Should cyclists legally wear a helmet ?

Peyote

"You don't go out the door expecting to use them, but if circumstances arrive when you need the stuff, you want it, then and there."

But where do you draw the line? Why a helmet and not full body armour? I know it's reducto ad absurdum (my latin was never any good!), but it's a question worth asking anyway. Unfortunately for every person that line is different. But if everyone does there own risk assessment then what's the problem? Admittedly most people on Bikeradar have probably done a cursory glance at the helmet debate and understand why it happens, but a significant chunk of the population seem to think a helmet is a universal panacea. The big problem is when these same people are in positions of power without having the knowledge to back it up. Such as the judiciary, leading medical figures, the police force etc...

slowbike

Hoopdriver wrote:

Slowbike wrote:

nicklouse wrote:

Slowbike wrote:

personally I usually wear a helmet whilst riding - the only times I don't are when I'm out for an "amble" as I'm unlikely to get myself into a situation where I'd need it (ie quiet roads/tracks, slow speed & stop when traffic comes along).

that is what put a mate in hospital for 3 days. he had a slow speed fall off. woke up in hospital. Was not hit nor was anything involved. he just keeled over.

I did say unlikely - how many ppl who are out for an amble on their bikes have a fall of any significance? Just because it's statistically unlikely doesn't mean it wouldn't happen. I'd wager you're statistically more likely to fall down the stairs.

I say it time and time again - its all about assessing the risks.

I wasn't going at all fast when I took a heavy spill on black ice last February. I was wearing a helmet - I always do. It was not relevant in this particular spill as I didn't hit my head, but instead landed very heavily on my right shoulder. Plenty of soft tissue injury. Still getting therapy on it - another treatment just this morning in fact. I am back riding again, but let me tell you it is very easy to take a heavy fall at relatively low speed and on a quiet road. It was 5am when I wiped out, not a car in sight. I could just as easily have banged by head on the curb. As it was, I didn't miss it by much. Accidents happen. It is only smart to take precautions. I consider wearing a helmet to be not a lot different than bringing along a patch kit, spare tube and pump. You don't go out the door expecting to use them, but if circumstances arrive when you need the stuff, you want it, then and there.

5am on a feb morning - and you didn't consider that it could be icy?!

I'm not anti helmet - as I said I normally wear my lid. But it's a considered act- I wear it because I know I'm going to ride where statistically I'm more likely to be in need of it. There are only a handful of occasions where I deem it not nescersary. If I wanted to be "safe" then shouldn't I wear a full face helmet and body armour ? The number of mashed faces or damaged limbs after a crash surely mean that these are good safety devices and should be worn at all times. Sound rediculous?
Accidents happen - we should protect ourselves as much as sensible, but we must also be careful not to overprotect ourselves and gain a feeling of invulnerability.

Yellow Peril

I think the point is that a helmet might save a life threatening accident or be the difference between a coma or a concussion on the basis of what it is protecting. the body armour argument doesn't really stand up unless you are cycling in Syria.

a damaged AC joint is inconvenient and painful but a victim can get on with their lives fairly quickly. A damaged brain is likely to require a very long (and expensive) stay in hospital.

You're comparing apples with pears

Peyote

Yellow Peril wrote:

a damaged AC joint is inconvenient and painful but a victim can get on with their lives fairly quickly. A damaged brain is likely to require a very long (and expensive) stay in hospital.

You're comparing apples with pears

To an extent you're right, but a damaged joint could also require significant hospital time and could be permanently debilitating requiring lifelong (expensive) treatment. The same can be said for pretty much any part of your body, e.g. should you wear glasses whenever you cycle because they could potentially be damaged leading to expensive and severe disability if gravel (for example) ricochets into them? We've all seem stonechips on cars so it's not like it's beyond the realms of possibility. Arguably your eyes are less protected than your brain having no skull to sheild them and only your eyelids to prevent injury.

slowbike

Yellow Peril wrote:

I think the point is that a helmet might save a life threatening accident or be the difference between a coma or a concussion on the basis of what it is protecting.

That's the critical point isn't it ... MIGHT ... it might not be enough, it might not be needed - it's all a game of chance. We take risks every day of our lives - I believe that statistically you're more likely to suffer significant injuries from a car accident than a bike accident - ie you're more likely to be in a car accident (assuming you travel in cars!).

