Who wears a helmet?

[Drago]

That's the point. It may well be 'bollocks' as you so indelicately our it, but it is not automatically so.

Time and area also factor nicely into my scenario. If the time, impact area and energy are all within a certain parameter it is perfectly possible that he cracking may be the last hurrah of the final joules of energy. Conversely, it could be the first damage done by a very severe high energy impact of considerable duration.

As aforementioned my myself, people report cracked helmets yet also being unharmed. You can not simply ignore this scenario because it doesn't suit you.

 

[martint235]

But drago, people (me) also report relatively high speed impacts without a helmet but resulting in no skull damage. Based on this, where is the evidence base that a helmet performs any useful function.

 

[Drago]

I'm not convinced they do consistentlpy perform a useful function, as I explained in an earlier post.

I was merely challenging the premise that a cracked helmet automatically meant it had failed to performs. It is possible to be so rabid in ones defence of a position that they totally undermine themselves, as have some on both sides of the debate here. I'm quite rare on that I sit in the middle (perhaps, if I'm honest, a little towards the 'don't work' end of the spectrum) and being in the middle can see how hysterical some of the contentions and claims have become.

Little Yellow Bromptoms most recent post illustrates it nicely. They mention te Bell engineer that has never seen a child's helmet with compressed foam. Well, I've seen plenty of adult helmets with compressed foam so that's perhaps an argument that children's helmets should utilise a different material to adult ones, not that foam is incapable of absorbing energy by means of compression. I've never seen a polar bear, but that does not mean they don't exist (or does it...?!)

 

[Licramite]

But drago, people (me) also report relatively high speed impacts without a helmet but resulting in no skull damage. Based on this, where is the evidence base that a helmet performs any useful function.

- maybe you have a particulary thick skull (head) -

I would say you were lucky, if you had impacted the roof frame not the glass - you would have had a very different experience.

accidents are funny things, two people can hit thier heads in exactly the same way, one walks away , the other doesn't. - you can only hope the helmet tips the balance of luck more in your favour.
- 'so the question is , do you feel lucky , punk' -

overall statistics are inconclusive - because theres to many variables - individual cases come down to luck - overall I think most people who have had a head/ground incident , the helmet has at least saved then alot of cuts and bruises - and after all its only a peice of foam what more can you expect - it's not designed to stop a bullet is it.

Ok so who can put the rest of the quote in?

 

[martint235]

- maybe you have a particulary thick skull (head) -

I would say you were lucky, if you had impacted the roof frame not the glass - you would have had a very different experience.

accidents are funny things, two people can hit thier heads in exactly the same way, one walks away , the other doesn't. - you can only hope the helmet tips the balance of luck more in your favour.
- 'so the question is , do you feel lucky , punk' -

overall statistics are inconclusive - because theres to many variables - individual cases come down to luck - overall I think most people who have had a head/ground incident , the helmet has a least saved then alot of cuts and bruises - and after all its only a peice of foam what more can you expect - it's not designed to stop a bullet is it.

Ok so who can put the rest of the quote in?

I didn't impact a car at all. I hit the rear of a dumper truck at around 25mph. As you say a helmet is designed for low impact like hitting your head on the floor. In fact this document confirms that helmets are designed for impacts where no third party is involved.

A couple of quotes from it
"The tests that cycle helmets currently go through mean that they should offer similar protection to a pedestrian who trips and falls to the ground."
"In many legal cases I have studied where a cyclist was in collision with a motorised vehicle, the impact energy potentials were of a level that outstripped those that we use to certify Grand Prix motor racing helmets."

I don't offer this as proof that cycle helmets are useless just that there is some information to suggest that they are of less use than some people make out.

 

[Licramite]

good artcle on helmets,

my only other comment is - should have gone to specsavers - A dumper truck !

 

[martint235]

good artcle on helmets,

my only other comment is - should have gone to specsavers - A dumper truck !

