Helmet just saved life...

ck101

After a hard spin this evening in North County Dublin, 9.00pm & I was coming back into Swords on the Ashbourne Road when a momentary lapse of concentration at only 15mph (reaching down to insert bottle) sent me into the kerb. A dramatic effort to retrieve the situation and a blow out sent me down on my right side, head & hip smashing off the ground.

The head impact was significant my 3 month old Spuik Nexion took the impact breaking all the way through.

Right now I've got that shook up whiplash feeling and a mild headache. Also nursing the ego over the fact my mistske has set me back a new tyre, helmet and left some bad scrapes on the new bike.

Thank god for the helmet without which I would be without doubt be sitting on a chair in Beaumount waiting on a scan with a head injury.

On thing that amazed me was many motorists and a lady walking a dog passed by and failed to stop to help.

MarkR

Perhaps you should get checked out after that. Hard enough to break a helmet sounds nasty.

Mint Sauce

Glad to see you here to post that.

Take it easy my friend.

dited

MarkR wrote: »

Perhaps you should get checked out after that. Hard enough to break a helmet sounds nasty.

+1
Definitely worth getting that looked at asap - on the bright side, if you leave now you might beat the Friday night rush

Lumen

Head injuries are bad. At the very least don't be on your own.

Beasty

Seriously OP, get yourself checked out. I had a bad injury (3 years ago tomorrow actually). At the scene I apparently appeared very lucid, gave details of the accident, provided full details of my next of kin (who were away on holiday at the time), but to this day I cannot remember any of that. I'm just going on what I was told after the event. My first memory is coming out of the scanner at Beaumont Hospital about 2 hours later

daenerysstormborn3

Not meaning to frighten you but head injuries are one of those things that might not pop up until hours later. You should try get yourself to a doctor or the hospital just to be sure.

ford2600

Had concussion on 3 occasions, playing football, no joke get checked to be sure.
Get someone to stay with with you, watch for vomitting, blurred vision and nausea. Also get someone to wake you in middle of night.
That's what they told me in A & E, as far as I remember....;)

ck101 wrote: »

After a hard spin this evening in North County Dublin, 9.00pm & I was coming back into Swords on the Ashbourne Road when a momentary lapse of concentration at only 15mph (reaching down to insert bottle) sent me into the kerb. A dramatic effort to retrieve the situation and a blow out sent me down on my right side, head & hip smashing off the ground.

The head impact was significant my 3 month old Spuik Nexion took the impact breaking all the way through.

Right now I've got that shook up whiplash feeling and a mild headache. Also nursing the ego over the fact my mistske has set me back a new tyre, helmet and left some bad scrapes on the new bike.

Thank god for the helmet without which I would be without doubt be sitting on a chair in Beaumount waiting on a scan with a head injury.

On thing that amazed me was many motorists and a lady walking a dog passed by and failed to stop to help.

ck101

Yikes, I knew this would be the reaction, consulting with the missus now re next steps. The kind Taxi driver (& allowed bike on back seat in new car) who took me home gave me the same talk.

I'll keep you posted.

ck101

Right, after reviewing the list of possible symptoms on the American Brain Injury site (none of which I have, other than a mild headache which could be related to the state I generally get myself into after a long ride, they say severe headache) on the Web we have decided to self diagnose and keep an eye on things.

Fingers crossed and all that. Thanks for the advice all, hope you are wrong.

el Bastardo

Thankfully I'm a lefty and anytime that's happened to me, I've really only suffered a beaten elbow (It's always the right arm, which I don't really 'need' anyway! )

Best of luck though, in saying that!

Mycroft H

ck101 wrote: »

Right now I've got that shook up whiplash feeling and a mild headache. Also nursing the ego over the fact my mistske has set me back a new tyre, helmet and left some bad scrapes on the new bike.

Off to your GP tomorrow morning, don't mess about with head injuries. If and ambulance had arrived they probably would have bundled you with a head collar and off on a spinal board.