I'll repeat (again) - I'm not against wearing a lid - I wore mine today - I was commuting in on my road bike at reasonable speed and a max of 40mph (downhill) - the chance of an accident is much greater than if I was pootling to the pub at sub 10mph on my CX.

Yellow Peril

Slowbike wrote:

Yellow Peril wrote:

I think the point is that a helmet might save a life threatening accident or be the difference between a coma or a concussion on the basis of what it is protecting.

That's the critical point isn't it ... MIGHT ... it might not be enough, it might not be needed - it's all a game of chance. We take risks every day of our lives - I believe that statistically you're more likely to suffer significant injuries from a car accident than a bike accident - ie you're more likely to be in a car accident (assuming you travel in cars!).

I'll repeat (again) - I'm not against wearing a lid - I wore mine today - I was commuting in on my road bike at reasonable speed and a max of 40mph (downhill) - the chance of an accident is much greater than if I was pootling to the pub at sub 10mph on my CX.

You might not go through the windscreen of a car but do you think that seat belts should still be discretionary? Perhaps if you are popping to the shops you shouldn't have to wear one, whereas if you are going on a motorway you should?

It is a game of chance but it is all about playing the percentages isn't it? do you smoke? I don't, my mum died of lung cancer when she was 66 but for every tale of a smoking cancer victim there will be someone who has lived to a ripe old age smoking 60 a day. My mum's death had nothing to do with me not smoking that was an informed decsion I'd made decades earlier because of the likelihood of cancer.

Standing in front of the mirror in the morning and weighing up how fast you might go today as a benchmark as to whether you are going to wear a helmet or not can't be the rational response can it?

My point is if you are in a cycling accident (not your fault) and incur a head injury even if you are pootling around the courts are reaching a stage whereby they will say that you contributed to that injury because you didn't wear a helmet.

I suspect that the turning point will be a spate of accidents involving cyclists who haven't made the same informed decision as you or I might.

spen666

Should cyclists legally wear a helmet ?

How do you illegally wear a helmet?

slowbike

Yellow Peril wrote:

Slowbike wrote:

Yellow Peril wrote:

I think the point is that a helmet might save a life threatening accident or be the difference between a coma or a concussion on the basis of what it is protecting.

That's the critical point isn't it ... MIGHT ... it might not be enough, it might not be needed - it's all a game of chance. We take risks every day of our lives - I believe that statistically you're more likely to suffer significant injuries from a car accident than a bike accident - ie you're more likely to be in a car accident (assuming you travel in cars!).

I'll repeat (again) - I'm not against wearing a lid - I wore mine today - I was commuting in on my road bike at reasonable speed and a max of 40mph (downhill) - the chance of an accident is much greater than if I was pootling to the pub at sub 10mph on my CX.

You might not go through the windscreen of a car but do you think that seat belts should still be discretionary? Perhaps if you are popping to the shops you shouldn't have to wear one, whereas if you are going on a motorway you should?

I believe it's not currently a legal requirement to wear a seatbelt whilst reversing ... (please correct me if I'm wrong) So there is already a legal option to not wear a seatbelt.
The blanket "wear a seatbelt" law isn't quite so blanket:

You don’t need to wear a seat belt if you’re:
a driver who is reversing, or supervising a learner driver who is reversing
in a vehicle being used for police, fire and rescue services
a passenger in a trade vehicle and you’re investigating a fault
driving a goods vehicle on deliveries that is travelling no more than 50 metres between stops
a licensed taxi driver who is ‘plying for hire’ or carrying passengers

- so there has already been some consideration taken for the requirement to wear a seatbelt.

Yellow Peril wrote:

It is a game of chance but it is all about playing the percentages isn't it? do you smoke? I don't, my mum died of lung cancer when she was 66 but for every tale of a smoking cancer victim there will be someone who has lived to a ripe old age smoking 60 a day. My mum's death had nothing to do with me not smoking that was an informed decsion I'd made decades earlier because of the likelihood of cancer.

My uncle died from a smoking related disease. No I don't smoke, never have, never will - I participate in other sports & activities that add risk to my life though.

