Helmet?

Mettan

Smokin Joe wrote:

Cor, the death rate among cyclists pre helmet days must have been catastrophic. Having started my club career in the late sixties, I guess i was just lucky that the hundreds of people I got to know in the sport never had a head injury between them.

Strange - no open-head wounds, cuts ? no contusions/concussion ? Club-riders form a small percentage of cyclists. Kids and Teenagers are suffering these types of injuries daily.

jedster

In the last couple of years I have had two very similar falls which bust helmets. Both were from losing the front wheel on diesel spills at 20 mph or more, In case you haven't tried it, you hit the ground very quickly when you lose the front wheel.

In both cases I got nasty bruising, road rash, cracked ribs and hit my helmet around the temple. In both case the foam crushed and the cover cracked. I had only a very mild headache.

I think two diesel spills in two years is pretty unlucky. But given that I was completely helpless in each case, I think it does show that there are some unavoidable incidents in which helmets provide useful protection.

How have people got on in similar incidents without helmets? I don't know. I do know of one poster on the commuting board who has had two decent crashes in which they ended up with concussion (not wearing a helmet). They still don't wear a helmet. Clearly their view is that concussion is no big deal and its not worth the hassle of a helmet to avoid it. It's a personal decision.

Personally I think concussion is a BIG deal - the boundary between temporary concussion and permanently impaired brain function can be quite thin (and I don't necessarily mean dribbling and eating through a straw, I mean impaired memory, lack of concentration, etc.). Not a risk worth running in my book.

By the way, I disagree with this:

for instance rock climbers, on the whole, don't lid up, but ice climbers do, despite the risks of head injury being quite similar really

Climbing helmets are mainly to protect against things landing on your head rather than the impact in a fall. Generally these hazards are much greater in the high mountain environment (ice falls, spindrift, rock falls, freeze-thaw effects) than when cragging or sport-climbing. Most people would wear a helmet rock-climbing where the rock is particularly loose.

Not got much to do with cycling though!

Cheers,
J

captainsnappy

The fact is that you are more likely to minimize head injuries from a bike accident if you are wearing a helmet. Ice hockey players wear them, motor bike riders wear them and you would probably want your kids to wear them when learning to ride.

The only reasons I have heard from people not wanting to wear a helmet revolve around their own vanity (hair style, not 'cool', unattractive) and ignorance (an accident won't happen to me).

STEFANOS4784... if one ride without a helmet made you "feel so free" , sounds like you need to change few things in your life... base jumping?

Cunobelin

softlad wrote:

Stewie Griffin wrote:

I imagine there are a few people who have come off their bikes with no lids. They wont answer you though as they rely on others to wipe dribble from their chins now let alone type responses on Forums for them.

a little over-dramatic, perhaps....

The UCI only made helmets compulsory for pro races in 2003. Somehow, most riders before that time managed to escape serious head injury.

Sure, there were a few tragedies, like Kivilev or Casartelli along the way - but compared to the actual amount of crashes in pro racing (ie lots), serious injuries were relatively few....

Emotive bullying is far easier than facts though...

Casartelli is an interesting case, his injuries were facial and would not actually have been prevented by a standard helmet. His death is a classic argument for ful face helmets!

fossyant

Each to his own...........

I have well vented helmets, and use a skull cap to soak sweat up..... I'd look a bit silly with an 80's sweat band......... .

I've only had one crash where my head hit the ground - 6 months ago.....me still here, helmet scuffed up, shoulder bit busted and nerve damage in spine/neck.....

Road rash on the scalp isn't nice........

geoff_ss

I started wearing a helmet after I got knocked off on my way home from work. I was unconscious for a while and it was extremely unpleasant.

I bought the helmet intending to wear only for commuting so it was fortunate that I was on my way to work when a cat took a short cut across the road through my front wheel. I was totally paralysed for a while and still suffer the consequences 19 years on. Did the helmet help? Who knows but I like to think so - I landed on my head which is what damaged my spine.

18 months later I came off on ice whilst descending Mastile's lane. Another written off helmet. All I needed then was a few hours in plastic surgery to repair my face. Looked a lot worse than it was but another little sleep.

Helmets probably aren't much help in a really serious high speed confrontation with a motor vehicle but I'm sure they help a lot in minor tumbles. One's like the one that killed a mate's dad when he hit his head on the kerb after falling on ice whilst delivering newspapers.

