Please wear a helmet on the mountains!

rubadub

Hermy wrote:

Do me a favour Membrane and put a bicycle helmet on your head and ram your head against the nearest concrete wall and then take the helmet off and ram your head against the same wall again and report your findings to the Boards.

You might be saying that in jest but it actually brings up a valid point. Ever see a kid get a new hurley helmet, shin guards, or "groin cup"? Some will stick it on, give their mate a hurl and ask them to give them a belt in the head/leg/crotch!

Similarly some people will feel they are more protected with helmets and do more dangerous manoeuvres on the road or MTB trail.

If you fall and hit your head of course you are likely to sustain less injury if wearing a helmet. I dont think anybody doubts that. But there are numerous reasons, theoretical and some data in proper studies to show why wearing a helmet might not reduce overall injuries. i.e. it can make you more susceptible to injury. So while you might sustain 20% less injury when falling with the helmet, figures might show that you are more likely to fall while wearing the helmet and therefore overall you could be better off without it.

I think it is follow the leader and the apparent logic. It was very rare to see people with helmets 20 years ago. If people start wearing them in cars will it suddenly be popular? A cycle style helmet is supposed to offer more protection in a car than on a bike (more than a seatbelt too), so why do no motorists wear them? they are not a different species so why are they so many cyclists who would not dream of cycling without a helmet, yet get in a car with only a seat belt for security.

Raam

rubadub wrote:

A cycle style helmet is supposed to offer more protection in a car than on a bike (more than a seatbelt too), so why do no motorists wear them? they are not a different species so why are they so many cyclists who would not dream of cycling without a helmet, yet get in a car with only a seat belt for security.

I would guess because a car has other safety features available which a bike does not: seat-belts, airbags, roll cage.

Cyclists don't have those luxuries, therefore many people take the only extra bit of precaution* that they can...i.e. wearing a helmet which _might_ save you. Just the same as the seatbelt, air bags, roll cage _might_ save you

* the first bit being that you try your best to avoid falling off in the first place

Membrane

King Raam wrote:

why do they make the roadie pros wear helmets in competitions?

I don't know the history of the mandatory helmet rule within UCI.

I suspect that it came about as a result of an accident with a rider receiving serious head injuries. The easy answer is "helmets must be made compulsary". Much in the same way that there is a call to employ more Gardai in response to an increase in crime. It is the easy answer that avoids having to deal with the complexities of the matter. Those who propose such simplistic measures are rewarded by the public, many of whom will only accept simplistic answers and will refuse to look at the complexities.

rubadub

King Raam wrote:

I would guess because a car has other safety features available which a bike does not: seat-belts, airbags, roll cage.

Cyclists don't have those luxuries, therefore many people take the only extra bit of precaution* that they can...i.e. wearing a helmet which _might_ save you. Just the same as the seatbelt, air bags, roll cage _might_ save you

* the first bit being that you try your best to avoid falling off in the first place

That is exactly one of the problems, perceived safety, and perceived dangers. I think it was in one of the many other threads but there was a link about wearing helmets in cars, saying that even with all the airbags/seatbelts/cages, that wearing the helmet would offer more protection to people in a car than on a bike. Dunno if this was a per mile safety statistic.

Some people put false hope in seatbelt security, just like some seem to in cycling helmets, with the way some ads are now young lads might think they are grand speeding as long as the belt is on.

People get overzealous about others who do not wear helmets for whatever reasons, some would say they are crazy not to wear them, yet if you look at some stats, people could just as easy say you are crazy to wear one, but you do not hear that. Many have sound educated reasoning in their choice not to wear and do not resort to blunt opinions on those that do.

I would wear one when I think it offers protection, I will not wear one when I think it will make me more prone to injury- for whatever reason.

Many of the reasons people do not wear them commuting do not apply when mountainbiking or in professional road racing.

Are there any people who do not wear a helmet commuting who do not think it is worthwhile on a MTB or professional road race?

cyclopath2001

King Raam wrote:

why do they make the roadie pros wear helmets in competitions?

1 - Pressure from insurers.

2 - In racing, the risk of minor collisions resulting in falls low speed is more than than normal & helmets are primarily designed to protect the rider in this kind of accident.

3- Sponsorship opportunities from the helmet manufacturers.

kincsem

I crashed last year. I went over the bars and landed on my helmet, splitting it. My reaction was not "I don't need a helmet, it didn't prevent a crash". My reaction was to buy a hew Giro Pneumo from Chainreaction that evening.

kincsem

Membrane,
That site links introduction of compulsory helmet laws with a decrease in the number of cyclists. That looks like a false assumption. I would think that an increase in affluence results in more people buying cars, and a consequent decrease in cycling. Also the increase in four-wheel vehicles dropping children off at schools has wiped out the traditional travel to school on a bicycle. Making helmets compulsory does not cause people to give up cycling.

