Helmet saved my heeeed!!!

scraff

There is a building site about 100 yards from where I work and a 90 degree turn which borders the site, the road when it has or is raining is awash with mud from vehicles moving around the site. The conditions yesterday werent the best, i took the turn and whoooosh both whells went from underneath me and the old cranium took the brunt of the fall.

As always I had my Specialized helmet on (only a cheap one) and I can safely say I would probably be lying in hospital now if it werent for that, as it is I am bruised, battered and rather sore right down my left hand side. It goes to show you something like this can happen anytime and no other vehicle was involved, be safe, wear a helmet.

CiB

I fell of once and face planted, ripping a layer of skin & tissue off pretty much from where your jaw wound is to the bruise under your eye. The nurse told me that it would have been the same if I'd been wearing a helmet unless it had had a 6" peak on it. She cleaned me up, told not to pick the scabs when they grew then sent me home.

Do I win?

alfablue

Scraff, glad you're not too badly hurt, and still seem to be (half) smiling

You have of course made a terrible error, this innocent thread will likely go on for weeks. . .

Let me kick things off; You only crashed because you wore the helmet (risk inoculation)

Here we go

zx6man

Did it match your bike, thats the most inportant bit.

Kieran_Burns

Well I'm confused.

You were wearing a helmet. Your head is battered and this means it worked?

DrLex

As has been said, you look relaxed about the experience - GWS, chap. Rather than get sucked into a headgear debate, may I enquire about the interesting Greek lexigraphic backdrop?

Cycloslalomeur

Deep breath, step back from the keyboard...

Bustacapp

excellent!

Bustacapp

CiB wrote:

I fell of once and face planted, ripping a layer of skin & tissue off pretty much from where your jaw wound is to the bruise under your eye. The nurse told me that it would have been the same if I'd been wearing a helmet unless it had had a 6" peak on it. She cleaned me up, told not to pick the scabs when they grew then sent me home.

Do I win?

Isn't a helmet's job to protect the cranium?

scraff

Bustacapp wrote:

CiB wrote:

I fell of once and face planted, ripping a layer of skin & tissue off pretty much from where your jaw wound is to the bruise under your eye. The nurse told me that it would have been the same if I'd been wearing a helmet unless it had had a 6" peak on it. She cleaned me up, told not to pick the scabs when they grew then sent me home.

Do I win?

Isn't a helmet's job to protect the cranium?

We have a winner, if you look the injuries basically stop at eye level, where my helmet starts to cover.

If I hadn't of had the helmet on, the my upper head could have take a very serious blow, the helmet is a write off and has thee large cracks and like my face somewhat deformed. I'm no expert but can only assume if the helmet hadn't taken the impact then my skull would have.

Bustacapp

scraff wrote:

We have a winner, if you look the injuries basically stop at eye level, where my helmet starts to cover.

If I hadn't of had the helmet on, the my upper head could have take a very serious blow, the helmet is a write off and has thee large cracks and like my face somewhat deformed. I'm no expert but can only assume if the helmet hadn't taken the impact then my skull would have.

I also have a specialized helmet. It sits on top of my head like a mushroom and I look a cunt in it. But I still wear it. Posts like yours only remind me!!

apreading

I think specialized have a crash replacement scheme where you get a new one either free or at cost price.

scraff

DrLex wrote:

As has been said, you look relaxed about the experience - GWS, chap. Rather than get sucked into a headgear debate, may I enquire about the interesting Greek lexigraphic backdrop?

Wallpaper in our living room, nice eh?

Koncordski

I hope you were wearing bright clothing!

Mate you've unleashed a monster with this thread.

ETreeson

Glad you're not too broken OP!

At the risk of starting the apocalypse... what's the deal with the helmt hate?

I understand the argument for not making them compulsory - people won't get on bikes, not cycling = more fatties, etc etc.

But for those of us who are already cyclists, isn't the additional head protection worthwhile? I don't have strong feelings about the subject, but I'm interested since it seems like a hot topic...

Daz555

ETreeson wrote:

At the risk of starting the apocalypse... what's the deal with the helmt hate?

I don't thing there is helmet hate, just hate for helmet nazis - ie those who judge people who make a perfectly rational decision to wear or not wear a helmet.

