Helmets - yes or no?
Comments
-
Most likely, I did so for years, however once you start to wear a helmet you do get used to it and somehow begin to see the wisdom !Pedaling spans generations.0
-
I wear a Met Parachute any time I'm on the bike. A standard helmet is all well and good, but when I come off it's usually me VS stationary object and my fall is face-first.
I might not have perfect teeth, but they are mine and I'd like to keep them
0 -
Gussio wrote:jmelewis wrote:Try this simple test.
1. Put on a cycling helmet.
2. Hit yourself on top of your head as hard as you can with a standard sized housebrick.
3. Remove the helmet
4. Repeat no.2
Did it hurt a) Less, b) More, or c) about the same?
I tried it and came out with b, funnily enough.
That is pretty funny
LOL, yeah, but also quite ignorant.0 -
dondare wrote:It really does seem that helmeted cyclists have more serious accidents, more often, than non-helmeted ones. RonL, would you have been cycling at 19 mph along a potholed, unlit gravel track in the dark if you'd been lidless?
Amazing the sort of crazy riding people will do sometimes.0 -
BentMikey wrote:dondare wrote:It really does seem that helmeted cyclists have more serious accidents, more often, than non-helmeted ones. RonL, would you have been cycling at 19 mph along a potholed, unlit gravel track in the dark if you'd been lidless?
Amazing the sort of crazy riding people will do sometimes.
Indeed it is, and generally live to tell the tale,Friends all tried to warn me but I held my head up high...0 -
BentMikey wrote:dondare wrote:It really does seem that helmeted cyclists have more serious accidents, more often, than non-helmeted ones. RonL, would you have been cycling at 19 mph along a potholed, unlit gravel track in the dark if you'd been lidless?
Amazing the sort of crazy riding people will do sometimes.
Speaking of crazy riding...
http://www.digave.com/videos/index.htm
Big files to download, but worth the wait.0 -
jmelewis wrote:Try this simple test.
1. Put on a cycling helmet.
2. Hit yourself on top of your head as hard as you can with a standard sized housebrick.
3. Remove the helmet
4. Repeat no.2
Did it hurt a) Less, b) More, or c) about the same?
I tried it and came out with b, funnily enough.
......................................ad entirely pointless as it fails to duplicate in any way the real conditions for either pedestrians or cyclists!
May we also ask what standards the helmet that to you used complies with, as this will have had an effect on any outcome?
Have also repeated this for;
a wig
A beanie hat
a child's Policeman's (or fireman's helmet)
with your head shaved
All of these will have also reduce (or in the latter case exacerbate the effects) - and we need to make sure that we have eliminated any false positive by not comparing the other options.
After all we could all wear wigs (we would have to experiment with different tints - do blondes have more protection than brunettes) if this experiment proves that the pain is reduced by the wig.
Finally please reassure us that you have in line with good practice now discarded the helmet.<b><i>He that buys land buys many stones.
He that buys flesh buys many bones.
He that buys eggs buys many shells,
But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.</b></i>
(Unattributed Trad.)0 -
>>ad entirely pointless as it fails to duplicate in any way the real conditions for either pedestrians or cyclists!
Although not exactly the same procedure, the test ‘principle’ stays the same when testing whether helmets adhere to safety standards. By the same token (and following your logic) crash tests with dummies in the car industry "fail to duplicate in any way the real conditions for either pedestrians or cyclists). I guess better not to crash-test the cars (and helmets).
>>Have also repeated this for;
>>a wig
>>A beanie hat
And hereby you have demonstrated to the whole literate world your ignorance of the basic laws of physics. Congratulations. I am sure comparing impact absorption of expanded polystyrene (EPS) with a wig will go well with the better educated readers. (Although I recognize that a helmet will only reduce the energy of a 30 mph or 50 km/h impact to around 27.5 mph or 45 km/h . Under 30mph, I am pretty sure they are a "bit" more effective than a beanie hat.
PS. And I am sure people in Volvos take more risks when driving, safe in the knowledge their cars are among the safest on the road in terms of crash test results
0 -
From CNTL (Although I recognize that a helmet will only reduce the energy of a 30 mph or 50 km/h impact to around 27.5 mph or 45 km/h . Under 30mph, I am pretty sure they are a "bit" more effective than a beanie hat.
I read the speed at which a helmet is useful at is up to 13 point something miles an hour making them more useful to pedestrians (now there is a group that suffer a lot of head injuries).
With modern technology and materials they could produce a reasonably priced cycle helmet that has the protection qualities of a motorcycle lid Q why don't they ?
I don't wear a helmet simply because the situation where it will be most needed is in a collision with a speeding ton of four wheeled metal where of course nothing is of any use, consider the terrible accident where the four club cyclists were mown down, all (I believe wearing helmets).
