The CycleChat Helmet Debate Thread

[Justinslow]

Bigger head (nearly twice as big)

Bit of an exaggeration isn't it?

Interesting too that the TBI occurred on (off ) a skateboard, not even a bicycle. It does annoy/frustrate me when I see children on 3-wheeled scooters (a very good way for them to learn balance, I'm sure ... ) wearing a helmet. How daft do they have to be to fall off one of those with sufficient force to cause serious injury to their bonce - not just a bump (part of growing up) but a TBI ?

The campaign also seems to be targeted at the fear factor.

How "daft" do people have to be to fall over whilst walking? I mean it's just a case of putting one foot in front of the other isn't it?
Serious accidents can happen to anybody.
I would suggest from my experience riding something with wheels when you're not particularly skilled such as a scooter can be quite dangerous!

 

[Profpointy]

Re "head nearly twice as big"

Bit of an exaggeration isn't it ...

Umm not really. Let's say a head is 20 cm diameter (10cm radius) given a target area of 314cm2 say. Now a helmeted head is maybe another 4cm all round maybe 14x14x3.14 which is what - something like 600cm2.

 

[broadway]

Bit of an exaggeration isn't it?

How "daft" do people have to be to fall over whilst walking? I mean it's just a case of putting one foot in front of the other isn't it?
Serious accidents can happen to anybody.

Learning to walk - you'll have to start advocating Thudguards.

Serious accidents can happen to everyone - you'll have to start advocating full time helmet wearing.

 

[Mugshot]

I would suggest from my experience riding something with wheels when you're not particularly skilled such as a scooter can be quite dangerous!

Although not quite dangerous enough it would seem, I posted this over 100 pages ago.

A friend of mine used to enjoy trying to try to start a row with me and then getting indignant when I challenged the "it's obvious innit" mantra. One day he told me with a puffed out chest how proud he was that his son (about 6 or 7) would automatically get his helmet from the garage before riding his bike around their cul de sac, I asked whether he did the same when he was riding on his scooter as my friend had mentioned to me that he was getting pretty fast on it now and was jumping off kerbs and the like. My mate stormed off telling me it was impossible to have a discussion with me.
I don't see the difference in risk and I don't see the necessity for PPE for one and not the other.

 

[Profpointy]

Although not quite dangerous enough it would seem, I posted this over 100 pages ago.

In fairness though, just because you should also wear helmets (or whatever measure it might be) for another similar activity is not an argument for not wearing them cycling.

Quite a solid case can probably be made for beer-drinking helmets, or car passenger helmets and even though no one ever will, that's not per se a reason to not wear one cycling.

It's still a valid risk comparison though and doesn'f half get zealots cross

 

[Big Andy]

Re "head nearly twice as big"



Umm not really. Let's say a head is 20 cm diameter (10cm radius) given a target area of 314cm2 say. Now a helmeted head is maybe another 4cm all round maybe 14x14x3.14 which is what - something like 600cm2.

It's an interesting consideration and I suppose it rather depends how you look at it really, certainly volume and surface area are pretty much twice the size helmeted, however are either volume or surface area the correct metric to use? After all the extra volume and surface area on the parts of the head away from the impact site arent particularly relevent are they? Wouldn't the radius be a better metric to use? In other words the distance the impact point is from the centre of the head. So assuming a 10cm head radius and 12 cm head radius, giving a 20% bigger metric.

Don't know what would be the correct way of looking at it but something to consider.

 

[Profpointy]

It's an interesting consideration and I suppose it rather depends how you look at it really, certainly volume and surface area are pretty much twice the size helmeted, however are either volume or surface area the correct metric to use? After all the extra volume and surface area on the parts of the head away from the impact site arent particularly relevent are they? Wouldn't the radius be a better metric to use? In other words the distance the impact point is from the centre of the head. So assuming a 10cm head radius and 12 cm head radius, giving a 20% bigger metric.

Don't know what would be the correct way of looking at it but something to consider.

I'm pretty confident that cross-sectional area is the right comparison, but can't necessarily prove it easily.
Normally "this sort of thing" is measured in "things per area", and I'd not have expected helmet hitting probabilities to be any different.
One caveat is I'm not sure if the centre is more or less likely to be hit that the periphery, nor have I taken account of on potential for twisting from a glancing blow

 

[Mugshot]

In fairness though, just because you should also wear helmets (or whatever measure it might be) for another similar activity is not an argument for not wearing them cycling.

Quite a solid case can probably be made for beer-drinking helmets, or car passenger helmets and even though no one ever will, that's not per se a reason to not wear one cycling.

It's still a valid risk comparison though and doesn'f half get zealots cross

I think you're making the same point I was, I wasn't suggesting to my friend that his son shouldn't wear a helmet when cycling as he doesn't when scootering, I was suggesting the opposite.

 

[Justinslow]

It is interesting though that, as soon as you mention helmets for groups other than cyclists, some are very keen to start subdividing those groups into higher and lower risk, something they don't seem to feel necessary for cyclists.

I think you're wrong, a lot of us do wear them for cycling activities which we think might be useful, whether they will do any good or not of course is debatable. I'm thinking activities such as mtb or club rides etc but not using one riding at 8 mph with the kids.

 

[Profpointy]

I think you're making the same point I was, I wasn't suggesting to my friend that his son shouldn't wear a helmet when cycling as he doesn't when scootering, I was suggesting the opposite.

I wasn't disagreeing, but musing on the more abstract argument "you wouldn't wear one in a car, so why wear one cycling" or whatever. Strictly speaking this isn't a reason to not wear one cycling.

 

[Justinslow]

Yet only cyclists and small children on scooters need protection?

No, you can wear one when walking if you want?

 

[Big Andy]

A half helmet would look more than twice as stupid as a whole helmet though.

Indeed, assuming of course you think cycle helmets look stupid.

 

[Profpointy]

No, you can wear one when walking if you want?

But only really makes sense for "high-risk walking" - going out drinking beer for instance, or more to the point returning home afterwards.

 

[Justinslow]

But only really makes sense for "high-risk walking" - going out drinking beer for instance, or more to the point returning home afterwards.

If you say so.

 

[Big Andy]

Yet only cyclists and small children on scooters need protection?

Not all of us who routinely wear helmets consider we need to wear them. I usually, but not always wear one, I only needed to wear one once so far, I am thankful that on that occasion I was wearing it though.

I honestly hope that no one ever needs to wear a helmet, however if they do need to wear one I hope they are.