Cyclists need to take a leaf out of the ski/snowboarders book. LOADS of skiers and boarders wear helmets these days but you won't find anyone banging on about it - no-one cares what you personally choose. Just as it should be.

DrLex

scraff wrote:

DrLex wrote:

As has been said, you look relaxed about the experience - GWS, chap. Rather than get sucked into a headgear debate, may I enquire about the interesting Greek lexigraphic backdrop?

Wallpaper in our living room, nice eh?

I'm liking that a lot - thanks. {goes off to google Graham Brown Wallpaper}.

I've heard that some helmet manufacturers/suppliers offer a discount on replacements after a spill; a more clued-up forum member may be able to chip in.

cookdn

DrLex wrote:

[....]I've heard that some helmet manufacturers/suppliers offer a discount on replacements after a spill; a more clued-up forum member may be able to chip in.

It looks like in the UK you ring Specialized's distributor on 0208 391 3500 and ask for customer services.

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic ... ually-work
http://www.cyclechat.net/threads/specia ... icy.40109/
viewtopic.php?t=12854271&p=17620663#p17619938

Best regards

Initialised

Kieran_Burns wrote:

Well I'm confused.

You were wearing a helmet. Your head is battered and this means it worked?

Last time I landed on my helmet I ended up with a bloody knee and ripped trousers, got up dusted my self down and carried on riding. Without a helmet I'd have cracked my skull.

I've had similar where the prow/visor has hit the ground first and minimised face damage/prevented a broken nose/jaw/cheek/eye socket by bearing the brunt of the impact. Full face helmet would have helped prevent the grazing here.

In most cases a helmet will make little difference in a fall. But brain damage is one of the worst injuries anyone could suffer, personality can't be replaced or repaired like limbs so it makes sense to protect it. Those minor injuries will heal in time and what scarring they leave will add character, damage the wrong bit of your brain and your character may be damaged irreparably.

mtbcommuter

Daz555 wrote:

ETreeson wrote:

At the risk of starting the apocalypse... what's the deal with the helmt hate?

I don't thing there is helmet hate, just hate for helmet nazis - ie those who judge people who make a perfectly rational decision to wear or not wear a helmet.

Cyclists need to take a leaf out of the ski/snowboarders book. LOADS of skiers and boarders wear helmets these days but you won't find anyone banging on about it - no-one cares what you personally choose. Just as it should be.

Glad you're OK OP.

I agree with this comment, I cycle, ski & ride a motorbike, I personally have no issue wearing a helmet when taking part in either of these activities but those who choose not to when it isn't compulsory (cycling, skiing etc.) make their own decisions.

On a seperate strand, is the site operator not under some requirement to clean the highway outside the entrance? Surely if you can show they haven't done this, causing your fall you can claim at least for the damage to your bike etc.

mudcow007

a guy in works son, rode head on squarely into a lamp post whilst riding his spanking new bike over the christmas break

his helmet shattered into 4 pieces

all he got was a mild concussion, if he would have been helmet-less i reckon there would have been blood an snot everywhere

jongooligan

Mebbe but take a look at this http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1209.html

Cycloslalomeur

The most compelling piece of evidence that debunks the helmetologists' ramblings is that helmetless riders aren't dropping dead like flies. This means one of two things or a combination of both: either "my helmet saved my life" tales are meaningless anecdotes or there is massive risk compensation (with no actual safety gain, which is the dangerous bit) going on. Either way, it doesn't look good for the helmeteers.

desweller

There's a whole bunch of injuries in between 'didn't get a scratch' and 'head like a chocolate orange' that helmets will cover though. I went head first through the front of a Fiat Punto back in August; hard enough to take the radiator off its mountings and tear off the air splitter. The helmet didn't save me, obviously; the design of the car did. What the helmet did do was prevent an awful lot of bruising and laceration, so I'm gonna count that as worthwhile.

meanredspider

The debate's pointless. The same old crap gets wheeled out. The bald truth is that there's very little data that stands up to the slightest bit of scrutiny so anybody taking a stand based upon the data is building their metaphorical house upon the metaphorical sand. Doesn't stop people trying though :roll:

As for helmet nazis, there's an infinitessimally small number of those on here so it's no excuse for the anti- helmet brigade to pitch in to this thread with the same old worn-out arguments.