Yellow Peril wrote:

Standing in front of the mirror in the morning and weighing up how fast you might go today as a benchmark as to whether you are going to wear a helmet or not can't be the rational response can it?

Thats a bolx statement and you know it - the difference between a good ride and a pootle to the pub is immense. Do you put lycra on to ride 2 miles to the pub/shop/wherever ? So you're already making a choice - it's not difficult to work out what style of riding you're going to be doing and dress appropriately.

Yellow Peril wrote:

My point is if you are in a cycling accident (not your fault) and incur a head injury even if you are pootling around the courts are reaching a stage whereby they will say that you contributed to that injury because you didn't wear a helmet.

And that stage is, IMHO wrong. Unless your riding has contributed to the accident (sudden change in course or not looking where you're going) then the injuries sustained are the entire fault of the person who caused the accident in the first place. Otherwise we're heading down the route of needing to wear full body armour to save getting a gashed leg/arm/shoulder etc etc.

Yellow Peril

I believe it's not currently a legal requirement to wear a seatbelt whilst reversing ... (please correct me if I'm wrong) So there is already a legal option to not wear a seatbelt.
The blanket "wear a seatbelt" law isn't quite so blanket:

You don’t need to wear a seat belt if you’re:
a driver who is reversing, or supervising a learner driver who is reversing
in a vehicle being used for police, fire and rescue services
a passenger in a trade vehicle and you’re investigating a fault
driving a goods vehicle on deliveries that is travelling no more than 50 metres between stops
a licensed taxi driver who is ‘plying for hire’ or carrying passengers

- so there has already been some consideration taken for the requirement to wear a seatbelt.

Well I'll genuflect to that but they are such prescriptive exceptions it is fair to say that wearing a seat belt is for all intents and purposes blanket...unless you reverse everywhere.

Yellow Peril wrote:

Standing in front of the mirror in the morning and weighing up how fast you might go today as a benchmark as to whether you are going to wear a helmet or not can't be the rational response can it?

Thats a bolx statement and you know it - the difference between a good ride and a pootle to the pub is immense. Do you put lycra on to ride 2 miles to the pub/shop/wherever ? So you're already making a choice - it's not difficult to work out what style of riding you're going to be doing and dress appropriately.

I can't believe you called my statement box then wrote that. Compare wearing lycra to that of a helmet, really? No I don't bother putting lycra on to go a couple of miles but I certainly reach for a helmet. Lycra is all about comfort not safety.

slowsider

Hoopdriver wrote:

slowsider wrote:

Hoopdriver wrote:

I wasn't going at all fast when I took a heavy spill on black ice last February. I was wearing a helmet - I always do. It was not relevant in this particular spill as I didn't hit my head, but instead landed very heavily on my right shoulder. Plenty of soft tissue injury. Still getting therapy on it - another treatment just this morning in fact. I am back riding again, but let me tell you it is very easy to take a heavy fall at relatively low speed and on a quiet road. It was 5am when I wiped out, not a car in sight. I could just as easily have banged by head on the curb. As it was, I didn't miss it by much. Accidents happen. It is only smart to take precautions. I consider wearing a helmet to be not a lot different than bringing along a patch kit, spare tube and pump. You don't go out the door expecting to use them, but if circumstances arrive when you need the stuff, you want it, then and there.

And are you wearing shoulder pads now ?

Only asking, cos Mrs slowsider is convinced there is a market for them, with an airbag-style inflatable device, since I dislocated my AC joint last year.

I am assuming your question is made in jest...

Not entirely. You wear a helmet for something that 'might' happen, but take no precaution to prevent a recurrence of something that 'HAS' happened.

slowbike

Yellow Peril wrote:

Well I'll genuflect to that but they are such prescriptive exceptions it is fair to say that wearing a seat belt is for all intents and purposes blanket...unless you reverse everywhere.

No -it's not fair to say - there are exceptions - so exceptions exist - that's recognising the (lack of) risk vs convenience element.

Yellow Peril wrote:

I can't believe you called my statement box then wrote that. Compare wearing lycra to that of a helmet, really? No I don't bother putting lycra on to go a couple of miles but I certainly reach for a helmet. Lycra is all about comfort not safety.

