The Great Helmet Debate

[KitsuneAndy]

I love this debate, I think it is probably the one issue where those in favour are pretty un-movable as are those against.

There was a tagline used by someone on the old C+ which went something like "No proof is enough for a non-believer, no proof is needed for a believer"

I feel proud that my initial thread remains live and bubbling

Oh and helmets are definitely a force for good in my opinion, but should not be made compulsory

I personally don't wear one at the moment.

But, I'll be very tempted to if our plans to start going on regular mtb run's takes off as I can see how they will definitely help if you take a tumble and smack your head off a tree etc.

I just dont bother on the roads as I don't see the point, the car's will win regardless

 

[alfablue]

I just dont bother on the roads as I don't see the point, the car's will win regardless

Fine, if the only "offs" you ever have involve other vehicles, but people do fall on the road all on their own, sometimes.

 

[Panter]

Some of the 'anti' arguments are based around the fact that it gives you a false sense of security. The sense of 'I'll be ok if I fall off/get hit by a car, I have a helmet' and detracts from the argument that being a better, more aware cyclist will protect you much more than a bit of polystyrene.

Hmmm. I'll continue to wear mine then.

I'm under no illusions about the consequence of getting hit by a car and fully expect to be squished, helmet or not.

As said above, I wear mine for when the back wheel kicks out and I fall and bang my noggin on the floor, or a similar scenario.

I must admit I'm quite surprised its such a controversial arguement in that case. Still, life wouldn't work if we were al the same, would it

Thanks for the reply

 

[Panter]

I find the most amazing thing about the "anti " arguments is they say the helmet can twist your head or otherwise effect the angle you land and cause more damage. Obviously this true, but the roads and most cars are relatively clean lined. When the discussion turns to mtbing, the vast majority of us wear helmets, I can't remember seeing anyone at Afan or up on the Mendips without one (obviously someone can prove me wrong, but look at the average commute and compare helmet use to an mtb ride), yet the chances of snagging ones helmet on an un-even obstacle are way way higher, indeed you don't even have to fall off to snag your helmet.

Oh well.

I'd have to agree with that.

I wouldn't dream of MTBing without mine, even though I doubt it would take a particularly violent rock/head interface, I'd far rather it was there.

As for snagging, I'll take my chances...........

 

[MartinC]

The debate is always polarised because a great number of people always start with the assumption that helmets protect your head. The sceptics don't. It's hard then to debate any of the issues because challenging this central assumption always seems to cause a lot of bad feeling.

 

[Panter]

Thats interesting.

I would've though that people would've accounted for differing degrees of protection in different scenarios.

Still, I'll say no more, I am but a newb and have no experience to fall back on (no pun intended) yet.

At least I now know the gist of the anti arguements and can make a better informed decision.

 

[ufkacbln]

THe snag point is a helmet design problem.

It refers to the sharp points and protrusions on a helmet that will cause the helmet to "snag".

Leaving aside the rotational aspect - there is some evidence they can render the helmet ineffective!


In an email Dr Hugh Hurt, (Professor Emeritus-USC President, Head Protection Research Laboratory) A testing laboratory in the US explains some ofthe concerns to the ASTM, one of the american standards agencies (certify helmets standards)

During the last couple of years, the technical staff at HPRL has encountered an interesting-and possibly dangerous-problem with the aerodynamic-shaped or streamlined bicycle helmets. These popular helmets have a teardrop design which tapers to a wedge at the rear of the helmet, supposedly reducing aerodynamic drag along with increased ventilation through the many openings in the shell.

The adverse effect of this aerodynamic shape is that the wedge at the back of the helmet tends to deflect and rotate the helmet on the head when impact occurs there. Any impact at the front or sides of the streamlined helmet is no different from other helmet shapes, but any impact on the rear wedge tends to rotate the helmet on the head, probably deflecting the helmet to expose the bare head to impact, and at worst ejecting the helmet completely from the head. Actually, everybody who has tested these streamlined helmets over the past years has encountered the problem of these helmets being displaced during impact testing at the rear wedge. Usually additional tape was required to maintain the helmet in place during rear impact tests; usually the basic retention system alone could not keep the helmet in place during impact testing on the rear of the helmet.

Unfortunately, the implication of helmet displacement and possible ejection in an actual accident impact did not register as a real hazard in previous years of testing, but now there are accident cases appearing that show this to be a genuine hazard for bicycle riders wearing these streamlined helmets. Accident impacts at the rear of these streamlined helmets can cause the helmet to rotate away and expose the head to injury, or eject the helmet completely. The forces generated from the wedge effect can stretch the chinstraps very easily, and even break the [occipital--Prof. Hurt used a trademarked name] retention devices.