Take it from an emt to get it checked out pronto.

Jawgap

ck101 wrote: »

Yikes, I knew this would be the reaction, consulting with the missus now re next steps. The kind Taxi driver (& allowed bike on back seat in new car) who took me home gave me the same talk.

I'll keep you posted.

Feckin' taxi drivers! The same happened to me when I had a tumble, a taxi driver was the first to stop and help - don't they realise they have a stereotype to live up to?

ck101 wrote: »

Right, after reviewing the list of possible symptoms on the American Brain Injury site (none of which I have, other than a mild headache which could be related to the state I generally get myself into after a long ride, they say severe headache) on the Web we have decided to self diagnose and keep an eye on things.

Fingers crossed and all that. Thanks for the advice all, hope you are wrong.

Seriously, unless yor wife is a doctor or nurse, you should get yorself looked at properly. Head injuries aside, you also mentioned whiplash and who knows what other damage you might have done.

ustazjoseph

Sympathies.Ive always been casual about my helmet. but ....

had a similar experience to you a fortnight ago.Been to the hospital 3 times. I'm typing one handed-broken collar bone - lots of pain,discomfort, regret (no rok cycle this year) and shame.But the helmet split. if i had nt been wearing it it could have been a different story. I knocked my mate - his head hit a wall. rest - watch for a crash 2-3 days on. stay well.

galwaycyclist

Op if your helmet split then likely all it prevented was a scalp injury. The brain injury prevention is supposed to happen through the liner crushing. If it split it didn't do that part of its job.

Gillo

Glad to hear you are okish op.
From recent experience with a friend who was getting bad headaches, which turned out to be a clot on his brain, the slightest knock to the head I'd certainly get checked out.

In time OP, any chance of posting photos of the remains of the helmet? Part curiosity on my part but more importantly it'd be to best response to people asking "Do I really need on? It makes me like stupid"

mcmoustache

Gillo wrote: »

... more importantly it'd be to best response to people asking "Do I really need on? It makes me like stupid"

Oh, here we go.

kendragon

I'm going to reiterate what people are saying here OP. Get it checked out. Regardless of how you are currently feeling. I've known people who have had knocks to the head from less traumatic falls that ended very badly for them. Its just not worth the risk.

tomasrojo

kendragon wrote: »

I'm going to reiterate what people are saying here OP. Get it checked out. Regardless of how you are currently feeling. I've known people who have had knocks to the head from less traumatic falls that ended very badly for them. Its just not worth the risk.

Yes; OP, see a doctor. You really are not the best judge of whether or not you have sustained a significant head injury. (The Helmet Thread stuff I'll treat as irrelevant for now.)

galwaycyclist

tomasrojo wrote: »

Yes; OP, see a doctor. You really are not the best judge of whether or not you have sustained a significant head injury. (The Helmet Thread stuff I'll treat as irrelevant for now.)

Backing up this advice. Just because your scalp and skull are intact it doesn't mean that you haven't sustained some form of brain injury.

kincsem

Order a new helmet today. I did when I smashed mine, head first onto concrete.
Bad situation but a good result. Relax with a nice cup of tea and count your blessings.

dougal01

jesus go and get checked asap just shows how inportein helmets really are take it easy[

tomasrojo

Gillo wrote: »

the slightest knock to the head I'd certainly get checked out.

When I did a first-aid course, that isn't quite the advice they gave.

However, if you have had an impact to your head that leads you to believe, as stated in the thread title, that you would have died without a helmet (a conjecture I am not going to address one way or the other, as we have many and long threads that already cover that), then it probably isn't a slight knock to the head.

So, again, OP, see a doctor.

ck101

Ok after all the good advice here I got myself to DDoc on Saturday. I didn't fancy sitting it out in Beaumont.

Maybe the "saved my life bit" might have been a tad OTT but a smack down onto Concrete at 28kmh (last speed shown on Garmin)without a helmet impacting the side of the head would for certain ruin the day.

