"pros" in helmets

millimole

Father Jack wrote:

Crashed several times over christmas, went over the handlebars, slid off on oil whilst going round a roundabout, also front wheelpulled to one side on ice. Didn't hit my head, only a little bit when I went over the bars, but just a small blow probably as much as a tennis ball whacked at my head. I do have a helmet. If I were doing high speed runs I'd wear it more

Isn't that (high speed runs) counter-intuitive because most helmets are tested upto blows at 12mph?
Does helmet wearing make you feel more confident to go at faster (less safe) speeds i.e. risk comensation?

squigs

Alberto Contador averages 25mph during the Tour de France as do most of the riders. Why do most of them wear a helmet?
Also do the head butt a wall test, one with a helmet and one without, if one hurts more than the other then I would favour the one that doesnt.

Ollieda

squigs wrote:

Alberto Contador averages 25mph during the Tour de France as do most of the riders. Why do most of them wear a helmet?
Also do the head butt a wall test, one with a helmet and one without, if one hurts more than the other then I would favour the one that doesnt.

Becuase it's compulsaory for racing. I think all types of sanctioned racing but I'm sure someone with more knowledge will correct me if wrong.

Cunobelin

thermopyl wrote:

one thing is certain - sooner or later we all fall off

you could fall off and have a small scratch

you could fall off and crack your skull meaning 12 months of work and all the emotional/financial problems that come with it - this happened to a work colleague on a 300yd ride to the park

For the sake of £50 and wearing a cornish pastie it just aint worth it folks

I have worked with pedestrians, drivers and motorcyclists in a similar position, would you advocate helmets for them?

Cunobelin

squigs wrote:

Alberto Contador averages 25mph during the Tour de France as do most of the riders. Why do most of them wear a helmet?

For the same reason as professional race drivers do so?
Does this mean drivers should do so?

Also do the head butt a wall test, one with a helmet and one without, if one hurts more than the other then I would favour the one that doesnt.

Now repeat wearing a melon, calabash, or other fruit..... does that mean cyclists should wear fruit on their heads?

thermopyl

Cunobelin wrote:

I have worked with pedestrians, drivers and motorcyclists in a similar position, would you advocate helmets for them?

Nope although probably for motorcyclists tbh

I am not trying to be all 'daily mail outrage' about this.

Simply that for some riders i see, who look like (and i stress look like) they know their biking, I am really surprised how few i see wearing helmets.

Of course it's free choice but it has been interesting reading the responses. Many take a 'better safe than sorry' and admit to wearing one, even though we all hate wearing them.

Interestingly, there is a theme amongst the posters who do not wear them of outrage; as if the sheer thought of having a debate about it infringes their human rights.

Perhaps I could have phrased a more constructive question in my opening post.

I have been intrigued by allusions to 'research' & 'statistics' that show they offer little protection anyway - i will google further on this so i can be fully educated - you do know that 92.4% of stats are wrong???

thermopyl

...oh, and for the guy earlier you used the term 'noob' as if it's an insult...

we were all noobs once - We should encourage other users not sneer at their beginner status - if you don't like noob discussion then why browse the beginners forums??? :roll:

knedlicky

Pross wrote:

my main concern if I don't wear a helmet is I get knocked off and suffer severe brain injury, the guilty party gets taken to court and my family get a reduced payout as my lack of helmet is used as a reason to make me x% culpable and reduce the payout accordingly.

Irrespective of whether helmets actually help or not, that is the other argument for wearing one, what another poster called the 'contributory negligence argument'.

Insiders in the legal/insurance field have told me while not wearing a helmet wouldn't be judged adversely in the case of someone involved in an accident when just riding a 'town' bike to work or to the shops or wherever, this wouldn't be the case when the rider was on a racing bike and in the appropriate kit, and likely riding at higher speed.

