Please wear a helmet guys and gals
Comments
-
So why do you come marching in joining in the shouting along with the rest all insisting that they're a good thing and decrying those of us who don't usually wear one, or picking minuscule holes in any suggestion that helmets might not be the great panacea?Hoopdriver wrote:I couldn't give a stuff if you wear a helmet or not. I am not for compulsion.
I defend not wearing one precisely for the reasons that SlowBike mentions - it doesn't take much for a bit of momentum to gather pace and before we know what's happened it's a legal requirement to wear one for all rides everywhere. Funny how lots of people post their tales of how they almost died, always wear one now and wish everyone else would but wouldn't like to see it made compulsory, but give the impression that they really wouldn't mind really as it wouldn't make a difference to their own riding anyway.
The daft thing is that to support the argument for voluntarily wearing a helmet its proponents need to emphasise the risks and anecdotal evidence of how dangerous it is not to, and in doing so give the impression that it's a much riskier and more dangerous sport / hobby / means of getting to the shops than the reality would suggest.0 -
Slowbike wrote:
As I've said in another thread - so can a lifejacket ...TheSmithers wrote:I've said before in another thread, a helmet can save your life. FACT! Clearly in this case, it did.
The only thing CLEAR in this case is that the OPs helmet took an impact and (as designed) broke up.
Skulls are incredibly tough and can take quite a bit of blunt trauma. Helmets are good for taking point impact and spreading it over a larger area.
Surely the OPs mesg should've been "Wear Elbow pads" ... as one of those would surely have saved him from breaking his elbow.
Or perhaps wider tyres that wouldn't have skidded out on the gravel patch ...
Or looking further ahead to avoid an emergency stop ...
Or better brakes/brake pads that would've slowed him more quickly ...
Or any number of other little things that can go into avoiding a crash situation and potentially save a life.
So - yes - wear a helmet if you like - but don't think it's the first and last bit of safety equipment to save your life ... your brain is the best bit of safety equipment - you just need to apply it and consider where the dangers are and what are the risks of those occurring.
Are you saying you don't agree with the wearing of helmets at all, or that they can't make the difference between life or death? What are you disagreeing with Slowbike? I don't understand, and as I have said on another thread, what's your point? :? :?
Do you wear a helmet when you ride? If so why do you wear it? Do you wear elbow pads when you ride? Why not?
Looking at the damage the OP helmet sustained, is it not fair to assume that the outcome would likely have been fatal had he not been wearing it? Do you not think that image is a clear sign, if ever you needed one, of the importance of wearing a helmet?
You suggest towards the end of your post that the best protection is prevention. No matter how much you use your brain, or how far ahead you try and anticipate hazards, accidents can and always will happen. Certainly no substitute for not wearing a helmet.0 -
Druidor wrote:Your skull might be strong its the squishy grey bit inside that gets damaged when it gets slapped against the inside of the skull,
A helmet cannot protect in all instances but as in this case its done its job and protected the head from the curb stone.
Wearing a helmet or not is a personal decision the same as wearing viz clothing you do you don't.
if your time is up there is not much you can do about it.
You skull is strong in some parts (forehead) but weak in others (the side). The cage which protect your lungs and vital organs, your ribs, are also strong, but they too break. The human body as a whole is an amazing thing, but extremely fragile when subjected to the forces and potential energy of riding a bike at speed. Again, I just don't know what point Slowbike is trying to make.0 -
Looking at the damage the OP helmet sustained, is it not fair to assume that the outcome would likely have been fatal had he not been wearing it? Do you not think that image is a clear sign, if ever you needed one, of the importance of wearing a helmet?
No, it is not fair to assume that! You can't tell from the image how hard the impact was, or how robust the helmet was, or what the effect of such an impact would have been on an umprotected head, as I said in my first post. Without actual data, saying the outcome would most likely have been fatal had he not been wearing it is just speculation.0 -
Slim Boy Fat wrote:Wow, wish I hadn't said anything now. I'm no telling any one to wear a helmet, just sharing my experience. Everyone is entitled to make their own choice. I'm glad I was wearing on yesterday.
By the way, what happened with the driver of the car, given that the crash was her fault, and she admitted she hadn't looked? Is she paying for the damage to your bike? Or to you, for that matter?0 -
TheSmithers wrote:Slowbike wrote:
As I've said in another thread - so can a lifejacket ...TheSmithers wrote:I've said before in another thread, a helmet can save your life. FACT! Clearly in this case, it did.
