Helmets: Should you wear one?

[Brixtonfixed]

Hear, hear, Col. As a motorcyclist too I appreciate Hairy Jock's point about motorcycle helmets, which are infinitely more well designed and important. As a long-time cycle helmet sceptic I have always considered their loose fit and minimal design would make them hopeless in an accident. But then I had a big 30mph crash when I just happened to be wearing a helmet (it was a sportive, they were mandatory).

Yes, I stuck my arm out as a reflex action and got severe sprains, bruising and grazing for my troubles. None of this stopped my head hitting the ground, hard, which would have happened at that speed whether or not it was capped by a few grammes of foam.

As many of the arguments in the helmet debate are often based on anecdote and personal experience, I can cite two other experienced cyclists, close friends, who have had accidents that resulted in total or partial helmet destruction.

It may not prove anything, but it makes ya think.

 

[Chris James]

I have 'partially destroyed' a helemt by glancing it against a garage door. In this particular instance I wouldn't have actually hit my head as I failed to adjust for the extra height of the helmet.

Also the 12mph comment - bear in mind that the impact force is a square of your speed so if a helmet was totally effective at 12 mph it would only be 50% effective at 17mph and 10% effective at 38 mph.

I do not wear a helmet. This is because I find them uncomfortable (I have worn them in the past for commuting) and also, to be honest, because I simply do not expect to have a head injury as I have been cycliing for 20 years plus and have never banged my head. Likewise i very rarely wear a waterproof jacket as i find them too hot also, prefering going without, a gilet or a pertex.

Obviously I could bang my head tomorrow after saying this. And yes, in the event of me banging my head I woudl prefer that I was wearing a helmet. I think I have a realistic view of risk assessment for my particular circumstances. I mostly ride on rural roads where the greatest risk for me would be sliding off my bike on a high speed descent. I take great care to treat other road users as homocidal maniacs and so I feel, for me, the likelihood of injury is small, the protection a helmet would give would be minimal, and the discomfort that I would have to suffer to achieve this protection would be enough to make me decide to not use a helmet.

Everyone would probably come to a different answer if they conducted their own risk assessment.

The point of the matter is that we can never reduce our risk to zero, we just have to take a best guess as to what constitutes an acceptable risk.

One of my other hobbies is rock climbing and mountaineering so I suppose I could be some sort of adrenaline junkie who likes living on the edge. But I view myself as quite cautious and safety conscious! Incidentally I always wear a helmet for climbing and mountaineering despite never having fallen off a route (I mustn't climb hard enough!) or been hit by falling rocks or ice.

 

[Chris James]

For the sake of clarity I should point out that the 'effectiveness' I was calculating was based on energy absoprtion.

So at 38 mph, if a helmet only absorbed 10% of the energy of the collision thsi swould mean that the head would see the same impact as an unhelmeted head in a crash at 36mph!

This is assuming that the helmet does not simply disintegrate in which case the situation would be even worse.

 

[Peyote]

I think the 12mph thing is calculated based on an adult falling from a stationary bike, the speed at which the head hits the ground is supposed to be 12mph.

Once things start moving forward it begins to get a lot more complicated because there is forward momentum as well as gravity to think about. if you add in street furniture and the ilk then it starts to look a bit silly rating a helmet purely on it's capacity to absorb an impact from a staionary fall.

If these things are to be marketed as 'safety equipment'* could it be time for more stringent design criteria?

* For what it's worth I think they have lot more use and safety potential when MTBing where stationary objects are more frequent, and falls more likely.

 

[Chris James]

I think the 12mph thing is calculated based on an adult falling from a stationary bike, the speed at which the head hits the ground is supposed to be 12mph.

Once things start moving forward it begins to get a lot more complicated because there is forward momentum as well as gravity to think about. if you add in street furniture and the ilk then it starts to look a bit silly rating a helmet purely on it's capacity to absorb an impact from a staionary fall.

If these things are to be marketed as 'safety equipment'* could it be time for more stringent design criteria?

* For what it's worth I think they have lot more use and safety potential when MTBing where stationary objects are more frequent, and falls more likely.

