Helmets

bigmat

palmersperry wrote:

MatHammond wrote:

If you could prove that to be the case than I imagine so. I'm struggling to come up with many clear cut scenarios where wearing a helmet could be proved to have caused an accident, or even to have made the injury worse.

Any accident with injuries due to rapid rotation of the skull will have been made worse by the presence of the helmet. Any impact in excess of ~50mph (I forget the exact figure) will have been made worse by the mass of the helmet. Any impact which would not have occured except for the increase size of the head+helmet combination ...

You'd struggle to prove any of that (e.g. that the helmet had any significant adverse effect), in any event if it could be shown that it was reasonable to require helmet wear e.g. that in the vast majority of cases helmets would be a help rather than a hinderance then you couldn't hold somebody negligent.

For what its worth I'm not saying helmets should be compulsory - I wear one but its a personal choice. Just discussing why many sportives insist on them.

oldwelshman

palmersperry wrote:

oldwelshman wrote:

Ok forget stats and evidence, just try the following and see what happens:
test 1) Stick a cycle helmet on and headbutt a wall, then headbutt the floor.
test 2) Remove the helmet and repeat the above test.

Or alternatively. Keep your head very still whilst getting a hammer swung past it 1cm away from your skin. Then repeat the experiment with a helmet on, then report back as to which hurt more.

My point? Wearing a helmet is not a one-way bet! (Except in impacts at speeds exceeding ~50mph, where it's a one-way bet in the bad direction as the extra kinetic energy due to the weight of the helmet is more than the helmet can absorb even if it works perfectly. Which at that speed, it probably won't.)

FFS are you real?
I do not recall ever crashing to within one centimetre of the floor then miraculously manage to get back upright again, and I do not recall ever getting rotational head injuries in a crash.
Unfortunatley I have had crashes, all of which suprisingly ended up with me hitting the floor, only one of these was without helmet hence the scar.

I am going out for a ride tomorrow and will follow your advice and watch out for hammers hanging from trees whilst cycling in excess of 50mph.

dodgysparky

Think you didnt have to wear a helmet on the, Shropshire challenge,bit of a jaunt for you but a nice day out.They did camping as well.
http://www.shropshirehighlandschallenge.co.uk/

Tom Butcher

oldwelshman wrote:

Some people are missing the poin, it does not matter whether you ride alone, take your time etc, not everything is within your control when riding and it only takes one puncture, or one brush with a car, one wet slippery drain to pull you off.

I don't think it is missing the point - you can take fewer risks, wear high viz at all times, fit wider tyres with more grip, choose safer routes, avoid very light weight components etc - all these things are within your control and may reduce the risk of you being seriously hurt just as wearing a helmet might. Which each of us chooses to do is personal to us - helmets aren't significantly different to the rest.

John.T

Regardless of the pros and cons of helmets it is the organisers event. If he wants everyone to wear helmets it is his choice for what ever reason. Your choice is to go along with him or not bother entering. End of story.
Now can you all shut up about whether they help or not. It is boring and non productive.
For the OP. I can not help with events but check them on this site and contact the organisers to see what they require. I bet you wished you had never asked.
http://www.cyclosport.org/default.aspx

FransJacques

I cracked my left temple on a hard ashfalt road service last October while on a group ride. I was avoiding a car who had strayed on to our side of the road (narrow lane in Surrey).

I was out cold for 30 seconds, not moving, scared the sheit out of my buddies. When I came to I had a big blank spot in my memory of the accident and events in the 10 mins leading up to it. I had a MRI and they diagnosed a minor concussion.

I was out cold and that was a *minor* concussion. The helmet (a Pnuomo) self-destructed. Thanks Giro.

If I didn't have that helmet on I'd be writing this by breathing into a straw. Instead I did over 6000 kms in 2009 and did some PBs in a couple Grand Trophee events.

You chose.

redddraggon

FransJacques wrote:

I was out cold and that was a *minor* concussion. The helmet (a Pnuomo) self-destructed. Thanks Giro.

If I didn't have that helmet on I'd be writing this by breathing into a straw.

I'm afraid your scientific reasoning is lacking

FransJacques

""I was out cold and that was a *minor* concussion. The helmet (a Pnuomo) self-destructed. Thanks Giro.

If I didn't have that helmet on I'd be writing this by breathing into a straw"

I'm afraid your scientific reasoning is lacking"

Thanks for your 2p. No scientific reasoning here. 100% empirical evidence. Fully factual.

Of course, don't remember you being at my accident site, could be that gap in my memory due to losing the Frans vs Surrey Rumble in the Lanes fight.

nasahapley

FransJacques wrote:

100% empirical evidence.

