Helmets Save Your Bonce

[highlandsflyer]

Your insistent reference to your own intelligence speaks of an inferiority complex.

I haven't done so once - I've merely pointed out on a single occasion that I am obviously brighter than you. Which is like saying that I am dryer than water. I'll also claim now to be wittier than you, but that's no great claim either. In fact, you are one of the most tediously unimaginative people I have encountered on the Internet - your idea of taunting would be derided as pathetic by an average six year old. You reek of smallness, the pathetic desire to suck up to a bigger fish even in such a useless context as an Internet forum on old bicycles, and the soap that old Belgian men use to clean their feet.

Assuming you don't get out much.

Let's get back to the topic, anyway.

I have run out of troll food.

 

[Raging_Bulls]

I'm off for a day and this is what happens? Can't you children behave?

Let's get back to the topic, anyway.

Good idea.

If this topic gets personal again, I'll be forced to lock it. I should have done that already TBH.

 

[FairfaxPat]

In 1991, I was riding at Moab and my fork failed on a big drop, I did a faceplant onto the slickrock and wound up on my back, paralyzed-I could, however move my right foot, so I knew there was a connection there. Long story short, I amazed the doctors when I walked out of hospital after 18 days. My helmet at the time was an early foam and semi-hard shell and my doctor told me that it was the only thing that saved my forehead from caving in, although I lost some teeth and skin on my chin. Ever since, I've always worn a helmet, and I have crashed numerous times over the years since, hitting my helmeted head in some of those crashes and walking away every time. My helmet is fitted with a visor for eyeshade and I like that, too. Nowadays I wear elbow pads in the dirt, too-cheap insurance IMHO and so light I don't even notice them. Now if you reading this don't wear a helmet-that's fine with me, I can only control my own life...

 

[Chopper the ex Copper]

I just did. If you're not smart to understand that in making a claim that 90% of cyclists deaths - as the Bell sponsored researchers (so certainly lobbyists) did - is impossible unless you include either protection against lorries over the head, then it's not my problem.

And again, the 90% claim require not only that foam hats prevent heads fronm squashed by lorries, but also that they prevent the fatal torso injuries that kill 50% of cyclists. Which is actually much, much more stupid. !

I mean seriously: how can you NOT understand this? How can anyone sanely claim that a helmet can provide a 90% reduction in deaths, when 50% come from torso injuries? Do you understand the difference between the head and the torso? Should I use different words???

An interesting fact to kick off the weekend - research has shown that using capital letters to emphasise words actually makes it less likely that the reader will understand and recall the text.

No one is disputing that a big chunk of cycle deaths are caused by injuries to other parts of the body. We understand that, and the repeated entreaties in that direction are doubtless being noted and understood by readers, but aren't generating any comment or agreement because the topic is about cycle helmets, and riders traditionally tend not to wear such items on their torsos. It's an irrelevance to the matter at hand.

So I take it you won't be providing us with details of helmet manufacturers, their employees or lobbyists making claims that a cycle helmet will prevent death or serious injury if a lorry drives over the wearers cranium? This is a matter to which you alluded, and its clearly a ridiculous claim if its true and I am sure we would all like a grin reading it, so if you would please be so kind.

 

[GrahamJohnWallace]

In 1991, I was riding at Moab and my fork failed on a big drop, I did a faceplant onto the slickrock and wound up on my back, paralyzed-I could, however move my right foot, so I knew there was a connection there. Long story short, I amazed the doctors when I walked out of hospital after 18 days. My helmet at the time was an early foam and semi-hard shell and my doctor told me that it was the only thing that saved my forehead from caving in, although I lost some teeth and skin on my chin. Ever since, I've always worn a helmet, and I have crashed numerous times over the years since, hitting my helmeted head in some of those crashes and walking away every time. My helmet is fitted with a visor for eyeshade and I like that, too. Nowadays I wear elbow pads in the dirt, too-cheap insurance IMHO and so light I don't even notice them. Now if you reading this don't wear a helmet-that's fine with me, I can only control my own life...

The question in my head is not that I should be wearing a helmet when riding in traffic or when attempting big or even small drop offs. Where as long helmet gives some extra protection it is definitely worthwhile. But whether I need too be wearing one for a sedate ride through a forest or along a river, where in terms of improving my safety, wearing a life jacket might be more appropriate.

My bikes are well maintained and have effective brakes. And though I do occasionally fall off I have never banged my head. Maybe because I used to do Ju-Jitsu where you are trained to the point of it being automatic to protect your head in a fall. I do not enjoy wearing helmets because they too often make my head hot.I also find that the chin straps can be very itchy, and so would ride less if I always wore one. But should I wear one anyway as there is always a slight chance something unexpected going wrong? It would be nice to think that it would effectively protect me in the unlikely event of an accident, but having looked at the research relating to current helmet standards I am not convinced that it always would. Some research suggests that you can get more protection from rotational acceleration induced brain injury from wearing an ordinary hat. Which can apparently slide off the head and so stop the head from gripping the ground on impact. This can also reduce the chances of neck injury.

Paradoxically, if I do come to the conclusion that I should always wear a helmet for low risk riding then I also need to wear it when out walking or when riding in a motor vehicle. This is because the incidence of head injury, per hour traveled, amongst all cyclists and pedestrians is roughly the same. Whilst the comparative figure for car occupants is even higher.

 

[Chopper the ex Copper]

The big difference there Graham is survivability of head injuries for pedestrians, the structure of the human skull having evolved to protect the brain from forces to which a homo sapiens on foot is liable to subject it. Conversely, the bicycle introduces velocities, heights and forces to which the human body alone is unlikely to be able to replicate in normal daily activities.