Membrane

kincsem wrote:

Membrane,
That site links introduction of compulsory helmet laws with a decrease in the number of cyclists. That looks like a false assumption. I would think that an increase in affluence results in more people buying cars, and a consequent decrease in cycling. Also the increase in four-wheel vehicles dropping children off at schools has wiped out the traditional travel to school on a bicycle. Making helmets compulsory does not cause people to give up cycling.

Please provide a reference from the site.

For example the study about the Australian capital territory does not support that conclusion since the decrease was measured in subsequent years (1991 vs 1992) (http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html?1112), that makes it highly unlikely that the noted huge decrease in cycling was caused by things like affluence. You have to look at all the research before drawing conclusions.

sleepyholland

Membrane wrote:

Please provide a reference from the site.

You have to look at all the research before drawing conclusions.

I don't think that site contains all the research.

Civilian_Target

Kincsem: I think you're wrong on that one, compulsory cycle helmets is definitely a detriment to cycle. Most people don't wear a helmet when commuting, since I can't carry my violin and wear a helmet, there are days when I cycle without a helmet too. I still would rather cycle without a helmet than take the tube: I feel the benefits of cycling outweigh the minimal increase in risk of cycling without a helmet.

Don't get me wrong, I advocate the use of helmets, I've split one open too, but my experience has been that they are only a last line of defence from certain factors that are beyond your control. I think they're better protecting you in an accident that involves no vehicles (eg. sudden loss of traction while cornering).

rubadub

kincsem wrote:

I crashed last year. I went over the bars and landed on my helmet, splitting it. My reaction was not "I don't need a helmet, it didn't prevent a crash".

I dont think anybody was ever saying a helmet would prevent a crash. On the contrary, the non-helmet wearers who bothered to read through the studies might have made up their own minds that the helmet could mean they are more likely to be in a crash in the first place.

When I first heard of the studies it surprised me, but when you think about it logically for a while it does make sense that there are negative sides to wearing a helmet.

I have no helmet and was considering getting one until I read the studies and drew my own conclusions. If I had previously bought one and then I would probably still be wearng it!, my subconcious telling me I didnt waste my money. For that reason I think helmet wearers cannot give as impartial an opinion as a complete noncyclist could. Off the cuff most people would say wearing one is safer. It is not till studies show up strange but totally plausible findings, (like long haired girls being given more space by cars overtaking.

If I was offered a helmet free I would take it, but would not wear it commuting, would save it incase I went MTB'ing, where I feel the benefits outweigh any of the negatives.

That site links introduction of compulsory helmet laws with a decrease in the number of cyclists. That looks like a false assumption.

I didnt think it was an assumption, thought figures backed it. It makes perfect sense to me. If airbags were made compulsory on ALL cars, and old bangers had to be retrofitted then I would expect many people to just scrap them, the cost of the airbag might be more than the car. Same with bikes, the guy who spins down to the shop on a knackered bike will probably just walk instead for his exercise, rather than fork out for a helmet.

ednwireland

just one thing i have had 2 accidents on the road (that didnt just involve gravel rash) one with a helmet one without similar unexpected traction loss ended up hitting my head on the road with the helmet i ended up with a stiff neck and a crack half way up an old bell helmet ( i rode home). without helmet i ended up with a fractured eye socket 5 stitches above my eye and a stiff neck 6 hours in casualty and sinuses that still don't work properly when i get a cold 20 years later. so from those 2 personal incidents i don't get on my bikes without a helmet got a giro exodus don't even know its there.
my 2c

t5pwr

I have never had a crash without my helmet.
I have had some with and I could show you the helmets with the cracks and dents where I was glad I was wearing one. I cycled away without any stiffness or pain. I'm sure that without I would have had to have some stitches.

I will say though that when I have elbow and knee pads on with a helmet I will ride down the hills faster as they do give you some more confidence. Based on the grooves dug into those pads also I am very glad that I have them and I'm pretty sure that I will be wearing them in the future also

But each to their own...

rubadub

t5pwr wrote:

I will say though that when I have elbow and knee pads on with a helmet I will ride down the hills faster as they do give you some more confidence.

At last I hear of somebody who wears elbow and knee pads!! and admitting to the increased confidence effect it has.

Plenty of posters telling of their destroyed helmets and how they would never leave the house without one. But not one of the helmet wearers has said "after the crash I went out and got some body armour/knee pads".

