Would any cycle helmet have helped here?

[ufkacbln]

This is known as melonation

You bang your head against a wall and discover it hurts
You then repeat wearing a hard shelled fruit.. usually a Melon and it hurts less

This proves that wearing Melons is essential... you can even get full face ones

 

[doog]

Show us a decent study that states any significant advantage in exchange for paying crash helmet makers every three years, carrying it around and all that faff.

Yes, please, let's err on the side of caution, which means: no change and carry on riding like previous generations.

Im not moaning about paying helmet makers and carrying it around....seemingly you are...

 

[doog]

Anyway, "taken out by a car" is not a situation that cycle crash helmets are designed for

You simply cant comment on that..are you presuming the car is travelling at a certain speed because its a ...car ?

 

[ufkacbln]

I feel I am suffering from deja vu.

There are documented claims of people developing extra sensory skills following head injury

 

[ChrisV]

This is horrible. I'm going to wear two helmets, just to be safe.

 

[mjr]

You simply cant comment on that..are you presuming the car is travelling at a certain speed because its a ...car ?

No, I'm just going on statements from experts like this from Cycling Scotland: "A cycle helmet is intended to protect in a simple fall at low speed, not in a collision with a motor vehicle."

Can anyone show us a cycle helmet manual that says it is designed to cope with a collision with a motor vehicle? Most of them prefer statements like "Depending on the type of impact, even a low speed accident can result in a serious head injury or fatality. A helmet can only provide a level of protection for areas that it covers. It does not protect the neck." (taken from the Giro Indicator manual) or even "You can scramble an egg just by shaking it. You don’t have to break the shell to destroy the contents. Helmets cannot prevent this type of injury. " (Bell Helmet manual)

 

[User33236]

@mjray in the circumstances surrounding my incident the motor vehicle was exiting from a minor road to my left in order to turn right. In doing so it made contact with my lower left leg, and LHS of the bike, throwing me off in the process. The actions of the car did not obviously add or subtract from my speed of travel but simply removed me from the bike thus impacting the tarmac.

Please do not get preoccupied with incorrect assumptions of my posts. Helmets remain a contentious topic. I have made my choice, you and others have made theirs. I respect you're point of view and those of others. I remain happy with that fact.

 

[Milkfloat]

No, I'm just going on statements from experts like this from Cycling Scotland: "A cycle helmet is intended to protect in a simple fall at low speed, not in a collision with a motor vehicle."

I would much rather hit my head against a car at 15mph than against the road/curb at a the same speed and angle. Obviously I would rather avoid both types of collisions.

 

[doog]

No, I'm just going on statements from experts like this from Cycling Scotland: "A cycle helmet is intended to protect in a simple fall at low speed, not in a collision with a motor vehicle."

I thought this might turn into a google fest of one statement answers....Sigh....here's one from the Bicycle helmet research foundation...".Minor head injuries are usually as a result of linear acceleration of the skull by impact with another object. Cycle helmets may produce benefit by reducing and spreading this force."..it then goes onto to discuss rotational injuries etc.

However a motor vehicle is an object isnt it ? If you were to risk assess your commute for example, you'd probably put a motor vehicle as the number one hazard. On my commute I used to pass several hundred stationary or slow moving motor vehicles. Accident wise I'd wager the majority of accidents involving cyclists and motor vehicles probably mirror the scenario two posts above (motor vehicles pulling out in front of cyclists). These impacts happen at various speeds so to simply assume that a helmet isn't designed to offer protection in a collision with a motor vehicle is inaccurate.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

These impacts happen at various speeds so to simply assume that a helmet isn't designed to offer protection in a collision with a motor vehicle is inaccurate.

"Cycle helmets are primarily designed for falls without any other vehicle involved."
Brian Walker, Director, Head Protection Evaluations
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/papers/c2023.pdf


GC

 

[mjr]

Accident wise I'd wager the majority of accidents involving cyclists and motor vehicles probably mirror the scenario two posts above (motor vehicles pulling out in front of cyclists).

No, not even close (it's fifth in the last list I saw), plus that's a collision but I wouldn't call it an accident. It's mainly human error.

These impacts happen at various speeds so to simply assume that a helmet isn't designed to offer protection in a collision with a motor vehicle is inaccurate.

Not an assumption. There are several statements that they are designed for only some falls and that they are not designed for collisions with motor vehicles, but no similar credible claims that they are designed for such collisions. Unless you can find some?

 

[MichaelW2]

The kind of incident suffered by the OP, car impact to bike, not rider, and rider impact with ground at normal cycling speed, is the kind of situation where helmets may help. Unless they enhance rotational injury (by that sticky-outy rear projection), they would, in theory, crumple and absorb some of the impact, reducing peak impulse and spreading the force over time.
The effect of a well functioning helmet would be to reduce the severity of injury rather than eliminate , so
death-> serious, life-changing, head injury
serious, life-changing, head injury-> serious head injury
serious head injury -> minor head injury
minor head injury -> no injury.

personally, if I found myself flying through the air towards the curb, at 10-15mph, I would rather be wearing a helmet than not. At this point, all the various statistics are moot.

 

[mjr]

The kind of incident suffered by the OP, car impact to bike, not rider, and rider impact with ground at normal cycling speed, is the kind of situation where helmets may help.

The forehead is not covered completely by the most common crash helmets, so that seems unlikely.

The effect of a well functioning helmet would be to reduce the severity of injury rather than eliminate

In general, that's not supported by the evidence. They reduce the severity of linear impact, but that's not how all injuries occur.

personally, if I found myself flying through the air towards the curb, at 10-15mph, I would rather be wearing a helmet than not.

Once again, that's assuming that flying through the air is not made more probable by wearing a helmet.

At this point, all the various statistics are moot.

Just as well we've this place to moot it then! I'd say "you have your beliefs, I'll follow the numbers" except that each helmet-wearer erodes our strongest deterrent against helmet laws, so I beg you to evaluate the statistics and decide accordingly.

 

[Milkfloat]

I assume that post helmet wearers are well aware that a helmet does not provide an invincibility force field around them. A helmet is always going to be a compromise between a lot of factors including weight, durability, comfort, cost etc. It is simply not possible to design the perfect helmet. But to a lot of people they feel the benefits out weigh the negatives, that is fine by me.

 

[Milkfloat]

I doubt that the majority of helmet wearers think about it at all.

Actually - I think you are right. Despite MJ claiming that a fairy dies every time someone puts on a helmet1 I personally believe that a helmet does more good than harm. That does not mean I want pro-compulsion though.

1 - I am not sure this is a direct quote, it could be a wood pigeon.