Helmets - safe at any speed?

Northridge

Not sure where to post this but as I was a mountain biker and still have my NRS carbon (built with the best exotica available at the time) I shall post here.
Just watched a BBC World news report about the increasing use of helmets in skiing (for some ages/places its mandatory) but the report stated the "helmets are only safe up to 12 mph" (though the reporter didnt offer any facts to back this up.
So I thought - "Buy a good Giro or similar bike helmet - surely theyre certified for higher speeds than that". And then I thought - "But are they?"
Do helmet manufacturers rate their products for speed? Are there known maximum limits? Even I can manage more that 12 mph and I havent ridden "properly" for two years or more.

calvjones

Yep 12mph is the standard impact test. Kinetic energy increases with the square of speed, so if you're descending at 24mph make sure you wear 4 helmets.

The CPSC standard is generally accepted I think to be the most rigorous but I'm sure I'll be corrected if wrong.

cooldad

They are tested to simulate an impact at that speed onto the edge of a curb. Doesn't mean the are unsafe at 12.1 mph or safe at 1 mph.

bails87

As cooldad says, they're not 'safe' at any particular speed. What does 'safe' even mean? you could hit the ground at 5mph and kill yourself somehow. you could get hit by a car at 20mph.... :oops:.... and not have your head touch the car or the ground.

Snowboard helmets are different to bike helmets in any case.
http://cyclehelmets.org/papers/c2023.pdf

and, more generally: http://cyclehelmets.org/

Long_Time_Lurker

As everyone above has said, they can save your life at 30mph and make no difference at 3 mph.
All depends on how and where you fall.

As an insurance solicitor, my missus works closely with doctors and medical experts - some of her cases include accidents involving cyclists. And some of those cases are pretty grim.
The only thing she insists on when I am out on my bike, is that I always wear a helmet - even for a 2 minute ride to the shops.

Better to be wearing one, than not to - the fact that it won't necessarily save your life in an accident isn't a good enough excuse to go out without a helmet.

Northwind

It's total gibberish tbh. Helmets can very occasionally cause injury, but that's not speed related, it can happen at walking pace. Comments up the page that the tests are designed to be representative of a 12mph crash are spot on, and that doesn't mean the helmet suddenly stops working at higher speeds, or that they'll stop all injuries at lower speeds- it's just the arbitrary (and very low and undemanding) level of the test.

The thing that confuses people is that it's not all or nothing- an impact that overwhelms the helmet and causes you head damage is probably still going to be reduced by the helmet, the usefulness doesn't go away. If you imagine punching a wall through a cushion, you can still break your hand but it'll take a bigger impact, and even when you do break your hand, you'd probably have done more damage if there was no cushion.

timpop

Reporters hardly give all the facts anyway and reporting they are only safe at 12mph seems just a bit misleading for the general public. The bottom line is a helmet can save your life and prevent injury. I always wear one, it doesn't take much to cause brain damage. Wearing a helmet saved the lilfe of James Cracknell as we all know, his helmet was hit at 70mph.

Ghostt

How do you think your head (by itself) will get on in a 12mph impact, for example, with a curb?
Exactly.

bompington

This particular discussion is further confused by the fact that skiing and cycling helmets are quite different in design: skiing ones (at least the ones that we have at school) have a thicker plastic shell and softer foam inside, rather than the thin shell and expanded polystyrene inner that bike lids have.
Personally I find ski helmets quite cosy - and they must surely be stronger without the need for ventilation holes?
Good website for this is Mike Langram who is a GP and ski patroller in Aviemore - unlike some helmet websites, it seems to be a genuine attempt to gather and interpret real evidence rather than use research to try and bolster deep-seated prejudices ;-)

Northridge

Well, I certainly didnt expect a heated debate - I just wanted some experienced opinon.
I am really surprised to see that bike helmets are only certified to 12mph: if you can only manage 12 perhaps you should stay at home eating lard and watching cable.
I know helmets work by distributing the impact, and work well: I lent my E2 and the guy had a nasty tumble in the middle of a Tri peloton and cracked the "foam" inner all the way through, and luckily only had a headache to show for it.

Thanks for the answers.

Mccraque

Have smashed a few helmets....on one of those occasions I am Adam Ant that I would have been in hospital if not wearing one....anything to protect the melon is a bonus.

bails87

timpop wrote:

Wearing a helmet saved the lilfe of James Cracknell as we all know

Do we all know?

Proof please....

Northwind

True story... When I had my big road crash- t-boned a car that pulled out on me, right over him and through the windscreen of a parked car- some medical people told me my helmet probably saved my life... Some weren't so sure, it might not have saved my life but it definately helped prevent more serious injuries.

Wasn't actually wearing it at the time though.

chez_m356

Mccraque wrote:

anything to protect the melon is a bonus.

+1 to this, better to have, just in case, besides if you use a proper helmet, ie, one with a peak they are also useful for keeping sun and rain out of your eyes, and the number of times i've scraped the top on low branches when out in the woods i don't know, but i'm sure it would have hurt without one on

supersonic

My view is read a few articles and make your own mind up - try and assess the danger you are in, or risk, and if you think you need to take precautions, do so. And not just limited to helmets.

