Helmets??

YeehaaMcgee

When I read that link, I initially thought the first comment was referring to knees
I blame lack of sleep and tramadol.

prawny

I saw someone over the monkey in cannock on saturday without a helmet on, to be honest these day did strike me as odd. I was fully padded up knee/elbow/head and he was still faster than me (I was waiting for a mate though) but I crashed so the joke was on him.

Daz555

RockmonkeySC wrote:

Why should seat belts be compulsory and helmets optional? I don't see the difference.

The difference is simple - it is in the evidence.

Seatbelt legislation followed on from a decade of solid unequivocal evidence about the clear benefits of seatbelt compulsion. Same goes for motorcycle helmets - with the added bonus that potentially reduced participation resulting from helmet compulsion was seen as a good thing!

The same is not true for cycle helmets. The evidence as to whether it makes a significant safety contribution across the population is not clear and the risks to participation rates etc are not fully understood. There will be other factors as well - all of which are not fully understood.

We should not pass legislation with potentially massive impacts without good evidence.

Dr Ben Goldacre - a champion of evidence based medicine - gives his view here: http://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.f381 ... eytype=ref

In my opinion the helmet debate diverts attention from improvements that we KNOW will improve safety for cylists - for example, the separation of cyclists from vehicular traffic and junctions designed for cyclists and pedestrians rather than traffic "flow". The pro helmet lobby have also caused genuine harm to cyclists rights as their endless banging on about the benefits of helmets, without supporting evidence, has resulted in judges recently ruling that lack of helmet wear is a contributing factor when it comes to injury - even when the cyclist is not at fault. Big thanks there to the helmet nazis. :roll:

As Chris Boardman said "the solution to gun crime is not bullet-proof vests."

We should focus efforts (and our money) in areas of improvement where there is good evidence. Perhaps one day helmets may meet this criteria. Today however, they do not.

On the subject of helmets, my MTB lid stinks - any tips on cleaning it?

bails87

On the subject of helmets... - any tips on cleaning it?

Give it a vigorous polishing.

bingham2259

I would be dead now had I not worn mine. My wife would be husbandless and my daughter fatherless. Nuff said?!

cooldad

bingham2259 wrote:

I would be dead now had I not worn mine. My wife would be husbandless and my daughter fatherless. Nuff said?!

That's assuming you are her father.

whyamihere

bingham2259 wrote:

I would be dead now had I not worn mine. My wife would be husbandless and my daughter fatherless. Nuff said?!

This kind of statement is a problem for rational debate. The only way you would know that a helmet saved your life is to accurately reproduce the same incident without a helmet, and dying. Other than by doing this, you cannot possibly know that you would have died without one. Damage to helmets often looks horrific, but it's supposed to - helmets absorb the shock by breaking.

I'm not saying you shouldn't wear a helmet (I wear one almost all of the time, and I reckon it's at least saved me from a few nasty cuts to the head), but I'm also not going to say everyone should wear one. Stating that a helmet saved your life without evidence is an emotional statement, not a rational one.

YeehaaMcgee

Then I'd say he/she/it should be focusing on the task at hand, and not admiring your unmentionables.

BigAl

nicklouse wrote:

so what happens to the kid when the parent has a spill and as the result of not wearing a helmet is knocked out.

My lad would take my bike (cosbit's much nicer than his!) sell his bike and spend the proceeds on a Rock 'n' Roll lifestyle!

But seriously it's a damn fine point Nick raises. As a parent I expect my kids to wear a helmet ALWAYS. How can I possibly enforce that, if I don't?

Whether helmets do much good may be an open question, but common sense tells me I'm better with one than without. So I wear one - what's to lose? I've lost most my hair anyway!

Whether you wear one is up to you

whyamihere

cyd190468 wrote:

What about if the attending neuro-surgeon says the only thing that saved you was your helmet?

That would be an opinion, not a fact.

Most people I've ever encountered claiming that a helmet saved their life have never seen a neurosurgeon though. They see a completely wrecked helmet, combined with a headache and assume that without the helmet their skull would have been ripped open and their brain painted across the ground. While it is possible that's true, the skull is pretty hard. It's there to protect the brain, and it's quite good at its job.