Mild concussion and soft tissue injury (whiplash) diagnosed, want to see me again on Tuesday. Still feeling terrible, the sore neck is the worst, can't see myself getting out for a week or so.

Now to deal with the bent deraileur hanger.

ck101

Just thought I'd update this thread to let all that contributed know what happened next, on the Thursday of that week and nearly a full week since the accident I had blinding headaches and a general feeling of being out of it.

I decided to get myself into Beaumont where after 8 hrs I was seen to, a Ct scan was ordered which happened a full 18hrs after I presented at A&E.

I had just dropped nearly a grand on out patient heart related tests a few months previously (which VHI reimburse F all) so had a moral issue going private again.

Anyway back to the head, the CT diagnosed a slight bruise (contusion) on the brain at the site of the impact.

So good advice from all here to get checked out, the consultant at Beaumont maintained that if I did not have the helmet on we would be "having a totally different conversation most likely via the wife"

Back to normal (i think) now and getting a lot of long spins in.

kendragon

Thanks for the follow up and thank goodness you're okay...

EDIT: Or should I say thank science you're okay

monument

Ban bottles holders! Ban cycling when tired and distracted!

OP: Doctors say / believe a lot of crazy claims they can't prove or don't have a clue about -- see the book Bad Science or the Guardian columns of the same name.

Sure the helmet may have saved you from cuts etc, but for all we or the consultant knows the helmet could have led to or make the other injures worse than they would have been without a helmet.

Another major issue is that even with many posters telling you to go see a doctor you were slow to do so -- I'm not trying to pick on you but yours is a good example of something that seems to happen a lot where people think their helmet saved from all damage when it really only saved them from visual damage, while the internal injuries go unchecked because nothing looks wrong.

Mycroft H

monument wrote: »

Ban bottles holders! Ban cycling when tired and distracted!

OP: Doctors say / believe a lot of crazy claims they can't prove or don't have a clue about -- see the book Bad Science or the Guardian columns of the same name.

Sure the helmet may have saved you from cuts etc, but for all we or the consultant knows the helmet could have led to or make the other injures worse than they would have been without a helmet.

Do we have to go here? Can we not leave it at that the helmet *might* have been beneficial in this particular situation and not rehash the entire helmet debate for the seventeen millionth time?

Capt'n Midnight

monument wrote: »

OP: Doctors say / believe a lot of crazy claims they can't prove or don't have a clue about -- see the book Bad Science or the Guardian columns of the same name.

Sure the helmet may have saved you from cuts etc, but for all we or the consultant knows the helmet could have led to or make the other injures worse than they would have been without a helmet.

where there is no major damage to a helmet you can argue about how much protection they offered but in this case The head impact was significant my 3 month old Spuik Nexion took the impact breaking all the way through.

monument

BX 19 wrote: »

Do we have to go here? Can we not leave it at that the helmet *might* have been beneficial in this particular situation and not rehash the entire helmet debate for the seventeen millionth time?

I would not have bother posting if the OP had said "the consultant at Beaumont said the helmet might have been beneficial". But according to the OP the consultant didn't say that -- rather the consultant insinuated that the helmet saved his life.

And this is still a discussion forum...

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

where there is no major damage to a helmet you can argue about how much protection they offered but in this case The head impact was significant my 3 month old Spuik Nexion took the impact breaking all the way through.

To summarise this:

Helmets are designed to compress / crack with less force that might cause brain injured, the ability of the styrofoam in a helmet to absorb force is unlike to make a sufficient difference to brain injuries, and a helmets could be a factor in causing impacts that otherwise may not have happened.

Qualitymark

monument wrote: »

I would not have bother posting if the OP had said "the consultant at Beaumont said the helmet might have been beneficial". But according to the OP the consultant didn't say that -- rather the consultant insinuated that the helmet saved his life.

And this is still a discussion forum...

Hey, OP, get your consultant in here to say the word.

Glad you're ok.

MakeNine

ck101 wrote: »

On thing that amazed me was many motorists and a lady walking a dog passed by and failed to stop to help.