Thats fine if you want to reach for a helmet ... I have no problem with that at all ...

I rode 13 miles yesterday - no lycra and no helmet ... am I a bad person? Did I put my life/health at undue risk? I don't believe so ... but then at avg 8mph I wasn't exactly hammering it ... It could be argued that I was at greater risk driving along the motorway too/from the ride ... I didn't wear a helmet for that either ...

weadmire

The elephant in the room for these arguments is the problem that helmets do not work. For all of those who doubt this please put the anecdotes and anxiety aside and ask yourselves why if helmets were effective would there be so so many arguments about their efficacy.

It is likely I have had more smash ups than any contributor to this thread or indeed any helmet thread. For about 11 years I routinely cycled about 12,000 miles a year, commuting, racing and long distance stuff, a PBP for example. For the avoidance of doubt by smash ups here we are talking broken bone/loss of consciousness smash ups, grazes and falls don't count. In the days when I wore a helmet I always hit my head/helmet in an off.

The last whack I had wearing a helmet had me hitting a jay walking pedestrian who stepped into my path looking the other way on the A267 between Tonbridge and Tunbridge Wells in Southborough. Safe in the knowledge I was wearing a helmet and seeing there was no way to avoid the collision I dropped my head, perhaps to protect my face. My helmet hit his left shoulder as he turned towards me - I was shouting at him. With my weight now further forward that might otherwise have been the case my head glanced off his shoulder and ploughed into the road face first. During my recovery I considered things and came to the conclusion that had I not been wearing a helmet I would have more likely sat up than put my head down. In that case I think the consequences would have been very different.

Uncomfortable as it initially was I put my helmet to one side and stopped wearing it other than when I was obliged to do so when racing.

In every case bar two thereafter I did not hit my head in the whacks I had.

While this experience was developing someone I knew well was badly injured in a heavy head on with a van. The payout exceeded £200k. She did not injure her head, it was all torso stuff. The lawyers for the r sole driver wanted some compensatory reduction in the number because she was not wearing a helmet. In the face of the explanation that there was no claim for head injuries they tried to have it that she must have been exaggerating the damage done to her torso because you could not have the impact described without hitting your head. Her medical expert, coincidentally the doctor who treated her injuries and not someone who tarts their medical credentials for the benefit of insurance companies, pointed out we all have a hard wired reflex designed by nature to pull our heads away from impacts and that it is not only plausible that someone could sustain a heavy impact such as the one described without hitting their head but that without the mass of a helmet to influence things it is more likely to be the case. This medic's testimony won the day, carefully tested by other experts and the insurance company's lawyers.

I had the two whacks mentioned above after this, I wasn't wearing a helmet in either one. In one I was hit from behind by a heavily laden skidding van. My bike was completely wrecked. I hit the front of the van with my back and the back of my head. Ribs, heavy bruising, and a very slight cut to my scalp where my head hit his wipers was the extent of things. In the other my head was much more seriously injured. I was coming down an 11% hill on a narrow lane to be confronted by a MKII Ford Escort coming toward me on the wrong side of the road. I almost made it past but the bottom of my handle bars caught the top of her front offside wing. I was dragged into the A pillar which broke my face from a point above my right eye to the upper middle of my top jaw. I was unconscious for about 20 minutes. The driver did not stop.

I was initially sewn up in Tonbridge Wells General, one of the worst hospitals in Southern England. Because the geometry of my face was altered I was immediately referred to Queen Victoria's in East Grindstead, one of the best in Southern England. The consultant in East Grindstead asked if I had been wearing a helmet. I was uncomfortable about admitting not so. Whether he was being polite or placatory I do not know but he was a cyclist. Perhaps seeing my discomfort he said I should not feel bad about it. He explained that had I been wearing a helmet it probably would not have saved me from the injuries I had and I might have broken my neck rather than my face.