I always wore a helmet when motorcycling except when competing Then, like every other trials rider I wore a tweed cap held on with goggles that never went over my eyes. It went back to front on fast between observed section parts of the route

I'm still very pro-choice, though. I ride helmetless on long Alpine climbs in hot weather. Geeze I'm only doing 5 mph

Geoff

El Gordo

Mettan wrote:

El Gordo wrote:

That's a very misleading figure. It may be true that helmets are designed for an impact speed of 15mph (although I think I heard 12mph) but that doesn't relate to the speed of the bike. You can come off doing 50mph and your head may only glance the road at 5mph.

Although I can see the angle you're coming from Gordo, I don't find that convincing at all - sorry.

Good pun.

The point is that if you ride straight into a wall doing 20 mph then your head impact speed will indeed be pretty much 20 mph. If however you say slide out on a corner also doing 20 mph then your head will still be travelling horizontally at 20 mph but vertically it will be accelerating from 0 mph as you fall. Since the road is a horizontal plane, it's the vertical speed which matters (as far as impact goes - abrasion is another matter).

Obviously nothing is that clear cut; cars and kerbs etc. all make crashes very unpredictable. All I'm saying is that the figure is misleading. A helmet will be of some benefit whatever the speed of the crash be it a slow but direct blow or a fast but glancing one. It may not be of enough benefit to save you though.

Personally I choose to wear one (unless I'm just pootling around somewhere quiet). I can't really see a good reason not too. It's personal choice though and I'd hate to see it made compulsory.

Bunneh

I always feel unsettled going downhill with no helmet. You hit a good 40mph and if you do hit something you're pretty much visiting the big cycle lane in the sky. I still don't wear one and I know I should but it looks like a pea on a drum!

With regards drivers passing cyclists - yeah some do make a huge margin for error and spread right across the road. I had one literally go about 15foot to my right side as he/she passed. I appreciate the thought bud, but you may want to check that 50 tonne truck coming the other way as I turn down this side street...

jedster

Mettan

Although I can see the angle you're coming from Gordo, I don't find that convincing at all - sorry.

At the risk of sounding rude, I presume you don't have even a basic understanding of mechanics? If you did, you'd realise that Gordo is completely correct.

What matters is the component of force acting directly on the helmet. Very roughly, hitting a wall head on at 12 mph delivers twice the force to the helmet as hitting the wall at at 45 degree angle.

If you think of most collisions on a bike, the head strikes a hard object with a glancing blow not head on IN THE DIRECTION OF TRAVEL.

If you think of the accidents I described above, the impact speed was a function of me falling sideways - the fact I was moving FORWARDS at 20mph did not increase the impact from the SIDEWAYS fall. Another poster on these boards with a better memory of mechanics than me basically showed that the 12mph test was equivalent to dropping your head from about 6 foot onto a hard surface.

Anyway the science of this is all O/GCSE level stuff - and developed by Newton a good few centuries ago - it's not really very controversial these days!

Sorry
J

Mettan

jedster wrote:

Mettan

Although I can see the angle you're coming from Gordo, I don't find that convincing at all - sorry.

At the risk of sounding rude, I presume you don't have even a basic understanding of mechanics? If you did, you'd realise that Gordo is completely correct.

What matters is the component of force acting directly on the helmet. Very roughly, hitting a wall head on at 12 mph delivers twice the force to the helmet as hitting the wall at at 45 degree angle.

If you think of most collisions on a bike, the head strikes a hard object with a glancing blow not head on IN THE DIRECTION OF TRAVEL.

If you think of the accidents I described above, the impact speed was a function of me falling sideways - the fact I was moving FORWARDS at 20mph did not increase the impact from the SIDEWAYS fall. Another poster on these boards with a better memory of mechanics than me basically showed that the 12mph test was equivalent to dropping your head from about 6 foot onto a hard surface.

Anyway the science of this is all O/GCSE level stuff - and developed by Newton a good few centuries ago - it's not really very controversial these days!

Sorry
J

I did Pure Mathematics at A Level (P1, P2... etc, etc) (amongst other subjects) - didn't do the mechanics, stats, or decision modules..... too-easy - thanks for the insult though Jedster - (was it necessary? ) - Back on topic, as I clearly said in my reply to Gordo, I can see his rationale, however, I didn't find his specific example convincing at all - on the contrary, a 50 mph off would be extremely violent with eventuall multiple tumbles/rolls with the head whipping/accelerating etc, etc - in some cases, yes, you might get away with a slide in a much lower speed off, but in alot of higher-speed offs (imho) the rider will violently tumble at some point and the head will crack the ground in excess of 12 mph. This is personal opinion btw - I'm not suggesting its backed by research.