The only thing CLEAR in this case is that the OPs helmet took an impact and (as designed) broke up.
Skulls are incredibly tough and can take quite a bit of blunt trauma. Helmets are good for taking point impact and spreading it over a larger area.
Surely the OPs mesg should've been "Wear Elbow pads" ... as one of those would surely have saved him from breaking his elbow.
Or perhaps wider tyres that wouldn't have skidded out on the gravel patch ...
Or looking further ahead to avoid an emergency stop ...
Or better brakes/brake pads that would've slowed him more quickly ...
Or any number of other little things that can go into avoiding a crash situation and potentially save a life.
So - yes - wear a helmet if you like - but don't think it's the first and last bit of safety equipment to save your life ... your brain is the best bit of safety equipment - you just need to apply it and consider where the dangers are and what are the risks of those occurring.
Are you saying you don't agree with the wearing of helmets at all, or that they can't make the difference between life or death? What are you disagreeing with Slowbike? I don't understand, and as I have said on another thread, what's your point? :? :?
Do you wear a helmet when you ride? If so why do you wear it? Do you wear elbow pads when you ride? Why not?
Looking at the damage the OP helmet sustained, is it not fair to assume that the outcome would likely have been fatal had he not been wearing it? Do you not think that image is a clear sign, if ever you needed one, of the importance of wearing a helmet?
You suggest towards the end of your post that the best protection is prevention. No matter how much you use your brain, or how far ahead you try and anticipate hazards, accidents can and always will happen. Certainly no substitute for not wearing a helmet.
Don't you follow my reasoning? Perhaps you're not reading carefully or just can't be bothered.
I've said in other threads about my own helmet wearing habits and indicated the same in this thread - so I assume you can't be arsed to read my posts.
I state that the best protection is prevention - that is unrefutable - prevent the accident and you will have no damage to yourself or your bike - granted it's not always possible - but you can prevent a lot of incidents in the way you ride - that should be the first defence. Then any protection you wear - head or body - is your last resort - and that's the mesg that should be got to cyclists.
(to the OP - I have no idea if you could've anticipated the SMIDSY incident - only you can know that - and hindsight is wonderful!
) 0 -
oblongomaculatus wrote:Looking at the damage the OP helmet sustained, is it not fair to assume that the outcome would likely have been fatal had he not been wearing it? Do you not think that image is a clear sign, if ever you needed one, of the importance of wearing a helmet?
No, it is not fair to assume that! You can't tell from the image how hard the impact was, or how robust the helmet was, or what the effect of such an impact would have been on an umprotected head, as I said in my first post. Without actual data, saying the outcome would most likely have been fatal had he not been wearing it is just speculation.
Putting data aside, what does your common sense tell you about that picture? If you're still undecided then there's nothing anyone can do for you. If you're such a fan of data, then I'm sure statistical data exists aplenty in support of wearing a helmet.0 -
TheSmithers wrote:oblongomaculatus wrote:Looking at the damage the OP helmet sustained, is it not fair to assume that the outcome would likely have been fatal had he not been wearing it? Do you not think that image is a clear sign, if ever you needed one, of the importance of wearing a helmet?
No, it is not fair to assume that! You can't tell from the image how hard the impact was, or how robust the helmet was, or what the effect of such an impact would have been on an umprotected head, as I said in my first post. Without actual data, saying the outcome would most likely have been fatal had he not been wearing it is just speculation.
Putting data aside, what does your common sense tell you about that picture? If you're still undecided then there's nothing anyone can do for you. If you're such a fan of data, then I'm sure statistical data exists aplenty in support of wearing a helmet.
Really - honestly ... you take one look at a piece of broken polystyrene and believe it must have saved his life? Have you never broken a piece of polystyrene before? Believe me, it doesn't take much ...0 -
Can we start a new debate.
The ANTI HELMET DEBATE DEBATE.
I'm not pro or anti helmet, but I am 100% anti helmet debate.
You only need two tools: WD40 and Duck Tape.
If it doesn't move and should, use the WD40.
If it shouldn't move and does, use the tape.0 -
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen."TheSmithers wrote:Putting data aside, what does your common sense tell you about that picture?
Albert EinsteinYou only need two tools: WD40 and Duck Tape.
If it doesn't move and should, use the WD40.