If helmets worked it would be clear. That there are so many arguments about it demonstrates the benefits are not clear. To compare helmet wearing/compulsion to seat belt regulation is bo**ocks. To compare cycling helmets compulsion to motorcycling helmet compulsion is similarly bo**ocks. The arguments about compulsion putting people off cycling and therefore not being worth it is similarly bo**ocks, even if it is true. The basic problem is that cycling helmets do not work. It is likely they only protect the wearer from the impacts they cause, perhaps they do a little better than that but if they do that slight benefit is likely dissipated by factors such as the various forms of risk compensation that are quite well understood. If it were otherwise and helmets worked it would be obvious and this thread and all the others are evidence it is not obvious.

gary.hounsome

I would say yes on the same rule that you should wear a seatbelt, to help save you more than it affecting anyone else.

I think if some was to die not wearing one it is easily possible for the coroner to decide if wearing one would have had an effect on saving the life

weadmire

Gary, Where do you see the similarity between seat belts and cycling helmets?

Essentially in making this comparison you are trying to make out the benefits are obvious and those who doubt the efficacy of helmets are “deniers”. This is both stupid and rude. It is stupid because there is no comparison. With the single small negative of risk compensation seat belts have exclusively positive effects. The same cannot be said of cycling helmets, it is possible they have no positive effect at all. It is rude because in trying generalise about the people who disagree with the apparent consensus of these forums it is insulting. I also suspect that if there was not such a consensus you would not have made the comment because your opinions are generally weak.

Concerning your apparent acceptance of the judgement of coroners, what are you striving for here? On the matter of their judgement have you ever heard a coroner comment on the proliferation of traffic lights in London? This proliferation seems to play a part in the fatality rate of cyclists. Roughly one cyclist a month is killed at light controlled junctions. Has anyone heard of any coroner commenting on this?

slowbike

gary.hounsome wrote:

I would say yes on the same rule that you should wear a seatbelt, to help save you more than it affecting anyone else.

Thanks - but I don't need saving ...

gary.hounsome wrote:

I think if some was to die not wearing one it is easily possible for the coroner to decide if wearing one would have had an effect on saving the life

Really ... oh ...

So - what's next - all cyclists have to wear HiViz clothing and have lights on during the daytime?

How about the cars, buses & lorries just stop knocking over cyclists to start with.

spen666

Should cyclists legally wear a helmet ?

How do you illegally wear a helmet?

:?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?:

Team4Luke

yes drivers should

cesco

weadmire wrote:

Gary, Where do you see the similarity between seat belts and cycling helmets?

Essentially in making this comparison you are trying to make out the benefits are obvious and those who doubt the efficacy of helmets are “deniers”. This is both stupid and rude. It is stupid because there is no comparison. With the single small negative of risk compensation seat belts have exclusively positive effects. The same cannot be said of cycling helmets, it is possible they have no positive effect at all. It is rude because in trying generalise about the people who disagree with the apparent consensus of these forums it is insulting. I also suspect that if there was not such a consensus you would not have made the comment because your opinions are generally weak.

Concerning your apparent acceptance of the judgement of coroners, what are you striving for here? On the matter of their judgement have you ever heard a coroner comment on the proliferation of traffic lights in London? This proliferation seems to play a part in the fatality rate of cyclists. Roughly one cyclist a month is killed at light controlled junctions. Has anyone heard of any coroner commenting on this?

I fully agree with you here, except that seat belts having exclusively positive effects doesn't appear to be that easy to prove. Even when controlled for by the increasing number of cars on the road, mechanisms that improve driver safety seem to have led to more fatalities in the weaker traffic participants. Enhanced driver safety seems to be directly related to reckless driving.

That said. When I go out for a ride, I wear a helmet. On my commute I don't. I'd like to have the choice, and a choice is what it should remain.

weadmire

Cesco, I agree with you concerning seat belts, I had been trying to be generous, I hadn't been thinking clearly about what overconfidence in drivers might be doing to the rest of us meanwhile.

gary.hounsome

weadmire wrote:

Gary, Where do you see the similarity between seat belts and cycling

They can both save a life....

I made a reference about the coroner due to knowing of someone being killed by a head injury whilst not wearing a helmet....

So - what's next - all cyclists have to wear HiViz clothing and have lights on during the daytime?

How about the cars, buses & lorries just stop knocking over cyclists to start with.

If you want to go ahead....not sure what relevance that has to my comment though as a hi vis jacket offers no protection to the body what so ever.

