Do you wear a helmet?

ThisRegard

Doctor Bob wrote: »

If she was wearing regular clothes, that's called Cycle Chic.

If she was wearing lycra, it's Euro.

I forgot about this thread

She was Cycle Chic so, should have took a pic and submitted it to the cycle chic site !

Is it wrong now that I want a new more stylish helmet ? Was out with a group the weekend and felt a bit of helmet envy, I mean what's a man come to when he covets someone elses helmet rather than do everything possible to avoid having to wear one

monkeypants

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Lots of parents insist on their children wearing helmets but never bother to check if they're the correct fit and properly strapped on.

+1

I see it quite regularly down my local park. Straps left open, helmet just balanced on head.

Moflojo

Story from today's Indo:

http://www.independent.ie/world-news/americas/british-adventurer-james-cracknell-hit-by-truck-in-arizona-2269117.html

The adventurer James Cracknell was rushed to hospital with head injuries after being knocked off his bicycle by a truck during an attempt to cross America.
The British Olympic rowing champion suffered a fractured skull, a gash to the back of his head and bruising to his brain after being hit him from behind on a quiet strip of road in Arizona.
His life was saved by his crash helmet, which took the full force of the impact.

TinyExplosions

Moflojo wrote: »

His life was saved by his crash helmet, which took the full force of the impact.

If it took the full force, how did he fracture his skull?

Lumen

TinyExplosions wrote: »

If it took the full force, how did he fracture his skull?

It gave some force back.

TinyExplosions

Lumen wrote: »

It gave some force back.

Use the force magic hat, use the force....

Moflojo

TinyExplosions wrote: »

If it took the full force, how did he fracture his skull?

You're going to get into semantics over an article from the Irish Independent?

Good luck with that.

Bluefoam

Helmet 1
Articulated lorry 0

TinyExplosions

Moflojo wrote: »

You're going to get into semantics over an article from the Irish Independent?

Good luck with that.

No, because it would take to long to list out all the errors that appear in a single issue of that rag... just pointing out the obvious error in that one quote

Moflojo

TinyExplosions wrote: »

just pointing out the obvious error

Much obliged.

TinyExplosions

Moflojo wrote: »

Much obliged.

Any time -it's what the internets are for

tomasrojo

The Irish Independent has a very unusual habit of calling bicycle helmets "crash helmets". I think it's the third time I've seen them do it.

There was a similar case in New Zealand lately where a boy was struck by a car travelling at 70km/h. Every news report stated that the helmet saved his life, implying that about 5cm of expanded polystyrene dissipated the kinetic energy of a 1500kg car travelling at 70km/h.

This is pure magic thinking. Helmets are not designed to disspiate that sort of energy. 5kg travelling at about 20km/h is more like it.

In other words a device designed to dissipate about 80 Joules of energy managed to dissipate 280000 Joules.

I don't think so.

petethedrummer

tomasrojo wrote: »

In other words a device designed to dissipate about 80 Joules of energy managed to dissipate 280000 Joules.

Its amazing isn't it. I'd say it may have got a little help from his guardian angel too.

Moflojo

tomasrojo wrote: »

The Irish Independent has a very unusual habit of calling bicycle helmets "crash helmets". I think it's the third time I've seen them do it.

There was a similar case in New Zealand lately where a boy was struck by a car travelling at 70km/h. Every news report stated that the helmet saved his life, implying that about 5cm of expanded polystyrene dissipated the kinetic energy of a 1500kg car travelling at 70km/h.

This is pure magic thinking. Helmets are not designed to disspiate that sort of energy. 5kg travelling at about 20km/h is more like it.

In other words a device designed to dissipate about 80 Joules of energy managed to dissipate 280000 Joules.

I don't think so.

Magic thinking? How about your own magic interpretation of science?

What were the exact circumstances of the NZ accident that you reference?
Did all 1500kgs of that car impact on the boy's head?
How many joules are required to crack a skull or cause brain injuries?

I have no problem with people who don't wear helmets, but I really don't understand the people that respond to stories of helmets playing a significant role in protecting someone's life with utter incredulity and denial.

TinyExplosions

Moflojo wrote: »

I have no problem with people who don't wear helmets, but I really don't understand the people that respond to stories of helmets playing a significant role in protecting someone's life with utter incredulity and denial.

It's because of the vague and wild assumptions that are made in the stories. Every time a cyclist accident is reported in the press, if there was no fatality and they were wearing a helmet "the helmet saved their life". All some people on here think (myself included) is that this is generally not the case, or at the very least is next to impossible to tell with accuracy, and so is essentially scaremongering on behalf of the press.

