Helmets; The Paramedics View

[Learnincurve]

@User13710 Because, I thought when I saw the title in new posts, that perhaps, in a thread about what paramedics think about helmets that it might be interesting to ask an actual paramedic what they thought over the phone, and If people really were interested they could put questions or counter arguments for him to answer and I can ask him in real life when I see him tomorrow. I was going to actually invite him to the thread but I won't because of the belligerence and that one guy who seemed to be calling him out for a fight, and it isn't something emergency service personnel generally walk willingly into, they get enough of that on a friday night.

For the record when I asked him I thought he had been saving up a telling off about me not wearing one myself or he would have a few scare stories but he didn't. The chainguard thing is rarely simple, he worried about badly maintained chains snapping in an accident and whipping your leg. I do not know how likely this is and nor did he, I just mentioned it because in a helmet debate, that was what he seemed more worried about.

 

[ufkacbln]

Guess I'm an idiot then......

Interesting

Saw a comments box and pointed out that the higher numbers of head injuries in other groups were a feature of cohort studies of hospital admissions, andwhythey only selected cyclists for petty name calling

The answer was enlightening - they removed the comments box and comments!

 

[glasgowcyclist]

The chainguard thing is rarely simple, he worried about badly maintained chains snapping in an accident and whipping your leg. I do not know how likely this is and nor did he, I just mentioned it because in a helmet debate, that was what he seemed more worried about.

This only confirms that paramedics should stick to what they are trained for, treating injuries, not speculating on matters they know nothing about.


GC

 

[GrasB]

When I said he may have evidence, I mean he may well have accumulated actual papers/links on the subject of crashing at high speed, they may very well have been written by engineers, I will have no clue till tomorrow. Unsurprisingly someone who's job it is to deal with head injuries takes a great deal of interest in the "why did that happen" aspect of the job.

Here's the fun bit. I talk to guys who are employed solely to research head injury prevention. They people are continually telling me that cycle helmets are more-or-less pointless. They are simply changing the risk sets but but actually changing the risk level of suffering a major head injury over the spectrum of accidents typically seen on the roads. They're also been slowly reducing the maximum impact speeds in which cycle helmets are effective in. The advice I've been getting is forget cycle helmets, but rather look at full face free-flight/microlight helmets.

 

[Drago]

Have they been researching microlight helmet use for cycling?

 

[GrasB]

Have they been researching microlight helmet use for cycling?

Indirectly, they evaluated a sample of free-flight & microlight in the context of cycling head injuries. One of the bigger issues with cycle helmets is that after a single impact the integrity of the entire helmet is compromised to the point there's zero protection offered on secondary impacts. It's often the first impact is a glancing blow which destroys the helmet integrity but the secondary impact is actually the impact which required the high energy absorption & causes the major injury. The heaver construction of free-flight/microlight, which are typically fibreglass shelled, maintains enough integrity that on the secondary impact any remaining energy absorption material will be effective to some degree.

 

[w00hoo_kent]

Indirectly, they evaluated a sample of free-flight & microlight in the context of cycling head injuries. One of the bigger issues with cycle helmets is that after a single impact the integrity of the entire helmet is compromised to the point there's zero protection offered on secondary impacts. It's often the first impact is a glancing blow which destroys the helmet integrity but the secondary impact is actually the impact which required the high energy absorption & causes the major injury. The heaver construction of free-flight/microlight, which are typically fibreglass shelled, maintains enough integrity that on the secondary impact any remaining energy absorption material will be effective to some degree.

Unfortunately I've seen the results of trying to do strenuous exercise in one of these (hint, buckets of sweat, it's a downhill helmet for a reason)

and considering a microlight helmet looks like this (first image found to be fair)

I can't imagine it being much easier to cycle in on day to day roads. Basically you'd sweat your arse off before you got anywhere near the crash benefits, although you could comfortably have long phone calls with your friends. I guess you might collapse and find out the crash benefits thanks to that...

That really would lead to people giving up cycling.

 

[GrasB]

I don't know what models they test but I'd imagine they were using helmets similar to the ones bellow from Icaro. They also didn't evaluate them in terms of practicality but in terms of protection offered & where the added protection came from.

(This is the helmet I use in Italy on my low racer & it's perfectly acceptable in 30C temps. Note the shell is fibreglass and has a brushed aluminium effect vinyl wrap)

 

[w00hoo_kent]

I presume by 'low racer' you mean some kind of bicycle (recumbent?). I'm looking at it trying to see where the front venting is for air flow, or maybe it's not that important (has always seemed to be useful with my full face motorbike helmets though. As I say, with the 661 you sweat a lot more than with a heavily vented helmet like my MET parachute when you are putting in effort. The top one does look like it's got some decent venting with that mesh though. Thinking about it, how much noise awareness do you lose in the top one, again with motorbike full faces that's always been a big thing, much more quiet than an MX full face lid.

 

[glenn forger]

http://www.emergencyshorts.co.uk/blog/ambulance/Trying_My_Patients/st14055/Cycle-Helmets-and-Idiots/

Comments removed?

 

[GrasB]

I presume by 'low racer' you mean some kind of bicycle (recumbent?).

Correct & one with good aero at that.

I'm looking at it trying to see where the front venting is for air flow, or maybe it's not that important (has always seemed to be useful with my full face motorbike helmets though. As I say, with the 661 you sweat a lot more than with a heavily vented helmet like my MET parachute when you are putting in effort. The top one does look like it's got some decent venting with that mesh though.

Fresh air mostly comes from under the jaw rather than vending through the helmet. Though this might have more to do with the riding position. I'm on a 16 degree seat back.

Thinking about it, how much noise awareness do you lose in the top one, again with motorbike full faces that's always been a big thing, much more quiet than an MX full face lid.

I find I have better hearing wearing this helmet at speeds over 25-30mph than without a helmet or with a cycle helmet as I'm typically getting defend by wind noise at those sorts of speeds.

 

[User6179]

Comments removed?

It is on a different site so has its own comments .

 

[glenn forger]

I know, but there were new comments on the new site. All gone.

 

[User6179]

I know, but there were new comments on the new site. All gone.

Ok , never noticed them before they went.

 

[Alun]

I'm sure I am TMN @User here, and certainly @Fab Foodie, but helmets are designed for falls from a stationary bike. Once you are moving at 25mph and crash, you definitely need a helmet, but a standard bicycle is no good at all. A motor cycle helmet may save you life.

(I was riding with some friends to Brighton, and one of them pulled away from me on Reigate hill. I wished I was wearing a helmet and could stop riding the brakes. However, I then realised that here 46km/h and my 37km/h - thanks strava! - would be much the same damage if either of us were wearing a helmet or not)

Cycle helmets are designed and tested to offer some protection in low speed impacts.
I don't agree that they are designed for falling off a stationary bike, what would be the point of that?
I assume that you mean that a standard cycle helmet is no good at all at speeds of 25mph? How do you know if they are not tested under those conditions?