TheDrunkMonk

I would have thought the argument for compulsory helmet wearing would be that the government's going to shell out for any fixing, patching, glueing and rehab, so the government gets a say how you use the government's roads and byways. We only have a limited amount of freedom in this country anyway, I know compulsory wearing of helmets isn't going to make top of the agenda for human rights watch.

AND!!..... Don't professional riders crash all the time, and I presume the bike handling skills are fairly high?

AND!!... when did "personal choice" and being "bloody stupid" become mutually exclusive?

The end.

Ollieda

thermopyl wrote:

...oh, and for the guy earlier you used the term 'noob' as if it's an insult...

we were all noobs once - We should encourage other users not sneer at their beginner status - if you don't like noob discussion then why browse the beginners forums??? :roll:

Not sure if that was directed at me or not, as I actually agree with you but due to some slow responding on my part my post fell out of context a bit!

knedlicky, I think it would still come into play when involving riders in "full" kit as to say. If you look at cases where helmet wearing / not wearing has been considered there isn't much consideration paid to the level of riding the cyclist is (if that makes any sense) and I'm pretty certain there was a case of someone on a club run being hit whilst not wearing a helmet......I'll have to hunt through my notes to find it though

StillGoing

prawny wrote:

I always wear mine, although it's pretty much only for the contributory negligence argument. I don't think that if I get hit by a car or hit a curb at 30mph it will help. I had a big crash in my teen where I crashed into a pile of concrete at about 30mph hit my head and knocked myself out and suffered no lasting damage.

I think there must be a really small window where wearing a helmet saves you from serious damage.

Regarding the motorcycle helmet testing, if you watch motorcycle racing it's surprising how small the head impacts are, i think there would be a lot more grazing than anything else, when a motorcyclist really takes a hit to the head they have no chance, read up on Craig Jones if you need an example.

In the end though I'd always recommend wearing a helmet, but I wouldn't recommend trustin one with your life.

Disagree. I've highsided at 100mph+ lowsided at 140mph and lesser speeds in the sub 30mph and I can honestly say that almost every time the helmet has taken a glancing blow. The highside resulted in a crack to the helmet. I would have been killed but for the helmet.

Cunobelin

thermopyl wrote:

Cunobelin wrote:

I have worked with pedestrians, drivers and motorcyclists in a similar position, would you advocate helmets for them?

Nope although probably for motorcyclists tbh

I am not trying to be all 'daily mail outrage' about this.

Simply that for some riders i see, who look like (and i stress look like) they know their biking, I am really surprised how few i see wearing helmets.

Of course it's free choice but it has been interesting reading the responses. Many take a 'better safe than sorry' and admit to wearing one, even though we all hate wearing them.

Interestingly, there is a theme amongst the posters who do not wear them of outrage; as if the sheer thought of having a debate about it infringes their human rights.

Perhaps I could have phrased a more constructive question in my opening post.

I have been intrigued by allusions to 'research' & 'statistics' that show they offer little protection anyway - i will google further on this so i can be fully educated - you do know that 92.4% of stats are wrong???

Debate is one thing, and evidence based debate is even better. "Wear a helmet on a bike or be a vegetable" is neither - it is emotive blackmail and bullying.

That is where the "outrage" occurs

Take for example the post above

TheDrunkMonk wrote:

I would have thought the argument for compulsory helmet wearing would be that the government's going to shell out for any fixing, patching, glueing and rehab, so the government gets a say how you use the government's roads and byways.

The fact is that only 1% of head injuries admitted to hospital are cyclists, 43% are falls and 60% alcohol related (Goodhill 2001 BMJ). Wardlaw in the BMJ points out that 3 times as many head injuries will occur on stairs than on a bicycle, a far higher risk. Wardlaw also points out that per mile your risk of head injury is about the same for walking as cycling. Why are pedestrian helmets not on the agenda when your risk is almost identical?