In addition I have not found a helmet that feels right (read comfortable and gives me good all round vision on my Q-NT) I have worn one and find I overheat terribly easily and this with so many vents there is little material.
Like with so many things cycling/triking it is purely what floats your boat and all being who we are will all have some quite strong opinions on the matter BUT one thing is that we must all unite against is the compulsion route.
SeumasJust hold it there,don\'t move and don\'t drop it, I\'ll be back in a while.(If it\'s safe).0 -
cntl wrote:>>ad entirely pointless as it fails to duplicate in any way the real conditions for either pedestrians or cyclists!
Although not exactly the same procedure, the test ‘principle’ stays the same when testing whether helmets adhere to safety standards. By the same token (and following your logic) crash tests with dummies in the car industry "fail to duplicate in any way the real conditions for either pedestrians or cyclists). I guess better not to crash-test the cars (and helmets).
Wierd interpretation.....
Crash test dummy in car - there is your clue as to why it replicates the real life conditions.Purpose designed dummy inside a production car, with impacts carefully designed and monitored Care is also taken that the experimental error is removed as far as possible.
What would fail is hitting the car with a brick and making the same claims of authenticity.
This experiment fails to account for loss of kinetic energy due to rotation, the fact that the motion of the skull will not necessarily be linear, but tangential, and also the shape of the brick which is more focussed and angular than a road, or even a kerb.....
>>Have also repeated this for;
>>a wig
>>A beanie hat
And hereby you have demonstrated to the whole literate world your ignorance of the basic laws of physics. Congratulations. I am sure comparing impact absorption of expanded polystyrene (EPS) with a wig will go well with the better educated readers. (Although I recognize that a helmet will only reduce the energy of a 30 mph or 50 km/h impact to around 27.5 mph or 45 km/h . Under 30mph, I am pretty sure they are a "bit" more effective than a beanie hat.
You really need to calm down and read the post... The educated readers you refer to will probably see your ill-informed rant for exactly what it is.
THe question is whether they reduce that impact at all. The experiment if flawed.
The original experiment is like claiming that Aspirin cures headaches, but not including any other drug in the tests. then when someone suggets adding a Placebo or Paracetomol - getting huffy and singing "LALALA" when people talk to you.
You need controls - other options to compare with nothing at all to do with physics, more to do with authenticity and veracity.
At 30 mph or 50 mph (you really should be racing if these are your normal speeds on a bicycle) most cases will suffer traumatic limb and organ injuries. Loss of blood, damage to vital organs and other causes will be an equally likely cause fo concern at these speeds.
AN EPS helmet is not designed, advertised, or tested to these speeds. If you are really expecting the average EN1078 helmet to function at 50 mph - you are going to be sorely disappointed. But someone with your outstanding grip on the laws of physics would know that.
PS. And I am sure people in Volvos take more risks when driving, safe in the knowledge their cars are among the safest on the road in terms of crash test results
Are you aware of risk compensation theory?
It suggests exactly this.... If a driver feels safer they will take more risks, often negating the original benefit or improvement.
<b><i>He that buys land buys many stones.
He that buys flesh buys many bones.
He that buys eggs buys many shells,
But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.</b></i>
(Unattributed Trad.)0 -
>>you are really expecting the average EN1078 helmet to function at 50 mph - you are going to be sorely disappointed
I believe I wrote "30 mph or 50 km/h" not mph/h
>>Are you aware of risk compensation theory?
>>It suggests exactly this.... If a driver feels safer they will take more risks, often >>negating the original benefit or improvement.
Yes, you are right. However, with cars (as the insurance industry has shown) the bigger factor in the probability of an accident is the engine size/power, rather than vehicle's safety rating. In fact you are rewarded with lower premiums for driving vehicles with high safety ratings (as they might mitigate the extent of injuries).0 -
seumasl wrote:I don't wear a helmet simply because the situation where it will be most needed is in a collision with a speeding ton of four wheeled metal where of course nothing is of any use
Bit of anecdotal evidence to contradict your statement. In my recent collision with a Ford Ka where I reckon I would have been doing about 20mph and the car (cutting across me) about the same, my helmet ended up with about 6 cracks going all the way through the polystyrene, but my skull was unscathed (not in common with the rest of my body).
Anyone have any idea of how much force it would take to put a crack all the way through a helmet and what that force would do if in direct contact with the skull?0 -
Slightly OT, but a relevant point.
Risk compensation and safer vehicles is one issue, but the effect of "safer vehicles for the occupant" is not the same as for other road users.
The BMW X5 is a prime example the highest mark 5 stars (Ero NCAP) for passenger safety but a resounding 1 star for pedestrian safety in an impact. One of the safest on the road if you are inside, but one of the most lehtal if you are outside.