Kowalski675

cyd190468 wrote:

What about if the attending neuro-surgeon says the only thing that saved you was your helmet?

He/she is only a neurosurgeon, so far less qualified than some of the self appointed experts on here... :roll:

Kowalski675

whyamihere wrote:

They see a completely wrecked helmet, combined with a headache and assume that without the helmet their skull would have been ripped open and their brain painted across the ground. While it is possible that's true, the skull is pretty hard. It's there to protect the brain, and it's quite good at its job.

You're missing the point of a helmet. You don't need to fracture your skull to damage your brain. When the skull hits the floor/rock/car/whatever it stops, but the brain continues moving and hits the inside of the skull. The purpose of the hard outer shell and sacrificial liner of the helmet is to dissipate the point load energy of the impact over a wider area and absorb that energy to bring the skull and brain to a more gradual standstill, rather than a sudden stop. The skull isn't designed to protect the brain from these kind of injuries - evolution didn't take into account that people would be capable of travelling at more than running speed.

Neurosurgeons know a thing or two about brain injury. Yes, he may have been expressing an opinion, but it was a very educated one - if thet say that helmet saved his life, then it probably did.

cooldad

Kowalski675 wrote:

You're missing the point of a helmet. You don't need to fracture your skull to damage your brain. When the skull hits the floor/rock/car/whatever it stops, but the brain continues moving and hits the inside of the skull. The purpose of the hard outer shell and sacrificial liner of the helmet is to dissipate the point load energy of the impact over a wider area and absorb that energy to bring the skull and brain to a more gradual standstill, rather than a sudden stop. The skull isn't designed to protect the brain from these kind of injuries - evolution didn't take into account that people would be capable of travelling at more than running speed.
.

This however, is true.

Daz555

Kowalski675 wrote:

You're missing the point of a helmet. You don't need to fracture your skull to damage your brain. When the skull hits the floor/rock/car/whatever it stops, but the brain continues moving and hits the inside of the skull. The purpose of the hard outer shell and sacrificial liner of the helmet is to dissipate the point load energy of the impact over a wider area and absorb that energy to bring the skull and brain to a more gradual standstill, rather than a sudden stop. The skull isn't designed to protect the brain from these kind of injuries - evolution didn't take into account that people would be capable of travelling at more than running speed.

True - however I 'm not sure running would be a dominant factor in the evolution of our brain protection. More likely it was to cope with the brutal violence laid down by our primitive male ancestors onto other males in order to dominate a group and grab the coveted alpha male slot. Males with a glass jaw would not be getting much I suspect.....

:shock: :?

pesky_jones

Daz555 wrote:

Kowalski675 wrote:

You're missing the point of a helmet. You don't need to fracture your skull to damage your brain. When the skull hits the floor/rock/car/whatever it stops, but the brain continues moving and hits the inside of the skull. The purpose of the hard outer shell and sacrificial liner of the helmet is to dissipate the point load energy of the impact over a wider area and absorb that energy to bring the skull and brain to a more gradual standstill, rather than a sudden stop. The skull isn't designed to protect the brain from these kind of injuries - evolution didn't take into account that people would be capable of travelling at more than running speed.

True - however I 'm not sure running would be a dominant factor in the evolution of our brain protection. More likely it was to cope with the brutal violence laid down by our primitive male ancestors onto other males in order to dominate a group and grab the coveted alpha male slot. Males with a glass jaw would not be getting much I suspect.....

:shock: :?

+1

Plus evolution would have catered for collisions at speeds greater than running, for falling out of trees and down cliffs etc. Also for fighting as Daz has said.

cooldad

Pesky Jones wrote:

Daz555 wrote:

Kowalski675 wrote:

You're missing the point of a helmet. You don't need to fracture your skull to damage your brain. When the skull hits the floor/rock/car/whatever it stops, but the brain continues moving and hits the inside of the skull. The purpose of the hard outer shell and sacrificial liner of the helmet is to dissipate the point load energy of the impact over a wider area and absorb that energy to bring the skull and brain to a more gradual standstill, rather than a sudden stop. The skull isn't designed to protect the brain from these kind of injuries - evolution didn't take into account that people would be capable of travelling at more than running speed.