Oh, and Gordo - I was a little snappy-sounding - apologies

jedster

will violently tumble at some point and the head will crack the ground in excess of 12 mph

.

Of course we should make clear that it's not the speed but the decelleration that will do you in. Helmets are designed to at least absorb the decelleration force implied by going from 12mph to zero in an instant (or very close approximation to an instant!).

In a rolling, tumbling fall it is very unlikely that you will get this very sudden deceleration of the head.

You don't find this convincing? You think the alternative theory that the standards institutes just dreampt up the 12mph standard at random without thinking of what would be useful in the real world is more likely?

Sorry if I came across too tersely but I get a bit frustrated by people who rubbish experts' engineering judgements without getting a basic understanding of the principles. It's rather like all those motorists who haven't ridden a bike on the road since they were a kid, haven't picked up the highway code in living memory and still think they can offer sensible advice on how to ride a bike :roll:

Mettan

jedster wrote:

Sorry if I came across too tersely

No offence taken.

prawny

I fell off my MTB when I was about 15 with no helmet, I was coming down a slope on an old slag tip probaba about a 30% slope with a drop at the bottom that I didn't know about.
Anyway didn't see the drop my weight was right over the front and about 10 feet further on was a pile of scrap reinforced concrete, I hit that with my front wheel, then my head/face, I was knocked out and lost a tooth.

Anyhoo, I came round after about 10 seconds jumped up walked it off, walked back to my house where the parents took me to hospital for a glued chin, 5 stitches in 1 arm and a sling for my broken collarbone. Meh. I can't imagine what kind of force you'd need to kill yourself I must have been going nearly 30mph.

I wear a helmet now, by choice, not because it will save my life, but because it will stop my from bumping my head and it smarting a bit.

Also there's no way anyone can slag me off for not waring a helmet 8)

Cunobelin

Two other points to consider in all of this.....

Firstly the above theory does not cater for modern helmet desin which has vent and snag points. These can catch and convert the energy into rotational energy which can and has caused the helmet to "eject" from the head thus compromising its function. There is also the problem with rotational injuries to the brain and neck

Secondly the modern helmet has vents (big holes) and is lighter. This means that the modern helmet has less material to absorb the impact and also the remaining material is harder to maintain structure and shape.

The sad fact is that most helmets these days offer far less protection than older helmets, and why the Snell B90 and B95 are so unpopular with many manufacturers.

Cunobelin

You don't find this convincing? You think the alternative theory that the standards institutes just dreampt up the 12mph standard at random without thinking of what would be useful in the real world is more likely?

The present EN1078 is one that has allowed the helmet t o be "dumbed down" to this level.

Investigate the standards and you will find thatt here are significant differences.

For instance some helmet test off the shelf (as you would wear) whilst others test the prototypes or batches.

Take the Trek Anthem series which passed the CPSC standards, but when the production helmets were tested they failed even the most basic testsand were recalled.

Mettan

El Gordo wrote:

Personally I choose to wear one (unless I'm just pootling around somewhere quiet). I can't really see a good reason not too. It's personal choice though and I'd hate to see it made compulsory.

I should add, I agree with this - (and apols. for sounding rather abrupt before).

bompington

Cunobelin wrote:

Two other points to consider in all of this.....

Firstly the above theory does not cater for modern helmet desin which has vent and snag points. These can catch and convert the energy into rotational energy which can and has caused the helmet to "eject" from the head thus compromising its function. There is also the problem with rotational injuries to the brain and neck

I've heard the "rotational energy" argument used a lot by anti-helmetists, but can anyone point to any actual evidence for this? I'm not trying to be argumentative here or deny that such evidence (i.e. evidence that in any case someone had worse injuries due to wearing a helmet) exists, it's just that I've never seen any.
And while it sounds plausible, it also sounds plausible to me that my head is tethered quite firmly at one end by my neck, and so is hardly free to rotate. Like so many helmet v. no helmet arguments, it's possible to make a plausible case either way, and the research all seems inconclusive and capable of different interpretations.

