Helmets - who'd been seen dead in one (glasses or not)?

Loggerhead

Thought I'd open a new thread, so those that really want to argue about the efficacy of helmets can do so - leaving those who want to read about opinions of the lowly set of glasses to do so!

Loggerhead

OK - I'll kick this one off!

Are we saying that a good argument for not wearing cycling helmets is that helmet wearing creates a perception that cycling is dangerous and therefore discourages others from taking up cycling?

always_tyred

I reckon there are almost no circumstances in which protective eyewear isn't a good idea.

(I couldn't stop myself)

Soreknees

The argument seems to be that a helmet wearing cyclist is well protected, in the eyes of a passing motorist, and that motorist will pass closer to the cyclist than he would to a non helmet wearer.

Any comments/advice on lid wearing would be gratefully received as I've never worn one but gonna have to suffer one to take part in a sportive in May.

Loggerhead

Always Tyred - appreciate the nod.

Soreknees - have you met BentMikey? If not, take a look at the (vaguely) related 'Glasses - help or hindrance?' thread where you will find a lively debate about ... helmets!

Failing that - hang on a few minutes and wait for BentMikey to join.

Loggerhead

Soreknees. Are you talking about the Etape Caledonian?

Cunobelin

Soreknees wrote:

The argument seems to be that a helmet wearing cyclist is well protected[, in the eyes of a passing motorist, and that motorist will pass closer to the cyclist than he would to a non helmet wearer.

Any comments/advice on lid wearing would be gratefully received as I've never worn one but gonna have to suffer one to take part in a sportive in May.

(my emphasis)

Basically if the helmet fits then go for the highest standard available within your budget.

EN1078 the required standard is manufacturer led and very basic indeed., it even allows for the test manufacturer to produce a batch for the test!

An EN 1078 helmet will not pass many of the higher standards.

Look for a "Snell certification" as these are tested at far higher impacts and use angled "anvils" duplicating a kerb... more importantly the test is on "off the shelf" models - the same as you are wearing not a special batch.

Although "American based" http://www.helmets.org/standard.htm/url] covers the subject well

andrewc3142

As on another thread, glasses cos they're cool and basically make me look 20 years younger and very, very attractive, plus they stop my eyes being bloodshot and itchy for the rest of the day, especially in the pollen season.

No helmet, as on another thread, cos they are are sweaty and uncomfortable and I don't like them and they don't fit in the back pocket of my jersey. And I like wearing a cap.

But, I wouldn't want to knock anyone who wears one or the other or both or neither. Their ride, their choice, like mine.

Random Vince

never found my helmet to be sweaty, until i come to put it back on after stopping for a while.

if i keep it on then i seem to be fine, it's kept me out of hospital a few times, including the time i slid on ice as i turned through my gateway, bashed my head down the entire 5ft gate pillar

worst that happened was a bruised knee and elbow.
not gonna think what would have happened otherwise

jon208

I never get on a bike without a helmet - MTB, road or commute. But then I'm a Radiologist who spends his days looking at CTs of mashed brains.

Still free country (so I'm told), all for personal choice etc

Cunobelin

jon208 wrote:

I never get on a bike without a helmet - MTB, road or commute. But then I'm a Radiologist who spends his days looking at CTs of mashed brains.

Still free country (so I'm told), all for personal choice etc

That's interesting.......

Thornhill et al, showed that:

. The most common causes of injury were falls (43%) or assaults (34%); alcohol was often involved (61%), and a quarter reported treatment for a previous head injury.

Wardlaw quoes that:falls are the biggest single presenting feature.


Unless your patient lists are greatly different from that of any other DGH then you will not be seeing cyclists as the largest group of "mashed brains"

Having made the claim that you weara helmet on a bike because of the mashed brains" you see could you ....In the interest of evidence based practice...... give a rough percentage of the number of patients with Mashed Brains" who are cyclists, and which group you tend to see most of.

Soreknees

Loggerhead: No, it's the Bealach na ba.

Thanks for all the replies. It was the personal experience of helmet wearing I was after. I've read all the pro's and con's but it matters little cos rules is rules and no lid means no ride. :roll:

chronyx

Don't like them, don't wear one.

But wouldn't ride a motorbike without one. :? People, eh?

Funny old things, perceptions.

Soreknees

Would you ride a motorbike without one if it wasn't against the law?

Alibran

I always used to ride without a helmet (said I "wouldn't be seen dead" in one), but since I've got one and started wearing it regularly, I don't think I would be comfortable riding without it. If it gives me even the tiniest chance of getting home at the end of the day instead of ending up in hospital (or worse), I'll take it.