The Hyundai Santa Fe is even worse - it scores 4 stars for passengers and an absolute zero for pedestrians.<b><i>He that buys land buys many stones.
He that buys flesh buys many bones.
He that buys eggs buys many shells,
But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.</b></i>
(Unattributed Trad.)0 -
seumasl wrote:With modern technology and materials they could produce a reasonably priced cycle helmet that has the protection qualities of a motorcycle lid Q why don't they ?
I suspect that it's not possible to build a helmet that gives good protection, is light, and also has enough ventilation for a cyclist, and that this is one of the reasons they are so ineffective. OTOH I've no idea on whether motorcycle helmets are effective or not. My guess is they are a lot better than cycle helmets.tyskie wrote:Anyone have any idea of how much force it would take to put a crack all the way through a helmet and what that force would do if in direct contact with the skull?
I believe an average helmet can absorb something like 70-100j, and it takes around 1000j to fracture the average skull. That said, the most dangerous brain injuries are caused by rotational accelerations, and helmets are believed to exacerbate those because they make your head so much bigger than without the helmet, as well as by gripping your head and forcing it to rotate in a way that your scalp and hair doesn't. I'd much rather end up with scalp injuries than brain damage.cntl wrote:I believe I wrote "30 mph or 50 km/h" not mph/h
Are you aware that somewhere around 40mph an average helmet has so much energy that it can't even absorb it's own kinetic energy, much less that of your head?0 -
BentMikey wrote:seumasl wrote:With modern technology and materials they could produce a reasonably priced cycle helmet that has the protection qualities of a motorcycle lid Q why don't they ?
I suspect that it's not possible to build a helmet that gives good protection, is light, and also has enough ventilation for a cyclist, and that this is one of the reasons they are so ineffective. OTOH I've no idea on whether motorcycle helmets are effective or not. My guess is they are a lot better than cycle helmets.tyskie wrote:Anyone have any idea of how much force it would take to put a crack all the way through a helmet and what that force would do if in direct contact with the skull?
I believe an average helmet can absorb something like 70-100j, and it takes around 1000j to fracture the average skull. That said, the most dangerous brain injuries are caused by rotational accelerations, and helmets are believed to exacerbate those because they make your head so much bigger than without the helmet, as well as by gripping your head and forcing it to rotate in a way that your scalp and hair doesn't. I'd much rather end up with scalp injuries than brain damage.cntl wrote:I believe I wrote "30 mph or 50 km/h" not mph/h
Are you aware that somewhere around 40mph an average helmet has so much energy that it can't even absorb it's own kinetic energy, much less that of your head?
Anything above a critical impact speed of 40mph is seriously bad news for anyone not inside some sort of protective environment. Chances of survival, helmet or no, are vanishingly small.
But still, if it were me and I somehow survived, I would want the "I was wearing my helmet" argument available to me during any possible civil action.
I would also not wholly disregard the helmet's ability to protect your skull/face/ears against serious abrasion, should you merely have the opportunity to go sliding along the road for any appreciable distance whilst unconsciouss.0 -
StefanH wrote:But still, if it were me and I somehow survived, I would want the "I was wearing my helmet" argument available to me during any possible civil action.
Unnecessary nowadays, I believe. Insurance companies don't try on the contributory negligence claims any longer.StefanH wrote:I would also not wholly disregard the helmet's ability to protect your skull/face/ears against serious abrasion, should you merely have the opportunity to go sliding along the road for any appreciable distance whilst unconsciouss.
No argument that helmets are good for minor injuries, it's only the serious head injuries/brain damage that is being debated. This has been mentioned at least twice before on this topic.0 -
Nothing should be being debated/argued in this thread; it's just a poll. "Do you wear a helmet, Yes or No?"
People, like myself who sometimes wear a helmet are being excluded from voting, unless "Yes" can also mean "Sometimes".Friends all tried to warn me but I held my head up high...0 -
The most worrying thing about this thread is that it's almost as long as the 'Girls in lycra' thread. Everybody needs to shake hands, concede that everyone has an opinion and go ogle the cycling totty.
Crash 'n Burn, Peel 'n Chew
FCN: 20 -
Here's a thought: I never ride without something on my hands (mitts or gloves) - why would my head need any less protection? riding with mitts doens't make me take any more risks...
It's just a hill. Get over it.0 -
Massimo wrote:The most worrying thing about this thread is that it's almost as long as the 'Girls in lycra' thread. Everybody needs to shake hands, concede that everyone has an opinion and go ogle the cycling totty.
You're quite right
8)
Re Secret Sam
Here's a thought: I never ride without something on my hands (mitts or gloves) - why would my head need any less protection? riding with mitts doens't make me take any more risks...