El Gordo

Mettan wrote:

I did Pure Mathematics at A Level (P1, P2... etc, etc) (amongst other subjects) - didn't do the mechanics, stats, or decision modules..... too-easy - thanks for the insult though Jedster - (was it necessary? ) - Back on topic, as I clearly said in my reply to Gordo, I can see his rationale, however, I didn't find his specific example convincing at all - on the contrary, a 50 mph off would be extremely violent with eventuall multiple tumbles/rolls with the head whipping/accelerating etc, etc - in some cases, yes, you might get away with a slide in a much lower speed off, but in alot of higher-speed offs (imho) the rider will violently tumble at some point and the head will crack the ground in excess of 12 mph. This is personal opinion btw - I'm not suggesting its backed by research.

Oh, and Gordo - I was a little snappy-sounding - apologies

Fear not, it takes more than someone disagreeing with me to upset me.

The 50 mph example was perhaps a little extreme - it only came to mind because that's what happened to me last summer. Well, things went wrong at 50mph but by the time I hit the armco on the wrong side of the A9 I was probably down to about 40mph. As it happens, I was wearing a helmet and didn't even scratch it.

I came away with only grazes amazingly. It was a glancing blow you see so the deceleration was quite gentle.

jedster

yeah but any cycle helmet is going to be a compromise between protection and wearability isn't it? At one extreme you wear nothing (a reasonable choice incidently - just not mine) at the other you wear a motorcycle helmet. It's a trade-off - there's no RIGHT answer as long as the helmet provides some degree of useful protection (net) then it is a decent piece of engineering.

elPedro666

STEFANOS4784 wrote:

Hmmm yes i've seen various other threads but has anyone ever come off without a helmet on? If so how did it end?

Anyone know of anyone who has been seriously injured as a result of no helmet?

Friend I raced against had a minor crash with one of those old leather-strap jobbies and totally lost his memory & motor functions. Truly, truly awful, tore his family to pieces.

Other friends have totally mullered their helmets & ridden home. Another friend I was racing pursuit against somehow went headfirst into the banking & smashed his helmet into 13 pieces. He skipped the next race but was back in the one after 15 minutes later.

I never want to be told I HAVE to wear one, but how utterly fking stupid would you need to be not to?

nasahapley

elPedro666 wrote:

Friend I raced against had a minor crash with one of those old leather-strap jobbies and totally lost his memory & motor functions. Truly, truly awful, tore his family to pieces.

Other friends have totally mullered their helmets & ridden home. Another friend I was racing pursuit against somehow went headfirst into the banking & smashed his helmet into 13 pieces. He skipped the next race but was back in the one after 15 minutes later.

I never want to be told I HAVE to wear one, but how utterly fking stupid would you need to be not to?

I would guess you'd have to be about as utterly fking stupid as you appear to be sanctimonious. Tbh the message I get from your anecdotes is not 'wear a helmet' but rather 'don't race'. It makes me chuckle how someone can get all uppity at people supposedly taking crazy risks to themselves by not wearing helmets, but has no problem with tear-arsing around at 30+ mph inches from other cyclists.

A similar point can be made regarding this 'no helmet = contributory negligence = reduced damages, so wear a helmet' stuff. It's very far from being a hard and fast rule that not wearing a helmet will amount to contributory negligence, but it's often cited as a reason why you should. On the other hand, if you were involved in an accident whilst drafting someone, it's very likely that any damages awarded to you would be reduced as a result of your contributory negligence since really, riding inches behind someone else isn't that sensible, no matter how many of us might do it. But is drafting discouraged for this reason? Not that I've ever heard.

Obviously I'm not saying don't wear a helmet as I quite often do myself, just observing that some folks tut at others for taking certain small risks whilst seemingly oblivious to those they take themselves.

elPedro666

You don't generally draught in a pursuit, unless you're very, very good

But seriously, doing something which is an integral part of the sport and/or provides a benefit is something which you can weigh up against the possible dangers (and draughting really isn't a problem - the rider in front braking is!). Doing something dangerous for no apparent benefit? That's just dumb.

Suggesting it's a 'small risk' is also ridiculous.

bobtbuilder

Hmmm yes i've seen various other threads but has anyone ever come off without a helmet on? If so how did it end?

yes - see my response to the 62 mph thread in Beginners. I came off at 40+ mph, and ended up with internal bleeding (testicle) and the obligatory cuts & bruises. No head injury.

prawny

nasahapley wrote:

is drafting discouraged for this reason? Not that I've ever heard.