Soreknees

Guess it's a bit like wearing a seat belt. Never used to like it but now it's second nature to put one on. Doesn't feel right without one now. Just have to hope wearing a lid becomes the same.

Somehow I doubt it..........

chronyx

Soreknees wrote:

Would you ride a motorbike without one if it wasn't against the law?

Not all the time if I was just popping to the shops but definitely most of the time

Soreknees

Guess I'd be the same on the road bike, but some statistician will probably pop up somewhere and tell us that statistically you are more likely to have an accident on a short run.

However, we all know that statistics is just the art of manipulating figures to say what you want them to say.

...or the art of stating the blindingly obvious

attica

Chronyx:-

Sorry to recycle an old post but:-

"My wife fell of her bike on a trip to the shops after a "it's only a short ride" moment about wearing a helmet. She now has a 3 inch scar on her forehead and I have the enduring memory of seeing how the muscles inside her forehead work.All of which would've been avoided if she'd have had a helmet on

Not serious, not life threatening but a lasting reminder of the benefits of wearing a helmet for both of us."

(copied from glasses thread)

If you're going to take precations, take em every time I'd say.

Does anybody have an opinion on the benefits of carbon fibre inserts in helmets?

John B

Don't like wearing a helmet but always do. Definitely couldn't ride without glasses though except if it is really slashing down with rain. Not convinced re. really expensive bike glasses and prefer cheap ones from Tchibo which have three sets of changeable lenses.

ademort

I,ve been riding for almost 30 years now and despite the odd accident (only minor damage) have never had to rely on a helmet to save me from injury. Saying that i,ve seen pictures of accidents where a helmet has broken into two or more pieces and it really makes you think,you only live once.IMO to wear or not to wear a helmet is personal choice and must admit i very rarely wear mine.I genuinely believe in life that when your numbers up as they say then it,s up, but of course it does make sense to wearn a helmet , it cannot do you any harm can it. The argument that you look stupid in a helmet is possibly a valid one, but there are people walking about today that have been saved by their helmet, think that says enough ? Greetings Ademort

Cunobelin

Cunobelin wrote:

jon208 wrote:

I never get on a bike without a helmet - MTB, road or commute. But then I'm a Radiologist who spends his days looking at CTs of mashed brains.

Still free country (so I'm told), all for personal choice etc

That's interesting.......

Thornhill et al, showed that:

. The most common causes of injury were falls (43%) or assaults (34%); alcohol was often involved (61%), and a quarter reported treatment for a previous head injury.

Wardlaw quoes that:falls are the biggest single presenting feature.


Unless your patient lists are greatly different from that of any other DGH then you will not be seeing cyclists as the largest group of "mashed brains"

Having made the claim that you weara helmet on a bike because of the mashed brains" you see could you ....In the interest of evidence based practice...... give a rough percentage of the number of patients with Mashed Brains" who are cyclists, and which group you tend to see most of.

The medical and Nursing professions have been roundly criticised for failing to use "Evidence Based Practice" in this subject - especially in their own literature.Read some of the "Letters and "Quick Replys" to the Helmet articles......

As Health Care Professionals, unevidenced claims are (o shuld be) unacceptable in this day and age, the" I am a Doctor therefore I now better than you - Listen to me" statements are an outdated anachronism.

magicroundabout

I've been reasonably convinced that a helmet won't help me much with a "serious" head injury. But I wear one because logic dictates that if I hit my head on concrete or tarmac it will hurt and rip my head open. If I wear a helmet it will hurt less and do less damage.

Given this, logic would also dictate that a full helmet seems a little over the top. Is there any sort of thin, hard, skull cap or something? I don't understand the science and materials but perhaps you could get something like an aluminium-lined cycling cap? Would that work?

I'm just thinking out of the box a bit. Is there not a different solution to the head-protection problem?

MR

whyamihere

I can show visually why I wear a helmet.



That square dent is what happened when I landed directly onto a rock falling from my mountain bike. No, it probably wouldn't have given me serious brain damage. It would have hurt a lot though, I'd have had a pretty nasty cut at the very least, probably come concussion as well.

By the way, the dent that can be seen is what has been left indented in the plastic. It sprung back slightly, you can push it in as there's more significant damage to the polystyrene. This was a good helmet - £50 worth of Giro Semi MX. Have never been on a ride without a good helmet since.