True - however I 'm not sure running would be a dominant factor in the evolution of our brain protection. More likely it was to cope with the brutal violence laid down by our primitive male ancestors onto other males in order to dominate a group and grab the coveted alpha male slot. Males with a glass jaw would not be getting much I suspect.....

:shock: :?

+1

Plus evolution would have catered for collisions at speeds greater than running, for falling out of trees and down cliffs etc. Also for fighting as Daz has said.

I think you misunderstand the evolutionary process and timescales involved. Totally.

pesky_jones

cooldad wrote:

Pesky Jones wrote:

Daz555 wrote:

Kowalski675 wrote:

You're missing the point of a helmet. You don't need to fracture your skull to damage your brain. When the skull hits the floor/rock/car/whatever it stops, but the brain continues moving and hits the inside of the skull. The purpose of the hard outer shell and sacrificial liner of the helmet is to dissipate the point load energy of the impact over a wider area and absorb that energy to bring the skull and brain to a more gradual standstill, rather than a sudden stop. The skull isn't designed to protect the brain from these kind of injuries - evolution didn't take into account that people would be capable of travelling at more than running speed.

True - however I 'm not sure running would be a dominant factor in the evolution of our brain protection. More likely it was to cope with the brutal violence laid down by our primitive male ancestors onto other males in order to dominate a group and grab the coveted alpha male slot. Males with a glass jaw would not be getting much I suspect.....

:shock: :?

+1

Plus evolution would have catered for collisions at speeds greater than running, for falling out of trees and down cliffs etc. Also for fighting as Daz has said.

I think you misunderstand the evolutionary process and timescales involved. Totally.

Er how? Survival of the fittest, succesfull mutations survive blah blah.

pesky_jones

Kowalski675 wrote:

The skull isn't designed to protect the brain from these kind of injuries - evolution didn't take into account that people would be capable of travelling at more than running speed.

Pesky Jones wrote:

Plus evolution would have catered for collisions at speeds greater than running, for falling out of trees and down cliffs etc. Also for fighting as Daz has said.

The Rookie

Not to mention the other side of evolution that made the man with a 6" thick skull with 12" of protection between the inside and the brain die out as he couldn't actually hold his own head up to eat......

pesky_jones

The Rookie wrote:

Not to mention the other side of evolution that made the man with a 6" thick skull with 12" of protection between the inside and the brain die out as he couldn't actually hold his own head up to eat......

But Cooldads still here...

cooldad

Pesky Jones wrote:

cooldad wrote:

Pesky Jones wrote:

Daz555 wrote:

Kowalski675 wrote:

You're missing the point of a helmet. You don't need to fracture your skull to damage your brain. When the skull hits the floor/rock/car/whatever it stops, but the brain continues moving and hits the inside of the skull. The purpose of the hard outer shell and sacrificial liner of the helmet is to dissipate the point load energy of the impact over a wider area and absorb that energy to bring the skull and brain to a more gradual standstill, rather than a sudden stop. The skull isn't designed to protect the brain from these kind of injuries - evolution didn't take into account that people would be capable of travelling at more than running speed.

True - however I 'm not sure running would be a dominant factor in the evolution of our brain protection. More likely it was to cope with the brutal violence laid down by our primitive male ancestors onto other males in order to dominate a group and grab the coveted alpha male slot. Males with a glass jaw would not be getting much I suspect.....

:shock: :?

+1

Plus evolution would have catered for collisions at speeds greater than running, for falling out of trees and down cliffs etc. Also for fighting as Daz has said.

I think you misunderstand the evolutionary process and timescales involved. Totally.

Er how? Survival of the fittest, succesfull mutations survive blah blah.