A friend came over the bars on his TT bike this year and hit his head on the corner of a curb. Are you saying that by not wearing a helmet he would not have suffered a more serious injury? A cut to the head at the very very least?

weadmire

Gary,

“They can both save a life” is meaningless in the context of being asked to establish a similarity between cycling helmets and car seat belts. In your comment I think you are trying to deny the real thrust of your attempt to establish an equivalence between the effects of wearing seat belts and the effects of wearing cycling helmets in your earlier post. What people like you are really trying to establish is an equivalence between cyclists who do not buy into the nonsense and anxiety of cycling helmets with the widely and quickly discredited old farts who had it that seatbelts wouldn't do any good – the thrown clear brigade for want of a better description - in the public debate that took place when seat belt legislation was a hot topic in the 1960s. Or in the vernacular of today “deniers”. With your “they both save a life” line I think you are trying to avoid being called to account for this limp insult.

The line about the coroner is likely to be similar. If you want us to consider it let us have the details of the case, the name of the deceased, the approximate date of the incident. Please spare us a narrative description unless you witnessed the event. Did the coroner in the case you refer to have anything categoric to say about the effects of what the victim was or was not wearing?

Your “friend and the kerb”: Was your friend racing at the time? I have quite a bit of experience of time trialling and hitting curbs. This normally happens on roundabouts, racing you are naturally reluctant to brake, it is easy to overcook things going into a roundabout, especially if there is any kind of drop in the approach to one. But in every case where I have come off in such a circumstance, and witnessed others doing likewise, it has been the front wheel that caught the kerb, not the rider's head. Please let us have the details of how your friend's head came to hit the kerb that presumably unseated him: your friend's name, the event, his version of what happened, whether he was using a trike for example? That done we will be able to judge if the extra mass and size of the helmet had something to do with the fact his helmet or head touched something.

kajjal

Having seen someone have a mechanical failure with their bike that resulted in them flying over their handle bars head first into the road surface anyone not wearing a helmet is crazy. They were not going that fast but the helmet impacted and cracked in half. Without the helmet it is likely they would not be here now.

As a cyclist if you don't make yourself seen and safe you are just asking for trouble whether on or off road.

weadmire

Kajjal,

The BS of “they would not be here” or words to that effect is tedious cobblers in the context of these debates.

You don't detail the nature of the mechanical failure, what happened?

This is a question that is not often answered. Almost certainly they did not go “head first” into the road. If the person you claim to have witnessed hitting the ground only hit the ground as opposed to something perpendicular to their direction of travel the impact they would have had with the road surface would have been slightly less severe than it would have been had they fallen over wearing a helmet while walking. This is because it is likely their head was lower to the ground when riding a bike than it would have been if they had been standing up. Their velocity prior to coming off would have had nothing to do with the force of their head's impact with the road.

The force of this impact they had would have been increased by the helmet they were wearing because their helmet would have made them more top heavy and therefore more likely to be “head first” and for the same reason would have moderated their ability to keep their head off the road when the impact came. For reasons of a helmeted head being larger than a head without a helmet their head was similarly more likely to hit something than otherwise. Damaged helmets do not mean the damage to a helmet would be similar to the damage to a head from the same impact if there had been no helmet.

You might think it “crazy” not to wear a helmet. But I do not agree and neither do many of the people reading this thread. We think you are anxious and inexperienced. We think you are a gullible victim of the people who market cycling helmets. How much did you spend on yours?

On the subject of inexperience have you had many offs yourself? I am guessing not since you have to report the experience of a “friend”.

gary.hounsome

Weadmire

People like you are entitled to your opinions. Thank you for expressing yours.

Helmets will never always save a life, just the same as any other protective clothing or equipment would not always save a life in any other sport.

Out of curiosity are there any other sports that you deem not necessary in wearing protective gear of any kind?

Cygnus

Kajjal wrote:

Without the helmet it is likely they would not be here now.

How do you know? Have you done a scientific test?

weadmire

Gary,

People like me are entitled? I think people who have paid the fees of experience are entitled without the patronage of those who don't really know what they are talking about like you and Kajji. Cycling helmets don't work, the blanket presumption they do is dangerous nonsense. There are several interesting posts in this thread that make this point, you do not seem to have read them.