Yeah, quoting an impact speed into a stationary object makes it difficult to predict how you would get on when you only know what speed your bike is going and don't know what you might hit. The fundamental point though is that the protection you get is limited (though potentially very useful!) so a helmet is ONE of a number of things you can do to increase your safety, including defensive riding techniques, slowing down etc.

I agree that MTB is definitely an area where I would consider wearing a helmet and ,to a lesser degree, urban commuting.

 

[vbc]

Yes, I agree with Hairy Jock.

In my road accident I only suffered a left frontal subdural haematoma, a left temporal extradural haematoma, a left temporal bone fracture, a left sided pneumothorax, a fractured left clavicle, a fractured left scapula and 3 fractured posterior ribs. This resulted in 8 weeks hospitalisation, 2 of those in a comatose state.

Thank goodness I wasn't wearing one of those bloody useless helmets at the time of impact or god knows how badly injured I might have been!

 

[Tynan]

dear god this argument exhausts me

'at 38mph'

anyone riding at 38mph on a regular basis?

 

[Peyote]

dear god this argument exhausts me

'at 38mph'

anyone riding at 38mph on a regular basis?

If you talking about hitting a stationary object, I would suggest it isn't that regular, but if you talking about other vehicle impacts, then the combined speed my well be in exces of 38mph. Consider a head on collision of a vehicle travelling 30 mph and you cruising at 15 mph, combined total impact speed 45 mph. Okay so this is an extreme example, but I think it illustrates my point.

Things aren't always black and white in the real world.

 

[postman]

Went out on friday to the Humber Bridge and then onto Partington-Spurn Point-Withernsea-Partington.Forgot to take my helmet and gloves.Not aware of no helmet but on uneven ground riding to Spurn Point very wary and realized how important to me was wearing a helmet.

 

[Brock]

I see postman, so you ride more carefully when you're without a helmet. Interesssssting.

 

[DustBowlRefugee]

Seems to me it's the same as when motorbike helmets were banned and when seatbelts were made compulsary. Lots of people whined on about how they didn't save you (quoting some dubious statistics along the way) and it was an affront to personal freedom. Nowadays we all agree it's safer with helmets and seatbelts than without (unless there are still any flat-earthers out there).

I particularly love the old "Well it won't save you in a (insert specific incident here) situation". Duh! I know a £50 blob of plastic won't save me if I get blind-sided by a stream roller at 100mph. Nor will my Oakley's really protect me from the flash of a thermo-nuclear explosion, but I don't just chuck them away.

I, like most people, look like a twat in my helmet and I think this is the real reason behind people not liking them (the rest is just smoke and mirrors).

Ask yourself this question: Would you make your children wear one? If so, you're admitting that it's safer with one. If not, well.......

 

[Brock]

'If not, well........'
what?
Helmets were available when I was a lad, but no one even suggested I should wear one while I was burning around on my Grifter doing mega skids and jumps. I suppose I need to know what the rest of your sentence is before I can judge my parents.

 

[Peyote]

Seems to me it's the same as when motorbike helmets were banned and when seatbelts were made compulsary. Lots of people whined on about how they didn't save you (quoting some dubious statistics along the way) and it was an affront to personal freedom. Nowadays we all agree it's safer with helmets and seatbelts than without (unless there are still any flat-earthers out there).

I particularly love the old "Well it won't save you in a (insert specific incident here) situation". Duh! I know a £50 blob of plastic won't save me if I get blind-sided by a stream roller at 100mph. Nor will my Oakley's really protect me from the flash of a thermo-nuclear explosion, but I don't just chuck them away.

I, like most people, look like a twat in my helmet and I think this is the real reason behind people not liking them (the rest is just smoke and mirrors).

I think all these points have been successfully rebuffed already!

 

[DustBowlRefugee]

Hey guys, is it true that if I cycle far enough I'll fall off the edge?

Get rid of traffic lights too. And the speed limit. And the drink-drive laws.

 

[col]

Just a thought,but dont these offer a bit more protection,plus they dont have the sticky out bits that are supposed to add slipstream help,whats your opinions?