to Mike Stretford:
Apologies then. It's not an issue I feel that strongly about and that site seemed to have a good list of actual evidence. I've not read it all by any means, just dipped into it. If that has lots of omissions, it would be nice if there was an actual comprehensive list of references somewhere else. Does anyone know of one?
Apologies then. It's not an issue I feel that strongly about and that site seemed to have a good list of actual evidence. I've not read it all by any means, just dipped into it. If that has lots of omissions, it would be nice if there was an actual comprehensive list of references somewhere else. Does anyone know of one?
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...