Regardless of what you might say if challenged on the matter the way you vote with your feet shows you want to make the wearing of helmets compulsory. This is stupid counterproductive rubbish similar in its way to the general nonsense of calling passing the buck of responsibility of how we conduct ourselves with regard to the people we work for and with "risk management". Bullsh*t is what it is.

With regard to other sports? Cycling is pretty much it for me now, and a bit of rowing. I used to wear a box and pads and gloves playing cricket but never a helmet.

weadmire

Kajjai,

You are making the claim "they wouldn't be here" - the question of scientific tests is for you not me. Have you done any, read any, have you ever come off? I can say, and I have already said I have likely had more whacks than anyone contributing to this thread and with regard to my personal science I can say yes I have done the tests. Wearing a helmet I always hit my head or the helmet. When I came off without a helmet I did not hit my head, with the exception of the two incidents I described. Had I been wearing a helmet when I was hit from behind by the van I would probably looked at the damage to the helmet and thought that would have been my head. In fact not so. in the event the cut to my head was very minor.

With regard to the potential energy of a head the higher it is the more it has. Something scientifically quantified by Newton. If you come off a bike and hit the ground as opposed to hitting some object otherwise in the way of your direction of travel your head will likely have less potential energy when you are on a bike in relation to the ground than it has when you are standing up because it will be lower when you are on a bike. When you are wearing a helmet the combination of your head and helmet will have more potential energy/kinetic energy because it will have more mass. F=ma, more from Newton.

dnwhite88

On one of my better offs I went flying over the bars after hitting a massive pothole covered in leaves (I know, schoolboy error!) My hands went down first and ended up flat on my back covered in grazes. Had I been wearing a helmet It would have hit the ground hard as I rolled and probably broken, but my head was fine. I put it down to the fact your body's natural instinct is to protect your head, like blinking protects your eyes.

The jury is out for me if helmets save lives, I wear one when 'on a ride', but maybe not if just nipping about locally.

slowsider

weadmire wrote:

Kajjai,

You are making the claim "they wouldn't be here" - the question of scientific tests is for you not me. Have you done any, read any, have you ever come off? I can say, and I have already said I have likely had more whacks than anyone contributing to this thread and with regard to my personal science I can say yes I have done the tests. Wearing a helmet I always hit my head or the helmet. When I came off without a helmet I did not hit my head, with the exception of the two incidents I described. Had I been wearing a helmet when I was hit from behind by the van I would probably looked at the damage to the helmet and thought that would have been my head. In fact not so. in the event the cut to my head was very minor.

With regard to the potential energy of a head the higher it is the more it has. Something scientifically quantified by Newton. If you come off a bike and hit the ground as opposed to hitting some object otherwise in the way of your direction of travel your head will likely have less potential energy when you are on a bike in relation to the ground than it has when you are standing up because it will be lower when you are on a bike. When you are wearing a helmet the combination of your head and helmet will have more potential energy/kinetic energy because it will have more mass. F=ma, more from Newton.

The potential energy argument is a bit fallacious. It doesn't hurt until you actually hit the ground, at which point you have no PE. If you are considering Kinetic energy, that is likely to be higher on a moving bike than when you are standing up. The addition of a hlemet, say 280gr to a head weight of around 4.5kg is, what, about 6%? Would that be significant?
Falling off a fast-moving bike hurts more than falling off a slow-moving one. Height above the ground is not the real issue.

weadmire

Slowsider,

A bit fallacious if it is possible to be a bit fallacious, but not entirely so. If your head does not hit something blocking your direction of travel potential/kinetic energy in the vertical plane is the issue. Certainly the faster you are going the more things will tend to hurt but in my experience your a*se, elbows, knees and shoulders take the worst of the effects of absorbing momentum.

Is 6% critical? According to the doctor - Dr Tom Crisp by name, who treated Ms £200k whom I mentioned earlier - trying to control an extra 6% in a circumstance of high acceleration/deceleration is the difference between hitting your head and not hitting your head in plenty of cases. In the case of children the helmet is likely to be a good deal more than 10% of a heads weight.

Apologies to Cygnus, I was a bit pressed yesterday afternoon and thought I was replying to Kajjai.