I do wear protection on the bike, I would never wear shorts, and usually wear a long sleeve top. Next on my list is gloves, then it would be elbow guards, then knee guards, and then it would be a helmet. I have had a few tumbles and that is the order I personally would choose.

My best protection is common sense, people on threads here talk of the bike going from under them when turning, if I approach a tight bend I slow down accordingly, presuming I might come off, I am commuting not racing.

t5pwr wrote:

I have never had a crash without my helmet.

And over your entire life what % of your time in the saddle has been with a helmet?

Ghost Rider

They might if they kept their brain behind their kneecaps or elbows...;)

rubadub wrote:

Plenty of posters telling of their destroyed helmets and how they would never leave the house without one. But not one of the helmet wearers has said "after the crash I went out and got some body armour/knee pads".

Civilian_Target

rubadub wrote:

if I approach a tight bend I slow down accordingly, presuming I might come off, I am commuting not racing.

Woose

Raam

rubadub wrote:

I am commuting not racing.

come on now....be honest, it's a race

The_B_Man

im only new to cycling! havent had a bike since i was 12 or so! but got one on Friday (Gaint Rock).

I've started commuting the few miles to work and back. I usually take the back roads and residential routes to avoid the traffic, but still, I have no helmet. From reading this thread, it seems them Giros are highly recommended? They seem a bit too steep a price for me though, so is there any decent cheaper ones? like 30 quid?

As regards the debate thats going on here, speed seems to be the issue. As a commuter/non-racer, if i went over the handlebars, I wouldnt expect to crack my skull. However, if i was going a lot faster, and downhill then I would. So it really depends on personal preference, as well as where/how you cycle.

I can admit though, that if i did fall, i'd rather be wearing a helmet than not....hence my question above!

ThOnda

Membrane: It is only your choice and opinion. Have you been to Holand? Do you think that people don't cycle there anymore because they have to wear helmets? :-)
Personaly, having helmet, gloves and glasses is essential. Nothing of it makes me feel that I am better biker. Even knee pads don't make me be more stupid/aggresive/foolish. I feel safer and protected a littlebit.
I have had a lot of falls on my bikes and I am very pleased, that I needed helmet only once. And I thank to all my friends who explained me how good is helmet, that I had one. It was flat fall to the pavement, head first.
Helmets are designed to take main amout of energy by changing their inner structure. And it helps to deccelerate speed of your scull coming to the ground. And it reducess stress of your brain which is freely floating in your scull. Well, if you have a brain to protect. If not, don't wear a helmet. Even for commuting. I am so worried everytime I see cyclist without helmet on such narrow roads...

The_B_Man: Giro is good, but all producers (good producers) have products of very good quality. More important is how the helmet fits on your head. The best thing is to go to shop, choose design and colour and test all helmets within your criteria whoever is the producer.

cyclopath2001

ThOnda wrote:

Have you been to Holand? Do you think that people don't cycle there anymore because they have to wear helmets? :-)

Helmet wearing is not compulsory in Holland and few people wear them. The Dutch government rather sensibly, concentrates on preventing accidents.

ThOnda

I can't remember seeing somebody without helmet there. But it was long time ago - 11 months...

cyclopath2001

ThOnda wrote:

I can't remember seeing somebody without helmet there. But it was long time ago - 11 months...

It's been a while since I was there and then helmet wearing was quite uncommon.

I've looked at many articles about Holland to gauge the current situation and certainly up to 2006, it was remarked that very few ordinary cyclists wore helmets there. Mostly this was attributed to great cycling facilities, good drivers and cyclists.

The situation for sporting cyclists might be different.

Civilian_Target

The_B_Man wrote:

it seems them Giros are highly recommended? They seem a bit too steep a price for me though, so is there any decent cheaper ones? like 30 quid?

Specialized are very good for helmets. They're about the only people who consistently adhere to the snell standard, which is substantially more rigorous than others.

kincsem

Safe though cycling is, the best proven way to improve the safety of cycling further is through the encouragement of more people to cycle – risk decreases by a third as cycle use doubles.

Cycle helmet promotion and laws, on the other hand, discourage cycle use and thereby decrease safety.

These are quotes from cyclinghelmets.org.

I read the cyclehelmets.org thoroughly. The authors of the site make many claims, quoting numerous studies. I think the conclusions on cyclinghelmets.org are selective. In my opinion the link between increases/decreases in accidents/injuries and helmet wearing appears to ignore any other factors that may be involved.

cyclopath2001

Civilian_Target wrote:

Specialized are very good for helmets. They're about the only people who consistently adhere to the snell standard, which is substantially more rigorous than others.

What does it say on the manufacturer disclaimer label on the inside of a Specialized helmet?