Cunobelin

magicroundabout wrote:

I've been reasonably convinced that a helmet won't help me much with a "serious" head injury. But I wear one because logic dictates that if I hit my head on concrete or tarmac it will hurt and rip my head open. If I wear a helmet it will hurt less and do less damage.

Given this, logic would also dictate that a full helmet seems a little over the top. Is there any sort of thin, hard, skull cap or something? I don't understand the science and materials but perhaps you could get something like an aluminium-lined cycling cap? Would that work?

I'm just thinking out of the box a bit. Is there not a different solution to the head-protection problem?

MR

Unfortunately - No, changes are made, such as specialized trying two different density foams to increase energy absorption

This is why they are large, but also why some modern helmets are less effective that thir historical counterparts. Modern helmets with their ventilation have less material to absorb an impact, this has led to the lowering of standards, and much less protection.

In fact a soft helmet would be better at preventing concussion in low impact injuries, but needs more foam as it "bottoms out" quicker - a much larger helmet would be needed - hence the concession to fashion and the use of denser foam which is less compactable (and less protective) to bring helmet size down.

Therea re occasional trys to advance the technology - changes are made, such as specialized trying two different density foams to increase energy absorption (hence the name of the new 2D helmet - " Densities)

The important thing to consider is why you wear the helmet...

If you are a 30 mph downhiller, then a helmet that is designed to protect the head at 12 mph is ineffective, a full face motorcycle helmet would be appropriate

benvickery

I've got a wife and 4 young children to provide for. If I got run over by a lorry and became paralyzed then I could still do the job I do. If however, I get a serious head injury and suffer brain damage then I'm no use to anyone. If I reduce the risk by wearing a helmet then I'll wear a helmet. Of course you can all do what you like, but I don't understand how anyone can ride on our busy roads without wearing a helmet. Yes they are heavy, they look stupid and my head gets sweaty, but those excuses aren't good enough if you ask me.

Cunobelin

Yes they are heavy, they look stupid and my head gets sweaty, but those excuses aren't good enough if you ask me.

Motorcycle helmets offer more protection!

Does the same reasoning apply?

richardast

Like many things in life, cycling contains a small element of risk but provides a large element of reward.
Cycling helmets, such as they are, provide most people with enough protection to manage the risk without negating the reward.

With reference to your previous post Cunobelin, I don't think most people blindly trust the medical profession unquestioningly anymore. Most of us now realise, and most doctors I know are happy to concede, that the majority of practical medicine is highly educated guesswork based on the available facts. They usually get it right, due to their experience and extensive training.

The effectiveness of helmets could only really be judged by analysing the injuries (or lack of) of a huge field of cyclists who have been in accidents (with and without helmets). This would have to include those who have been involved in accidents but did not suffer injuries as their helmets (or thick skulls, landing skills or sheer good luck) might have saved the day. As these uninjured folk never report their accident to the police or attend a hospital, their accidents will never be recorded. Thus, there will never be a complete and accurate study. Thus, anyone who argues that anything has ever been proved (either way) is full of sh1te.

We all make our own choices on this one. Thankfully it's not subject to legislation.
The cycling industry, the cycling "establishment" and the medical profession generally promote helmet use.
Nothing I've seen or read here or anywhere else makes me disagree with them and personal experience has made me appreciate mine, so I choose to wear a helmet.

Just for the record, my black Met Sfero helmet is comfortable, light and doesn't make me sweat. Bought for £60 about 5 years ago, now available for £15. :shock:

mailmannz

Cunobelin wrote:

Yes they are heavy, they look stupid and my head gets sweaty, but those excuses aren't good enough if you ask me.

Motorcycle helmets offer more protection!

Does the same reasoning apply?

Probably depends on the risks each type of transport faces, taking in to consideration things like speeds travelled etc, dont you think?

Keithp88

Every Sunday I shave what remains of the hair on my head off. Every Monday throughout winter I have to wear a helmet cos the wooly hat slides straight off otherwise. Come Tuesday my heads like velcro .

Oddly enough though, I have taken to wearing it more based on the voices (possibly the wifes) telling me to do so. Looks better if worn with glasses with orange lenses. Or maybe thats the voices again.

Mark Alexander

magicroundabout wrote:

I've been reasonably convinced that a helmet won't help me much with a "serious" head injury. But I wear one because logic dictates that if I hit my head on concrete or tarmac it will hurt and rip my head open. If I wear a helmet it will hurt less and do less damage.
MR

I agree I don't think that if i have a head-on collision with a car at 50mph it's going to help. However, if I slide along a gravel road, into/through/over a hedge or over a car bonnett (hollywood style) i've done all three 8) it will help.