If you want to wear a helmet, fine, just don't go harping on about how it saved your life in the event of a crash without having some actual evidence to prove it

tunney

TinyExplosions wrote: »

It's because of the vague and wild assumptions that are made in the stories. Every time a cyclist accident is reported in the press, if there was no fatality and they were wearing a helmet "the helmet saved their life". All some people on here think (myself included) is that this is generally not the case, or at the very least is next to impossible to tell with accuracy, and so is essentially scaremongering on behalf of the press.

If you want to wear a helmet, fine, just don't go harping on about how it saved your life in the event of a crash without having some actual evidence to prove it

I have a helmet, the left hand side is flatten and smashed completely. I sustained head injuries but dread to think the extent they would have been without the helmet.

Would you like me to post the helmet to you for inspection?

TinyExplosions

tunney wrote: »

I have a helmet, the left hand side is flatten and smashed completely. I sustained head injuries but dread to think the extent they would have been without the helmet.

Would you like me to post the helmet to you for inspection?

Not in the slightest, I have no doubt that the helmet contributed to your wellbeing, I just find it hard to believe in all cases that it saved someones life

Moflojo

TinyExplosions wrote: »

If you want to wear a helmet, fine, just don't go harping on about how it saved your life in the event of a crash without having some actual evidence to prove it

So there's a whole squadron of hyperbole police monitoring Boards then?

Going back to the Indo story: If the guy had a gashed head, fractured skull and bruising to the brain while wearing a helmet, is it really too much of a stretch for the anti-hyperbole brigade to believe that without the petty 5cm of expanded polystyrene he would have been killed?

tunney

TinyExplosions wrote: »

Not in the slightest, I have no doubt that the helmet contributed to your wellbeing, I just find it hard to believe in all cases that it saved someones life

I've crashed many many times.
I've yet to have an injury caused by wearing a helmet.

1-0 as far as I am concerned.

TinyExplosions

tunney wrote: »

I've crashed many many times.
I've yet to have an injury caused by wearing a helmet.

1-0 as far as I am concerned.

only 1-0... so the many-1 times were draws

tunney

TinyExplosions wrote: »

only 1-0... so the many-1 times were draws

No - I just don't have anything solid to suggest that the helmet saved me from serious injury in the other crashes.

TinyExplosions

Moflojo wrote: »

So there's a whole squadron of hyperbole police monitoring Boards then?

Going back to the Indo story: If the guy had a gashed head, fractured skull and bruising to the brain while wearing a helmet, is it really too much of a stretch for the anti-hyperbole brigade to believe that without the petty 5cm of expanded polystyrene he would have been killed?

I don't think I'm a squadron, there's only one of me.

I think that it yes, it potentially could be a stretch. As you posted above, you don't know all the details of said accident, so you can't say for sure what the injuries would be with or without a helmet. The chances are that the forces in play were far beyond the rating for any bike helmet

TinyExplosions

tunney wrote: »

No - I just don't have anything solid to suggest that the helmet saved me from serious injury in the other crashes.

And that's the point I'm making... you are sensible in the drawing of your conclusions, the media tend not to be!

kylith

My helmet was nicked a while back, and I've not gotten round to buying a new one, mostly because I've been wearing a cap and love the big peak because it keeps the sun/rain out of my eyes.

Can anyone recommend a helmet, not too expensive, with a decent peak that could do the same job? I've seen some, but the peak must only be a couple of inches, which is nowhere near enough.

Stark

Surely a helmet with such a peak would impede your view of the road ahead?

blorg

kylith wrote: »

My helmet was nicked a while back, and I've not gotten round to buying a new one, mostly because I've been wearing a cap and love the big peak because it keeps the sun/rain out of my eyes.

Can anyone recommend a helmet, not too expensive, with a decent peak that could do the same job? I've seen some, but the peak must only be a couple of inches, which is nowhere near enough.

Many cyclists, roadies in particular, just wear a cycling cap under the helmet. Mind you cycling caps don't have a particularly big peak.



MTB helmets often come with peaks but again not as long as you seem to think you need.

kylith

Stark wrote: »

Surely a helmet with such a peak would impede your view of the road ahead?

No more than a baseball cap impedes your view of the footpath.

blorg wrote: »

Many cyclists, roadies in particular, just wear a cycling cap under the helmet. Mind you cycling caps don't have a particularly big peak.

MTB helmets often come with peaks but again not as long as you seem to think you need.

Cos I'm a glasses wearer anything I can do to keep rain off my specs is a good thing. I'll try my usual cap under a helmet so.