These "justifications" for helmet use are unsustainable. If you want to wear a helmet because you are "at risk" then the place to wear them is on the stairs where you are at greater risk.... and if you want to save money than pub helmets, helmets for vehicle occupants (34% of head injuries despite all the air bags etc) is the way to go.

kettrinboy

Ive never worn a cycle helmet ever and never joined in any of the previous helmet/no helmet debates, in the last four years and 20,000 miles ive had one hard fall but my ebow and hip took the impact, over the decades riding to work thru winter ive fell off five or six times on the ice the sort of crashes where the front wheel tucks suddenly so you have no chance to stick a leg or arm out to save yourself, all those times i never hit my head, always the knees/hips /elbows, but i,m at the point where i am going to start wearing a helmet, as a motorcyclist for 30 yrs ive had crashes and one where ive been knocked out cold , hit my head on a low wall, without the helmet i,d be dead no question, how fast was i going ?160 mph,nope just 35 ish mph, and yet last week i did 44 mph on a bumpy narrow road on my road bike and for some reason after all these years the "what if" thoughts entered my head, i thought would you ride your motorbike down here at the same speed without a helmet, no i would,nt, a good cycle helmet would definitely protect my head better than the cloth cap ive been wearing for years, like a lot of people i dont want to wear one, i sweat loads thru my head when i,m pressing on so it could get a bit uncomfortable but i,ll put up with it,there will always be cyclists who will never wear a helmet, ive been one for 40 odd years but ive changed my mind, now i,ll do my research and get the best helmet i can afford.

Pross

squigs wrote:

Alberto Contador averages 25mph during the Tour de France as do most of the riders. Why do most of them wear a helmet?
Also do the head butt a wall test, one with a helmet and one without, if one hurts more than the other then I would favour the one that doesnt.

That's because the UCI rules make it compulsory, before that probably less than half the pro peloton wore helmets and virtually none on big climbs. Would Fabio Casartelli have survived his crash and hitting his head on a rock at 50mph if he'd been wearing a helmet? I doubt it but it gave the UCI their first attempt at compulsory helmet wearing.

prawny

philthy3 wrote:

prawny wrote:

I always wear mine, although it's pretty much only for the contributory negligence argument. I don't think that if I get hit by a car or hit a curb at 30mph it will help. I had a big crash in my teen where I crashed into a pile of concrete at about 30mph hit my head and knocked myself out and suffered no lasting damage.

I think there must be a really small window where wearing a helmet saves you from serious damage.

Regarding the motorcycle helmet testing, if you watch motorcycle racing it's surprising how small the head impacts are, i think there would be a lot more grazing than anything else, when a motorcyclist really takes a hit to the head they have no chance, read up on Craig Jones if you need an example.

In the end though I'd always recommend wearing a helmet, but I wouldn't recommend trustin one with your life.

Disagree. I've highsided at 100mph+ lowsided at 140mph and lesser speeds in the sub 30mph and I can honestly say that almost every time the helmet has taken a glancing blow. The highside resulted in a crack to the helmet. I would have been killed but for the helmet.

How do you know you would have been killed though? From your description the damage to the helmet doesn't sound too bad, obviously I haven't seen it and it could just be some classic midlands understatement. You probably would have been knocked out and no doubt messed your barnet up a bit, but without replicating the crash with and without a helmet you never know. Helmet shells are designed to crack and dissipate shocks and human skulls are much tougher than people give them credit for.

I'm not saying that helmets are a waste of time like I said before I always wear mine now, and I'd never ride a motorbike at speed without one, but it worries me that some people regard them as some kind of invincibilty device.

squigs

That's because the UCI rules make it compulsory, before that probably less than half the pro peloton wore helmets and virtually none on big climbs. Would Fabio Casartelli have survived his crash and hitting his head on a rock at 50mph if he'd been wearing a helmet? I doubt it but it gave the UCI their first attempt at compulsory helmet wearing.[/quote]

If its good enough for them, then its good enough for me!
Why do most clubs insist on wearing a helmet, when it isn't the law?

Is there any way of doing a poll on the forum? that would be interesting.