No, 100% anecdote, which is the point Red was making. Every time there's a thread on helmets you get all these 'If I hadn't been wearing a helmet I'd be dead' stories given as a reason that everyone else should wear one. I've smacked my head more times running than I have cycling - once quite badly - so should I wear a helmet when out running? You'd think I was a madman.

amaferanga

FransJacques wrote:

""I was out cold and that was a *minor* concussion. The helmet (a Pnuomo) self-destructed. Thanks Giro.

If I didn't have that helmet on I'd be writing this by breathing into a straw"

I'm afraid your scientific reasoning is lacking"

Thanks for your 2p. No scientific reasoning here. 100% empirical evidence. Fully factual.

Of course, don't remember you being at my accident site, could be that gap in my memory due to losing the Frans vs Surrey Rumble in the Lanes fight.

Only if you repeated EXACTLY the same incident, once with a helmet and once without, and if you died in the incident without the helmet could you say '100% empirical evidence'.

redddraggon

FransJacques wrote:

""I was out cold and that was a *minor* concussion. The helmet (a Pnuomo) self-destructed. Thanks Giro.

If I didn't have that helmet on I'd be writing this by breathing into a straw"

I'm afraid your scientific reasoning is lacking"

Thanks for your 2p. No scientific reasoning here. 100% empirical evidence. Fully factual.

Of course, don't remember you being at my accident site, could be that gap in my memory due to losing the Frans vs Surrey Rumble in the Lanes fight.

I don't need to be at your accident site to disagree with your scientific theory. You have no evidence to prove the outcome if you weren't wearing a helmet, you did what we call "guessing".

FransJacques

I see your points and agree it would be great to have appropriate scientific tests to conclude that a helmeted head is better than a non-helmeted head in enough cases to a satisfactory degree of certainly to get something on the statues.

But guess what? Ain't going to happen any time soon, certainly not in the UK which is great at dithering on public policy for fear of litigation/payouts. A hypothetical 100% helmet law would infer that helmets are better in all cases and that any helmet on the markets provides benefits. Otherwise why would one NOT sue Met, Bell or Giro when they become a parapalegic after a head injury where one was wearing a helmet? The law suggested it would make a diffference. I personally like the choice as I don't wear mine, say, going to the shops.

In the meantime I don't mind sharing real-life experiences with the forum. I notice no one has commented on the realness of the symptoms or the fact that I have no lasting effects from a 30km/h to 0 deceleration provided mainly by my left temple. It was the doctor who told me I'd have been worse off without the helmet given the part of my head I hit. But you won't know if you haven't done it. And I mean really done it, you'll just be guessing and shooting from the hip. In June I also hit the deck during the Smithfiled Nocturne and smashed another helmet. I remember my head slamming down on the side and bouncing up again. Thanks Met for that one, I'd rather be an anecdote than a statistic!

Do bear in mind that it took Fabio Casartelli and defo Andre Kivilev to bring this home to the pros so case study does have an impact.

ledburyloafer

In the meantime I don't mind sharing real-life experiences with the forum. I notice no one has commented on the realness of the symptoms or the fact that I have no lasting effects from a 30km/h to 0 deceleration provided mainly by my left temple. It was the doctor who told me I'd have been worse off without the helmet given the part of my head I hit. But you won't know if you haven't done it. And I mean really done it, you'll just be guessing and shooting from the hip. In June I also hit the deck during the Smithfiled Nocturne and smashed another helmet. I remember my head slamming down on the side and bouncing up again. Thanks Met for that one, I'd rather be an anecdote than a statistic!

Done it and at over nearly 40mph without the helmet, 20+ stitches, 14 in my nose where the glasses gouged out the bridge of my nose, no helmet to deflect them, so I've done it and wouldn't recommend it, was so glad to feel pain, meant i was still able to process things thought wise, but each to there own it's a free world live and let live!

a_n_t

FransJacques wrote:

Do bear in mind that it took Fabio Casartelli and defo Andre Kivilev to bring this home to the pros so case study does have an impact.

I'm sure they were very much against it at the time. Weren't they allowed to remove them for moutain top finishes back then? Seem to remember the majority did.

amaferanga

FransJacques wrote:

I see your points and agree it would be great to have appropriate scientific tests to conclude that a helmeted head is better than a non-helmeted head in enough cases to a satisfactory degree of certainly to get something on the statues.

But guess what? Ain't going to happen any time soon, certainly not in the UK which is great at dithering on public policy for fear of litigation/payouts. A hypothetical 100% helmet law would infer that helmets are better in all cases and that any helmet on the markets provides benefits. Otherwise why would one NOT sue Met, Bell or Giro when they become a parapalegic after a head injury where one was wearing a helmet? The law suggested it would make a diffference. I personally like the choice as I don't wear mine, say, going to the shops.