Again you're dead right, I never ever go out without track mitts on and have even (on the one occasion I did forget) turned back after 1 mile and gone home to get them, mmmn, analysis needed methinks (man in white coat turns corner )
Seumas
PS: What was that about girls and lycra ?Just hold it there,don\'t move and don\'t drop it, I\'ll be back in a while.(If it\'s safe).0 -
Massimo wrote:The most worrying thing about this thread is that it's almost as long as the 'Girls in lycra' thread. Everybody needs to shake hands, concede that everyone has an opinion and go ogle the cycling totty.
Ah, and that comment would be from someone with an Italian username. Almost as bad as my French mate Contan, who chatted up every single girl we passed on the London to Brighton.
SecretSam, another risk compensation denier? LOL. It's not a huge effect, but you're almost certainly just as "guilty" of it as everyone else is.0 -
Cunobelin wrote:Are you aware of risk compensation theory?
It suggests exactly this.... If a driver feels safer they will take more risks, often negating the original benefit or improvement.
And you are aware this is a THEORY...not proven fact?
Also, you are aware that the theory is based on the supposed "feelings" of Ice Hockey and Grid Iron players who wear considerably more "armour" than cyclists?
Actually, why dont you ask a random number of cyclists if they feel 7 feet tall and bullet proof when they put their lid on because Im pretty sure you will come away with the impression that cyclists are a lot more aware of their own mortality regardless of whether they are wearing a helmet or not.
Mailman0 -
Come on Mailmannz, earlier in this topic I showed you are WRONG with regard to risk compensation. Fess up and stop defending your now indefensible position.0
-
mailmannz wrote:Cunobelin wrote:Are you aware of risk compensation theory?
Actually, why dont you ask a random number of cyclists if they feel 7 feet tall and bullet proof when they put their lid on because Im pretty sure you will come away with the impression that cyclists are a lot more aware of their own mortality regardless of whether they are wearing a helmet or not.
Mailman
What is a proven fact is that as car drivers drive/aim ever more "safety" equipped vehicles ie SIP - crumple zones - seat belts etc they drive more aggressively and faster, they are adopting the mentality of the F1 driver who knows they can impact at fantastically high speed and walk away from it.
As the man said (well sort of) as cyclists are individuals 999 cyclists will have at least 1050 opinions, so we might as well just agree to differ.
SeumasJust hold it there,don\'t move and don\'t drop it, I\'ll be back in a while.(If it\'s safe).0 -
It is generally accepted that motorists will translate a safety improvement into a performance improvement. This is because they are prepared to accept a certain level of risk, and will drive accordingly. Whether it holds true for cyclists I don't know, but helmeted riders do seem to be more accident-prone than non-helmeted ones.
Secret Sam, if you regard hand protection as essential, then you might regard head protection as even more important. But most cyclists only wear gloves when 'tis cold.This post contains traces of nuts.0 -
To live you have to accept a certain level of risk in almost everything you do, anyway I digress, (quantum mechanics anyone ?)dondare wrote:It is generally accepted that motorists will translate a safety improvement into a performance improvement. This is because they are prepared to accept a certain level of risk, and will drive accordingly. Whether it holds true for cyclists I don't know, but helmeted riders do seem to be more accident-prone than non-helmeted ones.
Secret Sam, if you regard hand protection as essential, then you might regard head protection as even more important. But most cyclists only wear gloves when 'tis cold. Just hold it there,don\'t move and don\'t drop it, I\'ll be back in a while.(If it\'s safe).0 -
Yes.
Skulls don't bounce that well, especially if the point of contact is harder !!!
Richard0 -
BentMikey wrote:Come on Mailmannz, earlier in this topic I showed you are WRONG with regard to risk compensation. Fess up and stop defending your now indefensible position.
Oh is that what that leading question was!
Fess up and admit its a theory NOT proven fact...or are you not able to determine the difference between theory and fact?
The only thing indefensible is your belief that people dont cycle because they see helmets and equate that with danger...I mean its not like its got anything to do with the complete and utter lack of dedicated cycling infrastructure or the massive levels of traffic on the roads is it?
Then again...if someone was wanting to get in to cycling to work and they came here and all they see is stories of people getting attacked or run over etc...you think that might change peoples perceptions of the safety of cycling?
Nah...couldnt be that could it love
Mailman0 -
mailmannz wrote:dondare wrote:Whether it holds true for cyclists I don't know, but helmeted riders do seem to be more accident-prone than non-helmeted ones.
The question you need to ask is, did Bob Dobalina get hit by a car BECAUSE he was wearing a helmet?
Interestingly enough, the one serious accident I saw during the hovis bike day was some woman laid out cold on the road after coming a cropper AND not wearing a helmet. Now according to your "theory" she shouldnt have had that accident because she wasnt wearing a helmet.
Mailman0