Also, when I had my motorbike accident I was told if I hadn't worn my full protective gear I would have been a goner, (probably based on the many years of experience the medical has had, and seen the state of people who dont wear the correct gear) back to point.
I feel abit of a hypocrite as I would wear my full gear on a motorbike yet feel riding a road bike at 25 mph, 50mph down hill in a pair of shorts and a jersey ok. Equally if I was to come off in that gear it would not be pretty.

balthazar

squigs wrote:

Is there any way of doing a poll on the forum? that would be interesting.

Perhaps it isn't apparent to you that no subject has been more discussed on this forum, or in other places on the net that bikies gather, or in bike shops, cycle clubhouses, among cyclists in pubs, at parties, at cafes, and undoubtedly in the spring on Majorca, than – bicycle helmets. A poll is the last thing we need.

squigs

balthazar wrote:

squigs wrote:

Is there any way of doing a poll on the forum? that would be interesting.

Perhaps it isn't apparent to you that no subject has been more discussed on this forum, or in other places on the net that bikies gather, or in bike shops, cycle clubhouses, among cyclists in pubs, at parties, at cafes, and undoubtedly in the spring on Majorca, than – bicycle helmets. A poll is the last thing we need.

Sorry i miss your point!
A poll with a simple yes I wear one, or no I dont, just to get an idea.

thermopyl

[/quote]

Debate is one thing, and evidence based debate is even better. "Wear a helmet on a bike or be a vegetable" is neither - it is emotive blackmail and bullying.

That is where the "outrage" occurs

[/quote]

The example i gave was neither blackmail nor bullying - stop overreacting. You contradict yourself in one sentence - stick to evidenced based debate as you have none to show that my intention is anything other that to elicit a debate.

It is a true example of what i have experienced, so from my perspective i have evidence

You going to be calling me a Nazi next? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

Cloudy_Wheat

Sure don’t wear a helmet it’s your choice blah blah blah..... My 6 year old come off yesterday landed on the side of his head was I glad that I make him wear a helmet.

outofbreath2

Without being able to give direct evidence from each and every post the general gist seems to be based on personal experience, since that's really only what we've got to go on. Study evidence is great, but not really useful to individual circumstances.

There aret hose that say... a) 'well I had an off and the helmet saved me' and b) those that say 'I don't wear a helmet and I've never had a problem'. Either are perfectly valid reasons for wearing or not wearing a helmet given we have the choice.

You don't have to know for sure that you would have been killed had you not been helmet-wearing. Just knowing it may have only prevented a severe headache the next day is enough to justify your actions. (And you don't just have to hit the very top of your head to sustain injury.)

I haven't got the impression that contributing lid-wearers are confusing a helment with a cloak of invincibility either.

Personally, if I thought wearing a helmet may play a small part in ensuring my husband doesn't become my carer, then I guess I'll wear one when I'm out and about and hope that if I do get broadsided/rearended/whatever, it's a biggy and I don't feel a thing (and the driver buys it too :evil: ).

flet©h

Saying you shouldn't/don't wear a helmet cycling becuase the risks are the same as walking and way less than being drunk is a ridiculous view to take. They are completely unrelated. Its like saying you don't need Ketchup on your chips because salad tastes better with mayonaise.

Sure there doesn't seem to be any conclusive proof either way so you need to make your own mind up but do it based on the merrits of the case and not becuase you don't wear a helment to walk down the stairs after a bottle of merlot.

I wear mine because if I didn't this risk of injury would increase significantly as I was walloped round the head by the wife!

outofbreath2

flet©h wrote:

I wear mine because if I didn't this risk of injury would increase significantly as I was walloped round the head by the wife!

If I understand that right - quite - I wear one partly because otherwise my ears would bleed due to the bashing they get from well meaning, non-cycling friends and family who do think it's a magic pill.

Stairs, merlot... have you been round my house?

tarquin_foxglove

kettrinboy wrote:

...there will always be cyclists who will never wear a helmet, ive been one for 40 odd years but ive changed my mind, now i,ll do my research and get the best helmet i can afford.