In the meantime I don't mind sharing real-life experiences with the forum. I notice no one has commented on the realness of the symptoms or the fact that I have no lasting effects from a 30km/h to 0 deceleration provided mainly by my left temple. It was the doctor who told me I'd have been worse off without the helmet given the part of my head I hit. But you won't know if you haven't done it. And I mean really done it, you'll just be guessing and shooting from the hip. In June I also hit the deck during the Smithfiled Nocturne and smashed another helmet. I remember my head slamming down on the side and bouncing up again. Thanks Met for that one, I'd rather be an anecdote than a statistic!

Do bear in mind that it took Fabio Casartelli and defo Andre Kivilev to bring this home to the pros so case study does have an impact.

I think this is a pretty pointless debate.

But anyway, I think something you (and your doctor - doctors don't know everything BTW (I work with some real numpty doctors)) may not have taken into account is that your helmet sticks out ~ 2" from your head so were you to have been helmet-less, by the time your head hit the deck (assuming say your shoulder actually hit first so your head hit the ground in a rotational motion) it MAY have been moving much slower and hence the impact would actually have been less. But then maybe not. The point is, I don't know, you don't know and your doctor doesn't know how different the impact could have been if you weren't wearing a helmet.

So its a nice anecdote, but doesn't prove anything (and the fact that some doctor reckons it would have been much worse just proves how little he understands about the sort of collisions cyclists often have).

sherer

a_n_t wrote:

FransJacques wrote:

Do bear in mind that it took Fabio Casartelli and defo Andre Kivilev to bring this home to the pros so case study does have an impact.

I'm sure they were very much against it at the time. Weren't they allowed to remove them for moutain top finishes back then? Seem to remember the majority did.

if the races ended on a mountain top finish then they could take them off as the theory was they weren't needed.

This made the bottom of the last time a total nightmare and too dangerous with helmets flying all over the place so the rule was dropped.

Think part of the problem is all the classic photos of the pros shows them without helmets and people want to look like their heros

FransJacques

Wow I'm impressed, so many foresic scientists on the forum well versed in human trajectory/kinetics. Please share your credentials with us?

It proves I'm still here able to try and match wits with the unarmed.

Get out and ride.

bompington

amaferanga wrote:

your helmet sticks out ~ 2" from your head so were you to have been helmet-less, by the time your head hit the deck (assuming say your shoulder actually hit first so your head hit the ground in a rotational motion) it MAY have been moving much slower and hence the impact would actually have been less.

Does anyone actually believe any of the "helmets cause worse head injuries" stuff as opposed to just trotting it out to justify not wearing a helmet? A decision which I would guess is usually made on the grounds of inconvenience, discomfort or "the nanny state's telling me to wear one so I won't", i.e. adolescent rebelliousness.

bompington

All the helmet stuff makes me wonder - you hear a lot of hypothetical arguments, like the head rotation ones, where it would be relatively easy for someone with the appropriate gear to do proper crash testing and provide some real evidence one way or the other. Does anyone know if such evidence exists?

nasahapley

bompington wrote:

Does anyone actually believe any of the "helmets cause worse head injuries" stuff as opposed to just trotting it out to justify not wearing a helmet?

I don't

bompington wrote:

A decision which I would guess is usually made on the grounds of inconvenience, discomfort...

And what, exactly, is wrong with that? I've never found a helmet I'm comfortable with, so should I put up with enjoying my riding a bit less due to that discomfort, or take what is in reality a small risk of more serious injury and enjoy my cycling more? Since it's my head I often choose to do the latter, but if a sportive organiser says I have to wear one then that's fine too.

bompington

nasahapley wrote:

bompington wrote:

Does anyone actually believe any of the "helmets cause worse head injuries" stuff as opposed to just trotting it out to justify not wearing a helmet?

I don't

bompington wrote:

A decision which I would guess is usually made on the grounds of inconvenience, discomfort...

And what, exactly, is wrong with that? I've never found a helmet I'm comfortable with, so should I put up with enjoying my riding a bit less due to that discomfort, or take what is in reality a small risk of more serious injury and enjoy my cycling more? Since it's my head I often choose to do the latter, but if a sportive organiser says I have to wear one then that's fine too.

Nothing wrong with that at all - the point I was trying to make there (obviously not clearly enough) is that people need to be honest about their motivation - people on both sides of the argument frequently use all kinds of dodgy evidence or logic just to bolster a position they have already adopted for altogether more visceral reasons.
Much like Campy (sorry, Campag) v Shimano, LA v AC...

VinceEager

a useful contribution to the debate...

oldwelshman

bompington wrote:

All the helmet stuff makes me wonder - you hear a lot of hypothetical arguments, like the head rotation ones, where it would be relatively easy for someone with the appropriate gear to do proper crash testing and provide some real evidence one way or the other. Does anyone know if such evidence exists?