We request that F08.53 committee study this problem and develop advisory information for both manufacturers of these streamlined helmets and consumer bicyclists who now own and wear such helmets. There is a definite hazard for displacement or ejection from impact on the rear wedge of these helmets, and bicyclists should be warned of this danger by an authority such as ASTM.

Edited - HPRL link added

 

[Crackle]

It's an interesting read this: I wear a helmet and have done ever since I came off on a roundabout and fractured my skull.

It's entirely debatable if a helmet would've saved me from the injury around my temple but I suffered from it enough to make me go out and look for one, long before most people wore them. Coming from a motorbike background I've never questioned their wearing too much. Though I have always regarded them as more of a device for saving me from myself than from others.

I too make my kids wear them and if my youngest had been wearing his on his scooter the other day it would've definetly saved him a nasty scalp wound which needed glueing.

The rotation and protuberance points have made me think I might go out and buy myself a new helmet, one with an Ansi standard which mine doesn't have and a more rounded shape, like the Bell I used to have.

 

[col]

THe snag point is a helmet design problem.

It refers to the sharp points and protrusions on a helmet that will cause the helmet to "snag".

Leaving aside the rotational aspect - there is some evidence they can render the helmet ineffective!


In an email Dr Hugh Hurt, (Professor Emeritus-USC President, Head Protection Research Laboratory) A testing laboratory in the US explains some ofthe concerns to the ASTM, one of the american standards agencies (certify helmets standards)




Edited - HPRL link added

This is why i suggested an mtb or skateboard type helmet,in a previous thread,Normal shape,no potruding parts,but is it a fashion thing,i mean how much difference does it really make at the speeds most of us travel?

 

[yenrod]

>The Great Helmet Debate

I like a good helmet debate most fridays and some nights in the week with the girlfriend...

 

[KitsuneAndy]

I'd have to agree with that.

I wouldn't dream of MTBing without mine, even though I doubt it would take a particularly violent rock/head interface, I'd far rather it was there.

As for snagging, I'll take my chances...........

I think both me and the missus will be investing in helmets soon as we are both taking quite a liking to a bit of off-roading Couple of near misses at Thetford this weekend on the muddier parts of the track, stayed on our wheels but I'm sure we'll take a spill occasionaly.

Shame we have to get the bloody train to thetford at the weekend to do it though!

 

[Radius]

Wore my helmet to cycle on the main roads to the park today, but took it off once in there and not in danger of any traffic. Might be strange but I felt completely in control and was not doing any high speeds. Even stranger, though, was how vulnerable I felt after I took the helmet off. Felt like something was missing. I think that says something about how wearing a helmet affects your attitude...and perhaps not in a good way.

 

[CotterPin]

Wore my helmet to cycle on the main roads to the park today, but took it off once in there and not in danger of any traffic. Might be strange but I felt completely in control and was not doing any high speeds. Even stranger, though, was how vulnerable I felt after I took the helmet off. Felt like something was missing. I think that says something about how wearing a helmet affects your attitude...and perhaps not in a good way.

This is interesting, Radius. I lead regular rides for new(ish) cyclists. We catch a train out from North London to the Hertfordshire countryside. I have noticed a number of cyclists who arrive at the station wearing their helmets. Once we get into the countryside the helmets disappear into panniers and the like until we return to London.

I have never really asked why they did this and always assumed it was because they thought the country lanes were surfaced with marsh mallows . Maybe, like you, they thought that because they were away from busy traffic they were at less risk.

Although your comment on vulnerability is also interesting as it sounds like it kind of conflicts with your other sense of control?

When I notice someone removing their helmet on my rides again, I will have a chat with them about their motivation.

 

[Radius]

Sorry didn't see that reply, and sorry for starting up this thread again (and it had to be this one of all threads )

I know that traffic isn't my only risk, but on a bright sunny day on smooth pathways not going terribly fast I am confident enough in my cycling to not feel the need to wear a helmet. Most of the time, I would wear it because of fears of others making a mistake, not me. I think i'd wear one on country roads though, windy (as in snake-y), and people drive fast down them...
I think the vulnerability may have been due to the fact that despite my efforts, the helmet did introduce an element of hubris with its protection, so I felt that disappear, which makes more sense: you notice something you're missing far more than when you've gained something (invisibly, that is)

 

[Chris James]

The debate is always polarised because a great number of people always start with the assumption that helmets protect your head. The sceptics don't. It's hard then to debate any of the issues because challenging this central assumption always seems to cause a lot of bad feeling.

I agree to an extent, however I think the bigggest disgreements occur because quite a few of the pro helmeteers move from this assumption to compulsion which is really an altogether different argument.