Snell Foundation have done it for you. Helmets that get their B-90A rating have passed a far tougher test than ones that reach the European standard EN1078.

From the Snell website most of them appear to be made by Specialized. The Specialized website lists these as their current models meeting B-90A.

amaferanga

flet©h wrote:

Saying you shouldn't/don't wear a helmet cycling becuase the risks are the same as walking and way less than being drunk is a ridiculous view to take. They are completely unrelated. Its like saying you don't need Ketchup on your chips because salad tastes better with mayonaise.

But the risk per mile of walking is about the same as that for cycling so surely if you think the risk is great enough to need a helmet to ride a bike you would think the same for walking?

And if the risk of head injury is significantly greater if you're drunk then surely it makes perfect sense to wear a helmet when you drunk?

It comes down to people's misconception of the actual risk of cycling compared to other activities.

Oh and your analogy is perhaps one of the stupidest I've ever heard btw - we're comparing two activities where there is a small, but real risk of head injury and trying to make sense of why people insist helmets for cycling are essential, but the same people don't wear helmets when walking.

TheDrunkMonk

The more I read, the more I concur with the OP's stupidity comment.

Evidence? Stats? Likelihood?

I'm sure everyone agrees there are possible scenarios where a helmet would save your life, and there are similar scenarios where a helmet would stop you from becoming a nappy wearing, dribbley shell of your former self. Wear a helmet, then when your wife's wiping your bum, or comforting your kids as they lower you into the ground, at least she won't be doing it because of bloody minded stupidity on your part.

Admittedly, I haven’t seen the stats on having a protective self-inflated bubble of self-righteousness around an extra-thick skull, so I my opinions may be out of date.

gaspode

And if the risk of head injury is significantly greater if you're drunk then surely it makes perfect sense to wear a helmet when you drunk?

I tried wearing a full-face motorcycle helmet when going out for a few beers - you don't half get some funny looks on the bus.....

But seriously, while it's (thankfully) not a legal requirement to wear a helmet, it all comes down to personal choice - I choose to wear one and I choose to make my son wear one (he's not old enough to have personal choice yet!). If others choose not to, then on their head be it - it's nothing to do with me, just as it's no one else's concern what I choose to wear.....

Pross

squigs wrote:

If its good enough for them, then its good enough for me!
Why do most clubs insist on wearing a helmet, when it isn't the law?

Is there any way of doing a poll on the forum? that would be interesting.

The UCI did it presumably to stop criticism in the wake of the accidenteven though a helmet making much difference in the Casartelli incident is highly unlikely. That took stick and had a knee jerk reaction. The pros disagreed to the extent that they went on strike! Clubs insist on it for fear of litigation, I was on my club committee when we made it compulsory - several older riders quit the club as a result - but I don't think any of us really felt it would make a difference in the majority of crashes. The problem with a simple poll is that from this thread there appear to be many, myself included, who wear a helmet on the off chance of that one crash where it does help but we don't expect it to 'save our lives' in any event. Others on here seem to think it is some sort of forcefield - crash with one you'll be unscathed, crash without one and your a goner (brain damage wouldn't be a problem as according to the OP you've already got mental problems for not wearing it).

secretsqizz

Gaspode wrote:

But seriously, while it's (thankfully) not a legal requirement to wear a helmet,
..

er....
are you in the know about something?


I think this debate need to be widened...
optimum angle for helmet on head... fore and aft and lateral
how much forehead needs to be shown
are stainless steel peaks allowed so when you faceplant a car bonnet it leaves a nice 4 inch incision.

hambones

squigs wrote:

Sorry i miss your point!
A poll with a simple yes I wear one, or no I dont, just to get an idea.

A poll like that wouldn't be any use because it seems that pretty much all pro-wearers state they nearly always wear one (the 400yd trip to the shops being an example where they don't!).

A better poll would be - 'Who are the most abusive during internet helmet debates, pro or anti wearers?'