If it shouldn't move and does, use the tape.0 -
I agree, hence it would be better if no-one started threads telling us how a helmet almost certainly saved their life which in turn causes others to chime in with 'it probably didn't really', leading to other people trying to prove how risky & downright dangerous it is to ride a bike without protective head gear.Daz555 wrote:Can we start a new debate.
The ANTI HELMET DEBATE DEBATE.
I'm not pro or anti helmet, but I am 100% anti helmet debate.
How about that for an idea? If you come a cropper and almost certainly would be dead by now were it not for your helmet and you have an urge to tell us, don't. Keep it to yourself, or tell the cleaner when she comes round to do your office, or tell a colleague over a fag break. Don't tell us though , because those that agree with you already know how easy it is to die, and the rest of us are happy to run the risk, all 4 of us by the sound of it.
Thank you.0 -
Wise words!!0
-
Slowbike wrote:I state that the best protection is prevention - that is unrefutable - prevent the accident and you will have no damage to yourself or your bike - granted it's not always possible - but you can prevent a lot of incidents in the way you ride - that should be the first defence. Then any protection you wear - head or body - is your last resort - and that's the mesg that should be got to cyclists.
Yes, protective clothing is a last resort. We all hope to god it never has to be put to the test, and we do everything possible to prevent that. But when the unpreventable happens, the only thing standing in between us and potential catastrophe is the protective clothing we wear. It may or may not make a difference to the outcome, but does that mean we shouldn't wear it? This is a pretty poor message to send out to other cyclists.
I don't think the wearing of helmets should be compulsory, but I do think it should be an informed decision. Regretfully, with that kind of message, it won't be.0 -
Protective clothing isn't a last resort, more a sensible precaution. You wouldn't play cricket without a box.
I ride mainly in London but do get out to ride in the Cotswold's occasionally with my sister so see that both types of riding are equally dangerous. In town you generally ride slower but there is far more street furniture to hit if you come off. In the country you are often riding faster so hit the tarmac harder.
My sister has come off once whilst on a club run, unconscious for a minute or so on that occasion. Totally clear road, just got her wheel clipped and whet down. Her helmet was totaled, much like her skull would have been if she wasn't wearing one.
There was a similar incident a couple of weeks ago when another of the girls came off. She hit the ground much harder and ended up being helicoptered to hospital. In the opinion of the doctor she would have been dead without a helmet. Thankfully she escaped with concussion and no broken bones so is back on the bike.
The doctor was for compulsory helmets unless you are prepared to scrape your own brains off the tarmac.
For the record I choose to wear a helmet.Slowbike wrote:Really - honestly ... you take one look at a piece of broken polystyrene and believe it must have saved his life? Have you never broken a piece of polystyrene before? Believe me, it doesn't take much ...
Have you tried to compress polystyrene rather than snap it?0 -
All that proves is that girls shouldn't ride in groups though.chilling wrote:[stuff]
I like the Dr comment on another helmet debate we had on here once:
Doc - "good job you we were wearing a helmet or you'd probably be dead now"
Biker: "that's good as it's sitting on my bedside table at the minute".
And I assume this dr is just as keen for rugby players to mend their own broken necks, and for mountain climbers to warm themselves up after a careless bit of hypothermia. Etc. God this is dull and self-righteous.0 -
To be honest, I don't know. He flew off with the casualty in his helicopter and didn't seem to want to hang around.
Your point about girls.......................0 -
chilling wrote:Protective clothing isn't a last resort, more a sensible precaution. You wouldn't play cricket without a box.
I ride mainly in London but do get out to ride in the Cotswold's occasionally with my sister so see that both types of riding are equally dangerous. In town you generally ride slower but there is far more street furniture to hit if you come off. In the country you are often riding faster so hit the tarmac harder.
My sister has come off once whilst on a club run, unconscious for a minute or so on that occasion. Totally clear road, just got her wheel clipped and whet down. Her helmet was totaled, much like her skull would have been if she wasn't wearing one.
There was a similar incident a couple of weeks ago when another of the girls came off. She hit the ground much harder and ended up being helicoptered to hospital. In the opinion of the doctor she would have been dead without a helmet. Thankfully she escaped with concussion and no broken bones so is back on the bike.
The doctor was for compulsory helmets unless you are prepared to scrape your own brains off the tarmac.
For the record I choose to wear a helmet.Slowbike wrote:Really - honestly ... you take one look at a piece of broken polystyrene and believe it must have saved his life? Have you never broken a piece of polystyrene before? Believe me, it doesn't take much ...
Have you tried to compress polystyrene rather than snap it?