Yeah they do tend to be fairly noticeable!! All I can say is that they have exceptionally good brakes.

 

[ianrauk]

good artcle on helmets,

my only other comment is - should have gone to specsavers - A dumper truck !

In Martins case I would expect the dumper truck to have come off worse.

 

[mattsr]

But drago, people (me) also report relatively high speed impacts without a helmet but resulting in no skull damage. Based on this, where is the evidence base that a helmet performs any useful function.

Not cycling, but relevant none the less:-

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1886115,00.html

 

[mattsr]

Yesterday when I suggested that, as someone who doesn't want to take a chance of damaging your brane, you should wear a helmet all the time, you dismissed that a silly.

Well I took you to mean I should wear a helmet when I was walking to the Co-Op, or mowing the lawn. Skiing is another matter. Just like cycling.

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

In what way?

In the way that, some other people wear helmets, there are helmets marketed for sking ( and they wouldn't sell them if they didn't work would they?) and it's" just common sense" innit?

 

[srw]

Well I took you to mean I should wear a helmet when I was walking to the Co-Op, or mowing the lawn. Skiing is another matter. Just like cycling.

Perhaps you should think about it:

Risk in past 30 days

Researchers polled 5,238 subjects by telephone, simply asking if they'd done any of a predetermined set of activities in the past 30 days. Those who answered "yes" for a given activity were asked further questions about it, including whether they were injured "severely enough that you went for medical care or missed one-half day or more of work, housework, or school." Percentage injured results were: (Powell, 1998)
Aerobics 1.4%
Gardening 1.6%
Walking for exercise 1.4%
Weightlifting 2.4%
Cycling 0.9%
The relative risk between gardening and cycling has been examined in another study. 1,337 people were surveyed for a report on sport and recreation injuries. One in six respondents had required medical treatment in this period, with 5% of gardeners having suffered injury warranting attention compared with 3.9% of cyclists. (CenQueensUniv, 2003)

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1026.html

More gardeners and walkers report serious injuries than do cyclists.

 

[MontyVeda]

the only place i feel i should really wear a helmet is in my kitchen... i'm forever leaving the doors of my wall units open, then getting something from the base unit, stand up and crack my skull on the aforementioned door.

even the most avid helmeted cyclist would think me odd if i donned a helmet before making my dinner.

 

[Davidc]

No new arguments or information then, it's all stuff we've had in previous threads.

Why is it that the helmet wearing fans here so often try to tell non-wearers they should wear one, but I can't recall ever seeing a non-wearer suggesting that wearers should take theirs off?

Same out on the bike. If I'm not wearing a helmet I get told by the evangelists of helmet wearing that I should wear one (not always politely)*. I've never told anyone they should take theirs off, neither have I ever heard of any other non-wearer doing so.

My take on helmets is that their only useful purpose is keeping my head warm in cold weather. All evidence (as opposed to anecdote) is that overall they have no safety benefit or disbenefit.

*My responses to the impolite aren't always pleasant either!

 

[mattsr]

No new arguments or information then, it's all stuff we've had in previous threads.

Why is it that the helmet wearing fans here so often try to tell non-wearers they should wear one, but I can't recall ever seeing a non-wearer suggesting that wearers should take theirs off?

Same out on the bike. If I'm not wearing a helmet I get told by the evangelists of helmet wearing that I should wear one (not always politely)*. I've never told anyone they should take theirs off, neither have I ever heard of any other non-wearer doing so.

My take on helmets is that their only useful purpose is keeping my head warm in cold weather. All evidence (as opposed to anecdote) is that overall they have no safety benefit or disbenefit.

*My responses to the impolite aren't always pleasant either!

Anecdote- or personal experience, which you choose to dismiss because it doesn't suit your point of view?

By the way, I would never dream of telling a helmetless cyclist to wear one- if they want to take that risk, it's up to them. It will be their funeral, not mine.