Of course a helmet wouldn't do much if you got ran over by a gritter. But as above, they don't suddenly have a barrier at 13mph where they stop working all together.

benpinnick

Been through 4 helmets, no permanent damage to me. Helmets are good

cooldad

benpinnick wrote:

Been through 4 helmets, no permanent damage to me. Helmets are good

We just let you think that.

stubs

If theres a 1 % chance the helmet will stop me needing feeding through a tube for the rest of my life I will wear one. I dont reccomend anyone else wears a helmet though I might need some new organs in the future and a cyclists heart is better than a 50 a day smokers.

Northwind

stubs wrote:

If theres a 1 % chance the helmet will stop me needing feeding through a tube for the rest of my life I will wear one.

OK, there isn't. I haven't a clue what the actual odds are, but I'm going to take a conservative stab at less than 1% of 1%. This sort of injury is massively rare.

But don't let that put you off, helmets aren't just for the brain damage cases, they're for the concussions and headaches and ruined rides etc too.

cooldad

stubs wrote:

If theres a 1 % chance the helmet will stop me needing feeding through a tube for the rest of my life I will wear one. I dont reccomend anyone else wears a helmet though I might need some new organs in the future and a cyclists heart is better than a 50 a day smokers.

Hah you can have mine - probably only 30 a day.

cycle monster

We haven't had a helmet v I am indestructible debate for a while. There are usually two camps on here. Camp 1 says helmets help and can prevent serious injury and camp 2 which says they don't. I have gone over the bars at speed, landed helmet first with no head or neck injury but suffered a severe shoulder strain. A mate went over his bars and hit a tree square on. His helmet split in two but he cycled away unscathed. Another went over the bars, landed helmet first and broke his back in five places. He cycled home, prior to a trip to A & E where he was told that had he not worn a helmet, he would be wheelchair bound at best. He has made a full recovery and is back playing rugby.

Having some protection betwween your head and something hard and or sharp is a good thing. There are of course those amongst us, who never fall off, or if they do, do so in such an elegant way that it is impossible to do themselves any harm. Even those on the dark side can get squashed by lorries...each to his own, they are are heads/lives after all.

cooldad

I wear one as IMO they help, but even if not I whack my head on enough branches and twigs to make it worthwhile.

cycle monster

cooldad wrote:

I wear one as IMO they help, but even if not I whack my head on enough branches and twigs to make it worthwhile.

Is the helmet wearing or the head whacking worthwhile?

cooldad

Nothing like an occasional head whacking.

cycle monster

See you on the DHL thread, Crudcatcher side!

cooldad

Put her there as well, I like em tough.

supersonic

Please keep on topic.

bails87

Northwind wrote:

stubs wrote:

If theres a 1 % chance the helmet will stop me needing feeding through a tube for the rest of my life I will wear one.

OK, there isn't. I haven't a clue what the actual odds are, but I'm going to take a conservative stab at less than 1% of 1%. This sort of injury is massively rare.

But don't let that put you off, helmets aren't just for the brain damage cases, they're for the concussions and headaches and ruined rides etc too.

Yep, I've had loads of tree branches, stones, brambles etc hit my helmet (fnar), and if I hadn't had my helmet on it would have been a bit painful. Off road it seems much more clear cut, simply because there's more going on.

Mojo_666

bails87 wrote:

Northwind wrote:

stubs wrote:

If theres a 1 % chance the helmet will stop me needing feeding through a tube for the rest of my life I will wear one.

OK, there isn't. I haven't a clue what the actual odds are, but I'm going to take a conservative stab at less than 1% of 1%. This sort of injury is massively rare.

But don't let that put you off, helmets aren't just for the brain damage cases, they're for the concussions and headaches and ruined rides etc too.

Yep, I've had loads of tree branches, stones, brambles etc hit my helmet (fnar), and if I hadn't had my helmet on it would have been a bit painful. Off road it seems much more clear cut, simply because there's more going on.

Same here, I have also had enough off's that would have ended with lumps, headaches and in some case stitches...it's doesn't take a massive crunch on a stone/rock to split the skin. I wear goggles on DH days too, not to stop muck flying into my eye but to protect them from stick jabs when I wrestle with trees and bushes.

tarquin_foxglove

Northridge wrote:

I am really surprised to see that bike helmets are only certified to 12mph: if you can only manage 12 perhaps you should stay at home eating lard and watching cable.

That isn't really correct, they are tested to withstand a head impact speed equivalent of 12mph not a rider speed of 12mph plus a head impact speed.

EN 1078 tests helmets by dropping them vertically from 1.5m (twice, once onto a flat anvil and once a kerb shaped anvil), the helmet & headform accelerate from 0 to approx 12mph at impact.

More expensive helmets will pass the tests with more vent holes in the shell & liner, possibly be lighter & with better fastenings/adjustments but not necessarily be safer than a £10 one bought at a supermarket.

The Snell Standard is the better one, its tests include 4 drops onto flat x2, kerb & hemisphere anvils and greater energy at impact. You can check which helmets they've certified here http://www.smf.org/cert

timpop

bails87 wrote:

timpop wrote:

Wearing a helmet saved the lilfe of James Cracknell as we all know

Do we all know?

Proof please....

Do your own research lazy boy.