Do you think it a good idea to wear safety clothing (inc helmet) when riding at speed in close formation? I do - because the chances of an accident are significantly higher than when riding alone.
A Doctor thinking helmets should be compulsory makes no odds to me - they (generally) only see the aftermath of accidents and I doubt they consider how/why the accident occurred in the first place.
Perhaps I'll state again my preference (and it's only a preference, it's not carved in stone and it's subject to any other number of influences) - if I'm riding for a commute, group or "training" ride then the helmet is on - because of the speed I aim for and the roads I ride on. If I'm pootling around (say to the pub or to the beach or just to spin the legs as they're stiff) then I probably won't bother with the helmet because I'm going slowly - on quiet roads or cyclepaths and have no need for speed - the chances of an accident are greatly reduced - although not removed entirely.
That's my choice. I have no problem with those who wish to wear their helmet all the time or those who wish not to wear a helmet at all - although I may question their logic!0 -
Putting data aside, what does your common sense tell you about that picture?
It tells me that helmets are flimsy and easily broken.0 -
oblongomaculatus wrote:Putting data aside, what does your common sense tell you about that picture?
It tells me that helmets are flimsy and easily broken.
Mine wasn't. Mine was smashed to sh!t in my recent accident and so much force was transferred through it when I hit the road at 34mph I had a graze on the side of my head. A combination of my head and helmet absorbed the weight of my head and neck falling from 5(ish) feet at 34mph and disintegrated as designed. Did my helmet save my life? I don't know, but when I was in hospital I never once thought I wish I hadn't worn it.
My helmet looks worse than that picture. I often descend faster than 34mph, regularly get punctures, have wildlife throwing itself in front of me etc all of which points to a high likelyhood of a high speed high energy impact with the ground. I have had 2 big crashes, both I never saw coming and could do nothing about other than not cycle.
People should be free to wear a helmet or not wear a helmet. The vast majority of serious cyclists do, presumably because they feel that would be a benefit in the event of an accident. Having seen nothing but benefits, and knowing how dangerous cycling is, I'm obviously in the latter camp. I love my head. It's where I keep all my valuable and important stuff.0 -
oblongomaculatus wrote:Putting data aside, what does your common sense tell you about that picture?
It tells me that helmets are flimsy and easily broken.
With the information available to us about the OP accident, that is no more a fairer assumption to make as mine was that he would have come off worse. Would a human skull have come off better do you think?
As you were mate, and good luck :roll:0 -
Daz555 wrote:Can we start a new debate.
The ANTI HELMET DEBATE DEBATE.
I'm not pro or anti helmet, but I am 100% anti helmet debate.
i'd go along with this!
I'm glad the OP is ok (albeit with a few pretty nasty injuries) but what i've learned from far too many of these threads is that people will not change their opinions on helmets, not on forums anyway.
i choose to wear one but only because i'm generally very clumsy, i'd probably wear one about the house if it were more socially acceptable! but each to their own.www.conjunctivitis.com - a site for sore eyes0 -
Mine was smashed to sh!t in my recent accident and so much force was transferred through it when I hit the road at 34mph
But it might still have been destroyed by a much gentler impact.
Anyway that wasn't really my point. You can't tell from that picture how much force was needed to leave the helmet looking like that. It might have been trodden on by an elephant or knocked off a table onto the kitchen floor for all you can tell by looking at it. So you can't say it must have saved the rider's life (or, to be fair, that it must have been a very flimsy piece of kit.) You need measurements to decide, if you haven't got them you're just guessing.0 -
Being an advocate of wearing a helmet whilst riding, I love my own hypocrisy.
It really irks me when I see a toddler in a playground wearing a helmet.
"It's elf and safey gon mad I tells ya".
I do wonder when bike helmets became 'play helmets' though.0 -
oblongomaculatus wrote:Mine was smashed to sh!t in my recent accident and so much force was transferred through it when I hit the road at 34mph
But it might still have been destroyed by a much gentler impact.
Anyway that wasn't really my point. You can't tell from that picture how much force was needed to leave the helmet looking like that. It might have been trodden on by an elephant or knocked off a table onto the kitchen floor for all you can tell by looking at it. So you can't say it must have saved the rider's life (or, to be fair, that it must have been a very flimsy piece of kit.) You need measurements to decide, if you haven't got them you're just guessing.
I have the measurements you are talikng about. 34mph, 5ft, 1 medium-sized human head, tarmac, Rudy Project Zuma (medium).