Cheers for the advice.

Stark

kylith wrote: »

No more than a baseball cap impedes your view of the footpath.

Well you wouldn't walk at 30km/hr+ along a footpath with your back and neck angled forward. I see your point about it being preferable to rain on your glasses though.

tomasrojo

I'm going to regret this, but my scientific credentials have been called into question!

Moflojo wrote: »

What were the exact circumstances of the NZ accident that you reference?
Did all 1500kgs of that car impact on the boy's head?

The story I read about the New Zealand incident was unclear about the nature of the collision.

If it were a head-on collision, then the boy would have energy of about 280000 Joules transferred to him. A Formula One helmet wouldn't be able to dissipate that amount of energy.

I think it helps to visualise the disparity if you think of Joules as seconds; a bicycle helmet is designed for 80 seconds, and the kinetic energy of the car was over three days.

If it were a glancing blow, then his chances of survival would be many, many times higher, since only a portion of the total energy would be imparted to the boy. I can only assume it was a glancing blow. So the helmet may well have helped, but it didn't absorb the full impact of the car, which was the implication in the story.

Moflojo wrote: »

I have no problem with people who don't wear helmets, but I really don't understand the people that respond to stories of helmets playing a significant role in protecting someone's life with utter incredulity and denial.

To clarify, I'm not claiming the helmet didn't help in either of these two cases, because I can't possibly know that. I make no such claim, and do not take issue particularly with the idea.

I am taking issue with statements such as the Independent makes (unlike the New Zealand story, it isn't even an implication, but a bald statement):

His life was saved by his crash helmet, which took the full force of the impact.

Given that he was struck by a truck, the kinetic energy in that case would be enormous. It can only be assumed, again, that it was a glancing blow. A head-on collision would not be survivable. If you assume the truck weighed about (for the sake of argument) 10000kg and was travelling at a modest enough velocity of 50km/h that's about one million Joules, again versus a potential dissipation of 80 Joules (or, using the comparison using seconds, 11 days versus 80 seconds).


The Independent then goes on to make another bizarre claim:

The British Olympic cyclist Steve Redgrave had a similar accident last month [...] The 48-year-old, who won a record five gold medals in rowing, was thrown to the ground by a blow-out puncture in Maryland and suffered broken ribs and a shattered cheek bone.

How is falling off your bike similar to being struck by a truck? How are superficial albeit very painful injuries similar to bruising of the brain?

I am perhaps holding the Independent to too high a standard.

tomasrojo

Hmm. I checked the standard test for a bicycle helmet, which is putting a 5kg head-shaped object inside a helmet and letting it fall 1.5-2.0m onto a flat anvil.

Assuming a height of 2.0m, that means helmets are certified in scenarios where they are exposed to kinetic energies of about 100 Joules, rather than 80. Much the same, given the disparities mentioned above.

Moflojo

@tomasrojo

I've no idea what your scientific credentials are so I'll make no assumptions there.

Your main problem, along with others such as blorg and tinyexplosions, seems to be with the flagrant abuse of the expression 'the helmet saved my life'. Your reason for this appears to be a belief that this is some manner of scare-mongering. I disagree with you on that, but that's just an opinion so I won't waste my time arguing about it.

However, your attempt to scientifically explain how the helmet could not possibly have saved the NZ boy's life is, unfortunately, weakened by your own use of hyperbole; your comparison of the entire potential force produced by the car versus the force that the helmet is designed to dissipate is inaccurate as it is improbable, if not impossible, for all that force to be exerted directly on the helmet due to the disparity in size of the two objects in question. Also, you seem to discount the possibility that both objects were moving in the same direction, although at different speeds, something that would further reduce the force exerted on the helmet. Furthermore, depending on which part of the car hit the boy/helmet, the material of the car could further dissipate the force, through a windscreen shattering or bodywork crumpling.

So do some kind of CSI montage and get back to as quickly as possible.

Stark

Moflojo wrote: »

However, your attempt to scientifically explain how the helmet could not possibly have saved the NZ boy's life is, unfortunately, weakened by your own use of hyperbole; your comparison of the entire potential force produced by the car versus the force that the helmet is designed to dissipate is inaccurate as it is improbable, if not impossible, for all that force to be exerted directly on the helmet due to the disparity in size of the two objects in question. Also, you seem to discount the possibility that both objects were moving in the same direction, although at different speeds, something that would further reduce the force exerted on the helmet. Furthermore, depending on which part of the car hit the boy/helmet, the material of the car could further dissipate the force, through a windscreen shattering or bodywork crumpling.

So do some kind of CSI montage and get back to as quickly as possible.