Quite simply, falling from trees and breaking head would be a relatively low frequency cause of death, and so very thick skulls would tend not to be a particularly successful mutation. Evolution has no plan - it is purely random, and changes are very tiny and occur over very long periods of time. A successful mutation will make that organism fractionally more competitive than another. Etc etc.
So it is likely that a large brain and relatively thin skull was more beneficial in the long run than a bonehead.
Although judging by some of the BR posters, I could be wrong.

cooldad

Pesky Jones wrote:

The Rookie wrote:

Not to mention the other side of evolution that made the man with a 6" thick skull with 12" of protection between the inside and the brain die out as he couldn't actually hold his own head up to eat......

But Cooldads still here...

ps. To prove my point, some boneheads struggle with the simplest of concepts, like punctuation.

So: But Cooldad's still here...

the apostrophe taking the place of the 'i'. I am unique so there cannot, and never will be, plural Cooldads.

Here endeth the lesson.

Bonehead.

pesky_jones

This (which I agree with and has proved my first point wrong) is what you should have said instead of saying that I have no understanding at all of evolution.

cooldad wrote:

Quite simply, falling from trees and breaking head would be a relatively low frequency cause of death, and so very thick skulls would tend not to be a particularly successful mutation. Evolution has no plan - it is purely random, and changes are very tiny and occur over very long periods of time. A successful mutation will make that organism fractionally more competitive than another. Etc etc.
So it is likely that a large brain and relatively thin skull was more beneficial in the long run than a bonehead.
Although judging by some of the BR posters, I could be wrong.

And to write a whole post about one apostrophe proves you are clearly riled.

I am however glad to see you've started signing your posts

Giraffoto

Of all the arguments put forward against wearing helmets, "my head's evolved to take it" is the one that would least inspire me to continue the discussion.

cooldad

Pesky Jones wrote:

This (which I agree with and has proved my first point wrong) is what you should have said instead of saying that I have no understanding at all of evolution.

cooldad wrote:

Quite simply, falling from trees and breaking head would be a relatively low frequency cause of death, and so very thick skulls would tend not to be a particularly successful mutation. Evolution has no plan - it is purely random, and changes are very tiny and occur over very long periods of time. A successful mutation will make that organism fractionally more competitive than another. Etc etc.
So it is likely that a large brain and relatively thin skull was more beneficial in the long run than a bonehead.
Although judging by some of the BR posters, I could be wrong.

And to write a whole post about one apostrophe proves you are clearly riled.

I am however glad to see you've started signing your posts

You miss the bigger picture, it was not a post about a single apostrophe, it was a about the decline of civilisation as we know it, sinking into a morass of fear and ignorance.

I think we risk becoming the best informed society that has ever died of ignorance. ~Reuben Blades

I'm also really, really bored.

pesky_jones

cooldad wrote:

You miss the bigger picture, it was not a post about a single apostrophe, it was a about the decline of civilisation as we know it, sinking into a morass of fear and ignorance.

I think we risk becoming the best informed society that has ever died of ignorance. ~Reuben Blades

I'm also really, really bored.

Then your're a hypacrit

cooldad

Pesky Jones wrote:

cooldad wrote:

You miss the bigger picture, it was not a post about a single apostrophe, it was a about the decline of civilisation as we know it, sinking into a morass of fear and ignorance.

I think we risk becoming the best informed society that has ever died of ignorance. ~Reuben Blades

I'm also really, really bored.

Then your're a hypacrit

That would be 'you're a hypocrite.'

And still bored.

pesky_jones

cooldad wrote:

Pesky Jones wrote:

cooldad wrote:

You miss the bigger picture, it was not a post about a single apostrophe, it was a about the decline of civilisation as we know it, sinking into a morass of fear and ignorance.

I think we risk becoming the best informed society that has ever died of ignorance. ~Reuben Blades

I'm also really, really bored.

Then your're a hypacrit

That would be 'you're a hypocrite.'

And still bored.

Damit. Well played

Daz555

Giraffoto wrote:

Of all the arguments put forward against wearing helmets, "my head's evolved to take it" is the one that would least inspire me to continue the discussion.

Can't recall if anyone has said that in this thread, but yeah I agree.

rockmonkeysc

Anyone who thinks their head has evolved to cope with crashes deserves their Darwin award