I proposed a test for doubters to try earlier in the post, by wearing a helmet and headbutt a wall, then head but the floor and repeat the test without helmet then report back on here with results, had no response yet!!
Maybe some did it and are in ITU

Whilst on the subject of anecdotes, I was on a rugby tour once, in Margate ( yes in those days that was as far as we went) and it was one of the players birthday so for fun we decided to lower him over the harbour wall by his ankles and drop him into the sea. We waited to hear the splash but heard a loud thud instead!!! He landed in a boat!!

We had to pay £50 for ambulance and he was in hospital for 2 days with stiches and cricked neck !!! Do you still have to pay for ambulance like that?

I wonder if he would have had less injuries wearing a cycle helmet?

redddraggon

oldwelshman wrote:

I proposed a test for doubters to try earlier in the post, by wearing a helmet and headbutt a wall, then head but the floor and repeat the test without helmet then report back on here with results, had no response yet!!
Maybe some did it and are in ITU

I always wondered why people become Triathletes, thanks for clearing it up.

palmersperry

oldwelshman wrote:

FFS are you real?

This coming from the man who bangs his head on the wall and floor to try and prove how protective 1cm of polystyrene is? I prefer my version of "prevention is better than cure" - you put on a helmet and bang your head against a wall/floor, I'll not put on a helmet and will not bang my head on the wall/floor. Then we can compare notes on which hurt more.

oldwelshman wrote:

I do not recall ever crashing to within one centimetre of the floor then miraculously manage to get back upright again, and I do not recall ever getting rotational head injuries in a crash.

So you've never had a crash in which your head didn't hit something? That's interesting because I've had a few over the years, and I see no reason to make my head bigger and heavier thus making head impacts more likely.

oldwelshman wrote:

Unfortunatley I have had crashes, all of which suprisingly ended up with me hitting the floor, only one of these was without helmet hence the scar.

If you keep falling off that much, have you considered switching to riding a trike instead?

oldwelshman wrote:

I am going out for a ride tomorrow and will follow your advice and watch out for hammers hanging from trees whilst cycling in excess of 50mph.

It's okay, you can keep the strawman you've created there ...

But hey, I believe in liberty and freedom to choose. If you want to wear 1cm of magic polystyrene on your head you're free to do so. If you want to believe it will protect you from all ills, you're also free to do so. You're even free to tell me I should follow your example (but I'm equally free to ignore you). What you're not free to do so, or shouldn't be, is able to force me to wear the magic polystyrene with you.

DaveMoss

This really is getting silly.

just consider the facts:- Crash with a helmet, helmet gets smashed, cost £50 to £150.

Crash without helmet and either, your dead so no worries or NHS pay for the repairs. It's a no Brainer

Tom Butcher

Hmm, I think if anything is silly it's over simplistic comments like that. As has already been pointed out there are lots of things you could do to make cycling safer - fit fatter tyres for more grip, disc brakes for better stopping power, overbuilt components to avoid failure, slow down on descents, leave at least 4 feet between you and the rider in front.

There are lots of people who consider riding in groups inherently dangerous - but I assume we all do it because it adds to our enjoyment - if people prefer to feel the wind in their hair then it's no different - taking a small risk for a bit of extra enjoyment.

oldwelshman

Hey palm, I did not say I was going to do the test, I suggested others do it.
Also I did not say I fell off the bike, I said I had a couple of crashes, none of which were just me falling off!!
In addition to that I have said many times it is up to individuals what they do and I did not try to convince you or others to wear one, just said what I thought, freedom of speeh.
Anyway I did not realise how heavy polstyrene was but as you admitted your head is already heavy enough. I will not pass comments about contents

redddraggon

I will not ride without wearing a helmet, however I am fully aware of the limitations. My wearing of a helmet does not mean that I believe they are as good as some of you are making out.

It's quite obvious that the people who suggest headbutting walls is a good test of a helmet, or suggest that because they had an accident and damaged their helmet but suffered from no serious injury that helmets "prevent serious injury", are frankly pretty dumb and naive.

Some of the people who I thought were quite intelligent have posted stuff in this thread that make them look pretty naive and stupid.

Someone who chooses* to not wear a helmet is not stupid. I wear a helmet, because I have always worn a helmet, but that's because I believe in Sod's Law, and as soon I go and not wear one I'll end up bouncing my head off the tarmac (however I'm saying that this would cause serious injury).




*ie they are a proper cyclist, and not a BSO rider, and have made an informed decision

VinceEager

dunno if anyone mentioned it already (tl;dr) but helmets are quite good at preventing road rash on your face