I'm not commenting on the OP's helmet. I'm providing some evidence of what impact my helmet received, what load it absorbed and the fact I'm pleased that I still have the ability to type. I'm not trying to convince anybody else, just incredibly smug that I was clever enough to be wearing a helmet when I smashed my head into tarmac very hard.0 -
Well I wear a helmet if I'm going to be mixing it up with cars on busy roads. Not because I think it will save me from injury but because there is legal precedence for compensation being reduced because of not wearing a helmet.
As for the efficacy of helmets I really can't see how they can save your head from anything else but grazing. Think about it - the foam does not compress and is almost as hard as anything you might hit. There's no way a bike helmet can reduce the acceleration caused by an accident so concussive injuries will not be prevented at all. Also when you see a helmet that has broken this is not a design feature as sometimes suggested. This is a failure in structural integrity reducing further the helmets effectiveness.0 -
thescouselander wrote:As for the efficacy of helmets I really can't see how they can save your head from anything else but grazing. Think about it - the foam does not compress and is almost as hard as anything you might hit. There's no way a bike helmet can reduce the acceleration caused by an accident so concussive injuries will not be prevented at all. Also when you see a helmet that has broken this is not a design feature as sometimes suggested. This is a failure in structural integrity reducing further the helmets effectiveness.
No.
The helmet spreads the load over a larger area, reducing the effect of the impact. The bit of road you hit is likely to have protrusions that will create localised impact points.
The 'foam' is softer than tarmac and granite kerbs. I think that's why they use foam in helmets rather than granite.
A helmet is designed to dissipate the energy of a crash. The destruction of structral integrity is a sign that the helmet has absorbed energy that could otherwise be transferred to the head. It's not a sign of weakness.
Let's out our money where our mouths are. My helmet versus anybody's skull. I'll smash my helmeted head into a kerbstone, somebody else smashes their bare head into the same kerbstone at the same speed. Let's get some evidence for these debates. 0 -
Hear, hearGiantMike wrote:thescouselander wrote:As for the efficacy of helmets I really can't see how they can save your head from anything else but grazing. Think about it - the foam does not compress and is almost as hard as anything you might hit. There's no way a bike helmet can reduce the acceleration caused by an accident so concussive injuries will not be prevented at all. Also when you see a helmet that has broken this is not a design feature as sometimes suggested. This is a failure in structural integrity reducing further the helmets effectiveness.
No.
The helmet spreads the load over a larger area, reducing the effect of the impact. The bit of road you hit is likely to have protrusions that will create localised impact points.
The 'foam' is softer than tarmac and granite kerbs. I think that's why they use foam in helmets rather than granite.
A helmet is designed to dissipate the energy of a crash. The destruction of structral integrity is a sign that the helmet has absorbed energy that could otherwise be transferred to the head. It's not a sign of weakness.
Let's out our money where our mouths are. My helmet versus anybody's skull. I'll smash my helmeted head into a kerbstone, somebody else smashes their bare head into the same kerbstone at the same speed. Let's get some evidence for these debates.0 -
Giant Defy 2
Large bloke getting smaller :-)0 -
GiantMike wrote:thescouselander wrote:As for the efficacy of helmets I really can't see how they can save your head from anything else but grazing. Think about it - the foam does not compress and is almost as hard as anything you might hit. There's no way a bike helmet can reduce the acceleration caused by an accident so concussive injuries will not be prevented at all. Also when you see a helmet that has broken this is not a design feature as sometimes suggested. This is a failure in structural integrity reducing further the helmets effectiveness.
No.
The helmet spreads the load over a larger area, reducing the effect of the impact. The bit of road you hit is likely to have protrusions that will create localised impact points.
The 'foam' is softer than tarmac and granite kerbs. I think that's why they use foam in helmets rather than granite.
A helmet is designed to dissipate the energy of a crash. The destruction of structral integrity is a sign that the helmet has absorbed energy that could otherwise be transferred to the head. It's not a sign of weakness.
Let's out our money where our mouths are. My helmet versus anybody's skull. I'll smash my helmeted head into a kerbstone, somebody else smashes their bare head into the same kerbstone at the same speed. Let's get some evidence for these debates.
No, the idea behind bike helmets is that they absorb energy through crushing the foam. If the foam snaps it just means the force was applied at an angle the helmet was not designed to withstand. It takes hardly any energy to snap the foam - try it for yourself on an old helmet.0
