Detention Lines: I will wear a helmet.

[4F]

No I think that pretty much sums up my feelings. However I am not anti helmet, I am pro choice. There is a big difference.

 

[col]

No that is not correct. What the pro choice lot are saying is that whilst helmets may protect you from certain instances road rash etc the proof that they protect you from certain death experiences compared to non helmet use are inconclusive.

Its all inconclusive barring some peoples opinions on when they had accidents isnt it?Some say it could have been their life if not for the helmet,others say not unless they prove it.I cant see how this is possible given that the accident has happened and gone,so its the word of the accident victim.I for one believe an inch of poystyrene does cushion impacts to a certain degree,and with certain impacts could save a life.But im not saying any other part of the body is protected by wearing a helmet,thats for the benefit of some.Just as a bare head on impact with concrete at ten miles an hour is more than likely going to sustain serious injury or even death,but with an inch of polystyrene between them will soften the blow,and even save life.

 

[Maz]

What head injuries are you hoping it will protect you from ? Falling iron bars ?

If you want some context, suppose you came off the bike and went headfirst towards a railing by the side of the road.

 

[Monkey Spanner]

Are you suggesting that if it cracks on impact, it has absorbed much of that force?




See, now I'm no longer viewing you as someone who has something interesting to say on this subject, I'm viewing you as someone who tried to get his point across by saying that he'll hit me over the head with an iron bar. Not only is that suggestion stupid and inapplicable (because you're not applying the same kind of force or impact as you face in real life), it is in itself a chilling way to try to get across a point which is meant to be about safety.

Take a step back, take a deep breath, and think about your argument and how you're posting it.

Like I said, howabout the corner of a kerbsone instead of an iron bar? Force is force.

And yes I am saying that if a helmet cracks it has absorbed some of the force. Why do you think your wrist/arm/collar bones break if you take a fall? They are designed to break in order to protect the torso. If helmets didn't break, force (in excess of what could be absorbed) would be transferred to the skull

 

[magnatom]

Like I said, howabout the corner of a kerbsone instead of an iron bar? Force is force.

And yes I am saying that if a helmet cracks it has absorbed some of the force. Why do you think your wrist/arm/collar bones break if you take a fall? They are designed to break in order to protect the torso. If helmets didn't break, force (in excess of what could be absorbed) would be transferred to the skull

LOL! Bones are not designed to break! They protect by absorbing force (i.e bending, redistributing force etc). Once they have broke, they can no longer provide any protection and in fact can cause injury by themselves (punctured lung for instance!). I take it you aren't medically trained then!

 

[col]

Col, I believe it is not so much that it is correct, but that it cannot be proved one way or the other at the moment.

As a thought experiment, imagine that an accident occurs where you fall in such a way that, as you head approaches the ground, something stops it from hitting the ground (i.e. the position of your shoulder). So you head at closes approach is about 0.5cm from the ground. It does not impact no impact forces are transmitted to the cyclists head.

Now imagine you are wearing a helmet and the same accident happens. We also need to take into account that the helmet has a weight and so would likely result in the shoulder being compressed a little more due to the extra weight (who knows this increase in weight might result in a shoulder fracture....). The thickness of a helmet is say 3cm. So in this instance the helmet would come into contact with the ground and would transfer some of the forces to the wearers head, possibly resulting in injury.

Another thing to remember in this instance is the wearers forward motion at the time of the accident. In the non-helmet situation, assuming that the cyclist was traveling forwards and 15mph there would be no extra rotational forces on the wearers head due to contact with the ground. In the helmet situation the helmet would make contact with the ground and would start accelerating the head rotationally. This would be bad, as rotational brain injuries are the worst kind to have. Of course this would also place extra pressure on the neck.

So, yes, theoretically it is possible, by the very act of wearing a helmet to increase your risk of injury, in certain situations.

What hasn't been worked out yet, is the morbidity and mortality and likely risks of these situations and situations like them for helmet wearers and non-helmet wearers.

So the jury is still out (I'm on the fence myself )

Well explained,and i understand what you have said,so really the question is,are the chances more or less of injury with or without a helmet?But like you also pointed out,there doesnt seem to be any information of this as fact,just opinion.
So the times when an impact is clean,as in straight onto the helmet it will help,but when its a scathing impact or an angular one,it too can cause injury just by being caused by the helmets presence,so really everyone is right,just which way do you go and what are the percentages or chances of one injury over another?

 

[Crackle]

As a thought experiment, imagine that an accident occurs where you fall in such a way that, as you head approaches the ground, something stops it from hitting the ground (i.e. the position of your shoulder). So you head at closes approach is about 0.5cm from the ground. It does not impact no impact forces are transmitted to the cyclists head.

Now imagine you are wearing a helmet and the same accident happens. We also need to take into account that the helmet has a weight and so would likely result in the shoulder being compressed a little more due to the extra weight (who knows this increase in weight might result in a shoulder fracture....). The thickness of a helmet is say 3cm. So in this instance the helmet would come into contact with the ground and would transfer some of the forces to the wearers head, possibly resulting in injury.

Another thing to remember in this instance is the wearers forward motion at the time of the accident. In the non-helmet situation, assuming that the cyclist was traveling forwards and 15mph there would be no extra rotational forces on the wearers head due to contact with the ground. In the helmet situation the helmet would make contact with the ground and would start accelerating the head rotationally. This would be bad, as rotational brain injuries are the worst kind to have. Of course this would also place extra pressure on the neck.