Civilian_Target

cyclopath2001 wrote:

What does it say on the manufacturer disclaimer label on the inside of a Specialized helmet?

Ineffective if not worn on head?

Membrane

ThOnda wrote:

I can't remember seeing somebody without helmet there. But it was long time ago - 11 months...

You must have been to a different "Holland" than the country by that name that I lived in for 38 years. Helmet wearing is not compulsary, not even encouraged by the authorities, and quite uncommon.

randomname2005

Wearing of a helmet is ultimately a personal choice and has limited effictivness; if I get hit and run over by a truck I would need to be wearing one of these
to survive, http://www.missiontrojan.com/thesuit.html

However I wear a helmet because the accidents I have had have been at low speeds. I mainly commute in Dublin city, the cars are not moving too quickly, I wouldnt be going much faster than 20mph, and if I hit the ground, I would much prefer to have a helmet on than not.

The last accident I had was when I was going round a corner and hit some ice. I was never going to die because of it, but having the helmet saved me from having a bad headache or possible even concussion.

Wearing a helmet may or may not save my life in the future, but it is likely to reduce any head injuries.

oobydooby

cyclopath2001 wrote:

What does it say on the manufacturer disclaimer label on the inside of a Specialized helmet?

'This helmet is not intended for motor vehicle use.Read manual before using this helmet... This helmet can be pierced by sharp objects. This helmet can be seriously damaged by some common substances (eg bleach...) without causing visible damage. Apply only mild soap and water to clean helmet. Do no paint.. Do not store in direct sunlight. Made in China.'

Or the other warning:

'A bicycling helmet is for bicycling only!Always wear a helmet while bicycling. After receiving an impact, this helmet should be destroyed and replaced. For maximum protection this helmet should be of good fit and the buckles should be fastened securely under the jaw. When you get off your bicycle remove your helmet. Do not wear a helmet while climbing trees, in play areas.. or any time while not riding a bicycle... Failure to follow this warning could result in serious personal injury, death by strangulation, death.'


For my own 2c, I always wear the helmet when MTB, or racing. I used to resist wearing it commuting (99.5% of my cycles) but I've gotten into the habit now of wearing it. I'm not sure if I really believe that it's offering a whole lot of protection for likely city accidents, but I'll wear it anyway... kind of like a practicing skeptic. OP - I agree, at high speeds or off-road it's dangerous/irresponsible not to wear a helmet.

I now carry a little backpack (manbag?) all the time and put the helmet (and lights, high-viz etc) inside it when I'm parked. It's no hassle because it's my routine but I wouldn't want to see it made compulsary.

As for a helmet encouraging reckless cycling - ask the equivalent question: "If you, as a habitual helmet wearing cyclist were to set out without a helmet, would you be more cautious?"

rubadub

The_B_Man wrote:

As regards the debate thats going on here, speed seems to be the issue.

Partly the issue. You should have a good read of the various sites and make your own mind up. Many here seem to be completely oblivious as to the reasons as to why the wearing of a helmet could in theory put you at more risk, and some studies apparently show this, but it is for a variety of reasons that it could happen.

The_B_Man wrote:

I can admit though, that if i did fall, i'd rather be wearing a helmet than not

I dont think anybody doubts this. What people are saying is that the act of wearing a helmet could possibly increase you chances of being in an accident, therefore the increased risk of an accident might outweigh the protection it could afford you. e.g. say in a crash you would definitely be killed if you had a helmet, and it was 50/50 with the helment. Now if your potential for being in an accident increased more than 100% by wearing a helmet then you are better off without it.

The main reasons it might increase your potential for being in an accident is motorists, and the distraction it might cause you.

ThOnda wrote:

Membrane: It is only your choice and opinion. Have you been to Holand? .

I saw more people wearing helmets here than in holland.

ThOnda wrote:

Even knee pads don't make me be more stupid/aggresive/foolish.

If motorists see you with a helmet it can give them a notion that you are perfectly protected and when overtaking they can be more stupid/aggresive/foolish.

ThOnda wrote:

Well, if you have a brain to protect. If not, don't wear a helmet.

That is quite insulting, have you bothered to understand why some people choose not to wear a helmet, or do you just brand them all brainless idiots without a second thought.

ThOnda wrote:

Helmets are designed to take main amout of energy by changing their inner structure. And it helps to deccelerate speed of your scull coming to the ground.

oobydooby wrote:

After receiving an impact, this helmet should be destroyed and replaced.

Take note all people who think a cracked helmet would have resulted in a cracked skull. The skull is not "designed" to be destroyed after an impact, if it was like a helmet most people wouldnt make it to their teens.