Take a trip over to commuting, there's often a right old hoo haa about people drafting on the commute. By helmet and none helmet wearers alike.

prawny

bobtbuilder wrote:

Hmmm yes i've seen various other threads but has anyone ever come off without a helmet on? If so how did it end?

yes - see my response to the 62 mph thread in Beginners. I came off at 40+ mph, and ended up with internal bleeding (testicle) and the obligatory cuts & bruises. No head injury.

Ooh cripes :shock:

I was bored on my day off on tuesday (couldn't go out looking after sleeping baby) and I was reading wikipedia and I came across a page of footballers that died in games, there was a chap who blocked a shot with his plums they were forced inside his body and he died of internal injuries. Thank god I don't play football, it's so dangerous!

Cunobelin

bompington wrote:

Cunobelin wrote:

Two other points to consider in all of this.....

Firstly the above theory does not cater for modern helmet desin which has vent and snag points. These can catch and convert the energy into rotational energy which can and has caused the helmet to "eject" from the head thus compromising its function. There is also the problem with rotational injuries to the brain and neck

I've heard the "rotational energy" argument used a lot by anti-helmetists, but can anyone point to any actual evidence for this? I'm not trying to be argumentative here or deny that such evidence (i.e. evidence that in any case someone had worse injuries due to wearing a helmet) exists, it's just that I've never seen any.
And while it sounds plausible, it also sounds plausible to me that my head is tethered quite firmly at one end by my neck, and so is hardly free to rotate. Like so many helmet v. no helmet arguments, it's possible to make a plausible case either way, and the research all seems inconclusive and capable of different interpretations.

Don't get confused with pro choice and anti-helmet.

The (american) Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute sums te problem up:

Rotational Injury
Finally, there is the question of rotational injury. We know it is a problem, and perhaps even the worst villain in concussion. But we don't have generally accepted injury thresholds and lab test equivalents to write into our standards. In fact, most of our labs don't even have the test equipment they would need to begin testing helmets for rotational injury performance. And if they did, we would not know what effect would be produced by the best or worst helmets, or if including a rotational energy management test in the standard would result in fewer injuries. Except for one study that showed that rotational impacts can be thought of as off-center translational impacts, and that reducing translational impacts can reduce rotational forces as well, we have no basis to proceed with a rotational standard. That prevents us from assessing scientifically what the effect would be of making helmets thicker.

There is also the problem with modern design and the habit of creating points and protrusions. there is an inherent problem in that many of the diffuse injuries and concussions are indistinguishable as to cause.

Certainly Hurt (et all) in the States are campaigning actively against snag points on the grounds that they arrest movement and can cause the ejection of the helmet.

Again part of the problem is research. A paper looking at the difference etween hard and soft shell helmets (Voight Hodgson 1991) concluded that :

"Test results predict that hard and micro-shell helmets provide about equal protection from cervical spine injury. The hard and micro-shell helmets tended to slide rather than hang up on impact with concrete. This sliding tendency was the mechanism that reduced the potential for neck injury."

It is logical that if snag points prevent the sliding that the neck is at risk, although no research has been done to verify this. However there is a move based upon this for "smoother, rounder, safer" helmets as applied to motorcycle helmet design

Tom Butcher

elPedro666 wrote:

Suggesting it's a 'small risk' is also ridiculous.

Silly thing to say.

GyatsoLa

I did get knocked senseless in an accident that was caused by a helmet. I was on my mtb, going down a 45 degree muddy slope when the front wheel went. I was left seeing stars and with neck injuries that required physio (nothing too serious). Although I was momentarily unconscious, but I was able to work out what happened from the mud trail. Basically, i fell forward at a slight angle down the slope, falling on my outstretched arm, but the visor of my helmet caught the mud... and stuck there, pulling my head back as i went down. If I hadn't had the helmet on I am pretty sure there would have been no injury.

Incidentally, the other injury I've had was much more serious, while commuting in the dark I was clothes-hangered by the spar of a road sign that had been removed. I crushed my upper jaw and sinuses and suffered severe whiplash. I have a clear memory of lying on the emergency room table as the surgeons performed the tracheotomy that stopped me choking to death. One actually said 'well done for wearing a helmet!'. The helmet, btw, was completely intact and untouched, I still use it.

mmitchell88

GyatsoLa wrote:

I did get knocked senseless in an accident that was caused by a helmet.

Nah - that was caused by you!

Anonymous

I had a white van man go to heatbutt me after a road rage incident, I simply put my head down and he got a facefull of giro's finest, gave me a window of escape and offI I went.