I'm glad the OP is not too badly damaged and I'm glad his helmet functioned as designed. Get well soon.

Cycloslalomeur

A helmet Nazi is born every time a "my helmet saved my head" anecdote goes unchallenged. How do we know the helmet worked?

Surely killed and seriously injured data collected by A&Es are the best we have on this subject? These data are all the more alarming for helmetists because many helmeted casualties seek no medical attention whatever because "their helmet saved them".

meanredspider

Cycloslalomeur wrote:

A helmet Nazi is born every time a "my helmet saved my head" anecdote goes unchallenged. How do we know the helmet worked?

Surely killed and seriously injured data collected by A&Es are the best we have on this subject? These data are all the more alarming for helmetists because many helmeted casualties seek no medical attention whatever because "their helmet saved them".

Absolute tosh. A helmet nazi is someone who insists that others should wear a helmet - this thread is nothing of the sort. Nor, frankly, are 99% of them. They are just people who are happy that the energy that may well have been absorbed by their scalp/skull/brain was absorbed instead by a bit of plastic.

In fact, I'm beginning to believe that the nazis are more likely to be found on the anti side judging by this thread!

Those data are good in what way? How many cyclists are there? How many miles do they do? How long have they been cycling for? What training have they had? How well maintained are their bikes? What proportion of cyclists wear helmets? Is that a consistent demographic? Etc etc. how can you possibly use KSI data as an argument without the answers to these questions? The truth is that you can't - and that goes for both sides of the argument. But, instead, the same old stuff gets trotted out without the slightest bit of critical examination.

jimmypippa

meanredspider wrote:

Cycloslalomeur wrote:

A helmet Nazi is born every time a "my helmet saved my head" anecdote goes unchallenged. How do we know the helmet worked?

Surely killed and seriously injured data collected by A&Es are the best we have on this subject? These data are all the more alarming for helmetists because many helmeted casualties seek no medical attention whatever because "their helmet saved them".

Absolute tosh. A helmet nazi is someone who insists that others should wear a helmet - this thread is nothing of the sort. Nor, frankly, are 99% of them. They are just people who are happy that the energy that may well have been absorbed by their scalp/skull/brain was absorbed instead by a bit of plastic.

In fact, I'm beginning to believe that the nazis are more likely to be found on the anti side judging by this thread!

Those data are good in what way? How many cyclists are there? How many miles do they do? How long have they been cycling for? What training have they had? How well maintained are their bikes? What proportion of cyclists wear helmets? Is that a consistent demographic? Etc etc. how can you possibly use KSI data as an argument without the answers to these questions? The truth is that you can't - and that goes for both sides of the argument. But, instead, the same old stuff gets trotted out without the slightest bit of critical examination.

Thank you Meanredspider - saved me typing something similar but probably less eloquent.

I wear a helmet but from a purely selfish view don't want them to be compulsory because I want as many other people cycling to reduce *my* risk.

Cycloslalomeur

Calm down. I wasn't calling anybody here a helmet Nazi. My intention was to point out that these sorts of anecdotes seem to pass for evidence of helmet efficacy for some.

With regard to KSI data, I assume you are referring to differences in the helmeted and non-helmeted subgroups apart from their choice of headgear. Obviously any serious study will take these differences into account. I was merely responding to your claim that "there's very little data that stands up to the slightest bit of scrutiny". There is plenty of proper data. The problem is that we have rubbish studies like those by Thompson, Rivara and Thompson that just won't go away.

meanredspider

Show us that serious study - I'd be delighted to see it.

Cycloslalomeur

Do you wish to debate whether or not high-quality data exist, or whether or not there are any high-quality studies? Make your mind up. For a review of the available evidence I suggest you consult the BMJ or CTC's recent briefing paper.

As you know cohort studies, which would have to be conducted on the basis of KSI data, are spectacularly expensive. Then again, why would the helmet lobby commission them given that they already have to worry about the fact that cyclist KSI rates in countries that enforce helmets have failed to come down? Far better to focus on cheap case studies that show that helmets prevent most leg injuries too.

But that is beside the point. The matter at hand here is the flaunting of anecdotes as evidence. The problems start when these anecdotes, if unchallenged, are taken seriously, with Cracknells popping up.

I was just taking issue with your claim that there's very little data worth looking at. I'm sorry if I offended you.