So, yes, theoretically it is possible, by the very act of wearing a helmet to increase your risk of injury, in certain situations.

What hasn't been worked out yet, is the morbidity and mortality and likely risks of these situations and situations like them for helmet wearers and non-helmet wearers.

So the jury is still out (I'm on the fence myself B))

Thank you Magnatom, that is precisely what it's about and for that example you gave I can refer you to my own fractured skull incident where I fractured my skull in the temple area but did not injure my shoulder because it had rotated under me so my head hit first. The point you make about rotational forces and the nature of head injuries is exactly the kind of study I'm waiting to read.

Now shift over so I can sit next to you on the fence: Got a cushion, we could be here a long time.

 

[yello]

Now shift over so I can sit next to you on the fence: Got a cushion, we could be here a long time.

Easy does it there Crackle, don't want you pushing me off!

 

[magnatom]

Well explained,and i understand what you have said,so really the question is,are the chances more or less of injury with or without a helmet?But like you also pointed out,there doesnt seem to be any information of this as fact,just opinion.
So the times when an impact is clean,as in straight onto the helmet it will help,but when its a scathing impact or an angular one,it too can cause injury just by being caused by the helmets presence,so really everyone is right,just which way do you go and what are the percentages or chances of one injury over another?

Almost, but as others have pointed out, once a helmet has broken it no longer provides any further protection and in fact, due to the design of helmets (i.e. struts are wider on the outside than inside), it is even possible that they concentrate the forces on a smaller area at the skull.

Of course this is supposition, but every user should be aware that it is possible that helmets could as well as reduce injury, actually increase it. It isn't clear cut, so it is wrong for anyone to say, we should all wear helmets....

 

[magnatom]

Easy does it there Crackle, don't want you pushing me off!

This fence can only take so much weight.... I hope you lads have your helmets on..

 

[4F]

Easy does it there Crackle, don't want you pushing me off!

Well done on restraining yourself so far. I regret I cracked (much like a cheap helmet) once it reached page 14. Just waiting for Chris James to show his face

 

[Crackle]

Well done on restraining yourself so far. I regret I cracked (much like a cheap helmet) once it reached page 14. Just waiting for Chris James to show his face

Where's Chris on this then as I normally value his posts?

 

[4F]

Where's Chris on this then as I normally value his posts?

He obviously has more will power than me

 

[swee'pea99]

every user should be aware that it is possible that helmets could as well as reduce injury, actually increase it. It isn't clear cut, so it is wrong for anyone to say, we should all wear helmets....

At the risk of being pedantic, I think the key point is not so much 'it is wrong for anyone to say, we should all wear helmets' - people should be free to say whatever they like - as 'it is wrong for anyone to say that anyone should be compelled by law to wear helmets'.

I would add just one further twist. While I along with even many pro-helmeters (and I'm an anti myself - tho' I will defend to the death your right to wear one if you so choose) would oppose compulsion, on account of what it implies in terms of the relationship between the state and the individual (by what right can the state compel me to put my life at risk?), there's also the wider issue of the societal impact of compulsion.

As illustrated in NSW, Australia, eg, where the introduction of compulsion brought about a 90% fall in cycling among teenage girls. Given that the jury is so firmly out on helmets' impact on individuals' safety, but the numbers on general behaviour (and its health impacts) are so unequivocal - and so damning, for the compulsion lobby - it's amazing that compulsion even gets onto the agenda. And yet it does. And indeed into legislation, all over the world.

 

[Cab]

Like I said, howabout the corner of a kerbsone instead of an iron bar? Force is force.

Yes, force is force. But no, all means of applying force do not cause the same injury.

If I come off and go into a kerb head first as a result of a catastrophic collision at my mean flat speed (comfortably over 15mph) then the helmet will break. Odds are the injury I'll suffer will be more complex than a crack on the noggin; I'm expecting neck injuries, abraisons, etc. The helmet won't protect me from much of that impact if it cracks, because if it cracks then it didn't deform to protect me. If it deformed or crumpled then it may have protected me, if it cracked then it probably did not.

But, really, my entire momentum hitting the kerb head first? Really? I don't know how many times I've come off bikes over the years, but I've never experienced that. I've broken a tooth, I've hit my chin, I've broken ribs, taken scrapes on the arms, legs, shoulders... I dunno, through off-road and on-road biking I've bounced around all over the place, and you're telling me now that I'm going to encounter a new form of accident where instad of laterally scraping along an obstacle I'll be hitting it straight on with my head like its a metal bar being swung at it? Sorry, but none of that sounds very realistic to me.

And yes I am saying that if a helmet cracks it has absorbed some of the force.

How? Really, suppose you're going at 15mph and hit your head on the ground, lets say at the same speed. You break the helmet. What speed is the helmet going at when the cracked bit impacts on your head? Where has the absorbed energy gone if the helmet has cracked?

Why do you think your wrist/arm/collar bones break if you take a fall? They are designed to break in order to protect the torso. If helmets didn't break, force (in excess of what could be absorbed) would be transferred to the skull

Dude, there may be some little value in the rest of your argument; by talking about hitting my head with a metal bar (which is chilling and dubious, to say the least) and then following it up with this rubbish, you're diluting the valid parts of your argument so far as to lose them.