The 'if wearing cycle helmets is a good idea, then surely helmets for pedestrians/bed/while shaving' is an oft touted diversion, is technically not directly relevant, and itself only distracts from the cycle helmet debate.

I would ask what is meant by 'low risk riding'? All riding is low risk until the rider falls off. We're confusing the statistical likelihood of of having an accident or incident, with the risk of injury if one should occur. The likelihood and risk are not interchangeable concepts - the likelihood of an accident on your tow path bimble may be low but the risk of injury if you should fall of is pretty much the same if you fell off at the same speed in your local trail (with the added risk of drowning if you fall the wrong way!)

 

[GrahamJohnWallace]

Here is a video showing a design of self-inflating helmet.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tn65Bows0Ws
The commentary uses the term " protecting the wearer", which implies that it will protect you entirely in all circumstances. However apart from being overwhelmed by high energy impacts. it also needs to deflate in order to absorb energy on impact, airbag style. This means that it is unlikely to be effective in accidents were the head is impacted more than once.

Here's an interesting take on the subject of accident black spot awareness.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/v ... host-bikes

 

[Chopper the ex Copper]

I don't see the same implications - I tend not to attribute meaning to words that have not been spoken.

 

[Woz]

I would ask what is meant by 'low risk riding'? All riding is low risk until the rider falls off. We're confusing the statistical likelihood of of having an accident or incident, with the risk of injury if one should occur. The likelihood and risk are not interchangeable concepts - the likelihood of an accident on your tow path bimble may be low but the risk of injury if you should fall of is pretty much the same if you fell off at the same speed in your local trail (with the added risk of drowning if you fall the wrong way!)

Sorry, the above does not make sense. Risk = Probability x Consequence

I see the Probability and Consequence will vary significantly between a 10 Mph tootle on a car free, straight, pot-hole free dry grass lane and a DH run in the Alps on a rock garden and riding on a busy A road in rush our traffic.

The consequence of head impact on jagged rocks or tarmac or through a vehicle windscreen is very realistically not going to be the same as a tumble on grass. It could of course, but I assume we can all agree the seriousness would vary.

The probability of such an event occurring will depend on matters within your control and out of your control. Riding alone for example on a 10 Mph tootle on a car free, straight, pot-hole free dry grass lane we can safely assume the probability of falling on your head will be less than say racing in a group of 250 other cyclists across the peak district on wet tarmac.

These individual thresholds of probability and consequence require a personal and constant evaluation. Does a farmer on a tractor or a milk-man in a delivery van always wear a seatbelt for example? It was mentioned by someone that having children made a new assessment to wear a helmet - clearly the consequence of a fatality as risen (ie caring for an off-spring) albeit the probability is likely to be constant or if anything reduced as a more moderate mode of cycling may come into play.

The effectiveness of a helmet (ie. which one to choose) to handle the foreseen consequence I believe is not adequately researched or tested - even empirical data doesn't seem to help making an informed decision; for example is it actually best to use a full visor motorbike helmet using the "what will do a lot will do a little" approach? Ever thought about horse
riding helmets - I wonder if there is a similar debate raging in that sphere of interest? Thankfully it's threads like these that help to educate and learn the ins-and-outs rather than believing what the Bell marketing men say and evaluating with a critical eye the result of their £1000s investment in lobbying and scare mongering to sell a product.

As for the OP, it's of course good the kid is fine and if there is a belief (medical or not, proven or not) that the helmet worked and is in someway justifiable then so be it.

 

[GrahamJohnWallace]

The big difference there Graham is survivability of head injuries for pedestrians, the structure of the human skull having evolved to protect the brain from forces to which a homo sapiens on foot is liable to subject it. Conversely, the bicycle introduces velocities, heights and forces to which the human body alone is unlikely to be able to replicate in normal daily activities.

The statistics I refer to are for the number of actual brain injury numbers per hour of travel and not bangs to the head or even concussion. That the figures are roughly the same to pedestrians and cyclists is probably down to the vast majority of injuries relate to impacts with motor vehicles and not just falling over.

I would ask what is meant by 'low risk riding'? All riding is low risk until the rider falls off. We're confusing the statistical likelihood of of having an accident or incident, with the risk of injury if one should occur. The likelihood and risk are not interchangeable concepts - the likelihood of an accident on your tow path bimble may be low but the risk of injury if you should fall of is pretty much the same if you fell off at the same speed in your local trail (with the added risk of drowning if you fall the wrong way!)

Low risk riding: Numerous studies show that virtually all cyclist deaths and the vast majority of debilitating brain injuries are caused by collisions with motor vehicles. Therefore off-road cycling in general is a much lower risk activity. And Choosing not take unnecessary risks when riding off road must further reduce the risk. Hard surfaces are also less common off-road so even in the event of a blow to the head it is likely to be less severe.

However, as wearing a helmet has been shown not to eliminate risk the only way to to be protected from head injury is not to ride at all.

I don't see the same implications - I tend not to attribute meaning to words that have not been spoken.

Protect Dictionary Definition: "To keep safe from harm and injury"

"The helmet inflates within a tenth of a second protecting the wearer before they hit the ground"

I suspect that in this controlled test the riders brain would have been protected. But the wider implication that this product keeps "safe from harm and injury" in all circumstances is misleading unless it actually does. "Protection" implies that the rider is actually kept safe from harm and injury not simply that the risk of injury will be reduced. But no helmet design can be rightly claim to protect as no armored vehicle design can claim to completely protect its occupants.

Implying that helmets protect people is surely the goal of makers and advertisers. But this commentary is vague and can be readily interpreted to relate to all accidents and not just this specific test.

Strangely, evidence that the increased use of helmets is protecting more riders from brain damage does not show up in real life accident statistics.