Which was the point he was making I thought. That there's no way the helmet took the entire force of the collision as the Independent claimed, that other factors had to come into play like say the bodywork crumpling that you mentioned.

Moflojo

Stark wrote: »

Which was the point he was making I thought. That there's no way the helmet took the entire force of the collision as the Independent claimed, that other factors had to come into play like say the bodywork crumpling that you mentioned.

Oh right so Ted...

TinyExplosions

Moflojo wrote: »

Your main problem, along with others such as blorg and tinyexplosions, seems to be with the flagrant abuse of the expression 'the helmet saved my life'. Your reason for this appears to be a belief that this is some manner of scare-mongering. I disagree with you on that, but that's just an opinion so I won't waste my time arguing about it.

It's not necessarily that it's scare mongering, but I guess it's perpetuating the myth. Yes, helmets can save your life in certain situations. Are they a good idea? On the balance of probability in certain circumstances, Yes. Are they the be all and end all of protection? No. Should I be ridiculed, chastised, or in any other way treated differently/lectured for choosing not to wear one? No.

It's blanket statements of helmets saving lives that are always raised in any of these debates, and that's what's tiresome. It's impossible, by and large, to have a rational discussion about the issue, and that's a problem

blorg

Moflojo wrote: »

Your main problem, along with others such as blorg and tinyexplosions, seems to be with the flagrant abuse of the expression 'the helmet saved my life'. Your reason for this appears to be a belief that this is some manner of scare-mongering. I disagree with you on that, but that's just an opinion so I won't waste my time arguing about it.

Yes, it is that phrase, the belief that the things provide much more protection than they actually do. There is a consequent emphasis put on helmets above more important safety measures and people who don't wear one are branded as lunatics. I don't think people use it as hyperbole, they genuinely believe it. Especially the general public.

I don't disagree at all that a helmet can improve your chances somewhat in an accident, that is after all why I wear one myself.

scottreynolds

blorg wrote: »

I don't disagree at all that a helmet can improve your chances somewhat in an accident, that is after all why I wear one myself.

...and because you fall often....

Idleater

TinyExplosions wrote: »

It's blanket statements of helmets saving lives that are always raised in any of these debates, and that's what's tiresome. It's impossible, by and large, to have a rational discussion about the issue, and that's a problem

Since it is the media we are talking about here, and not the helmet old good bad debate, surely the old adage that is generally applied to the media of "Why let the truth get in the way of a good story" applies?

TinyExplosions

nereid wrote: »

Since it is the media we are talking about here, and not the helmet old good bad debate, surely the old adage that is generally applied to the media of "Why let the truth get in the way of a good story" applies?

It's not just the media though, it's society in general (woo! sweeping generalization for a Friday!) that his this misguided view that in any accident involving a cyclist wearing a helmet, that the helmet saved their life

Idleater

TinyExplosions wrote: »

It's not just the media though, it's society in general (woo! sweeping generalization for a Friday!) that his this misguided view that in any accident involving a cyclist wearing a helmet, that the helmet saved their life

I agree with you completely. I only mentioned it relevant to the media report in the indo, but yes, in relation to the society in general as with driving, and a lot of other things, a lot of people need to do a lot of copping on to themselves rather than blaming others.

I think it is the LCD factor in a lot of things - the easiest thing to say is "sure isn't it marvellous he was wearing a helmet/seatbelt/wasn't talking on the phone/speeding/[insert random excuse]" when the result is good, but the immediate opposite is rolled out when the outcome is bad.

The latter results in these pointless helmet/speeding/headphones/mobile phones/loud music/blah debates where no one wins because the LCD on both sides do not wish to concede on anything to the other, mainly because it may show up a weakness in themselves that they do not wish to admit.

Now, _that's_ some sweeping statements...

So since it's friday (and I have been patient) I'm off to browse the Planet-X site to see if any white frames are back in stock...

TinyExplosions

nereid wrote: »

So since it's friday (and I have been patient) I'm off to browse the Planet-X site to see if any white frames are back in stock...

Get a pink one -they're much nicer!

rjr2

thought this was an interesting article in todays Australian news, Melbourne bikes scheme not taking off due to mandatory helmet safety law

http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/australian-news/7640526/cyclists-fined-during-anti-helmet-protest/

Lumen

rjr2 wrote: »

thought this was an interesting article in todays Australian news, Melbourne bikes scheme not taking off due to mandatory helmet safety law

http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/australian-news/7640526/cyclists-fined-during-anti-helmet-protest/

Captain Havoc

There is already a thread on helmets on the first page, please use that one.