DESPAIR

monument

BX 19 wrote: »

Do we have to go here? Can we not leave it at that the helmet *might* have been beneficial in this particular situation and not rehash the entire helmet debate for the seventeen millionth time?

Just another comment on this:

From this and recent threads like this, it nearly looks like we're going down the road of treating helmets as a religious thing and people are now effectively being told "leave the believers alone".

Personal choice is grand, but when we get to advocating helmets (as the OP and his consultant are doing) we're talking about something that can negatively affect the levels of cycling and thus negatively affect health at a population level and squander a good chance to lower the massive state spending on health.

Qualitymark wrote: »

Hey, OP, get your consultant in here to say the word.

Err... What?

ck101

Personal choice is grand," but when we get to advocating helmets (as the OP and his consultant are doing) "

That's not true, I'm just telling my story as it happened.

I am however now going to advocate wearing helmets and finish off by saying that if I had a choice of running head first into a concrete wall with or without a helmet I know what I'd choose.

monument

ck101 wrote: »

Personal choice is grand," but when we get to advocating helmets (as the OP and his consultant are doing) "

That's not true, I'm just telling my story as it happened.

I am however now going to advocate wearing helmets and finish off by saying that if I had a choice of running head first into a concrete wall with or without a helmet I know what I'd choose.

You were advocating helmet use, even before this post.

At least you were according to the three dictionaries I just looked up.

ugsparky

Glad you're OK CK101.

I think we all agree ... any crack on the head that you have any doubts about ... Doctor ... what may seem nothing or trivial could be very serious.

You're OK though so that's the main thing. Get well soon and get biking soon.

Cee-Jay-Cee

monument wrote: »

Just another comment on this:

From this and recent threads like this, it nearly looks like we're going down the road of treating helmets as a religious thing and people are now effectively being told "leave the believers alone".

Personal choice is grand, but when we get to advocating helmets (as the OP and his consultant are doing) we're talking about something that can negatively affect the levels of cycling and thus negatively affect health at a population level and squander a good chance to lower the massive state spending on health.

Are you saying leave helmets as a personal choice so that people dont feel compelled to buy one in circumstances where they may not be able to afford one and therefore maybe give up cycling OR are you saying that not wearing a helmet could negatively affect health at a population level and squander a good chance to lower the massive state spending on health.???

Advocating the wearing of helmets will not hurt cycling numbers as its still a personal choice and its not illegal to cycle without one so there will always be those that choose not to.

Popoutman

I find the groupthink on this forum regarding helmets and the fervour to not get more people wearing them to be very distasteful.

As I am someone that regularly does things that can be viewed as risky such as mountain biking and grade 4-5 whitewater kayaking, I am very used to (and trained/certified to) doing appropriate risk management both for myself and for those that I have been in charge of personal safety for. For me it's a no-brainer. With the speeds that I attain when cycling, a helmet will absorb impact energy that would otherwise be transferred to my head or brain, and it will give an extra few cm of deceleration space to reduce the g forces during an impact. The smooth shell will grip on a road surface a lot less than my face or scalp would so I'm at less risk of rotational injuries as well.

As a practitioner of ww kayaking on grade 5 rivers I have been in unfortunate situations of having to benefit from the wearing of and possession of things like helmets and buoyancy aids. I've learned the usefulness of those types of items. The same thoughts of "what happens when things screw up" crosses over very well into my cycling and driving. I always modify my behaviour to be safer and less risky, and I try to minimise the risks to myself in bad situations by the wearing of appropriate PPE. Often it has been my responsibility to give out to people for not wearing the appropriate equipment and to prevent those people from being a risk to themselves and others (and me) when they have refused to wear it.

The near-religious fervour that posters here view the wearing or non-wearing of helmets while on bikes is just bloody harmful. Instead of attacking those that want useful protection for us cyclists, maybe those posters that are always on that particular hobbyhorse should reconsider where their efforts are being directed. Maybe it would be better serving society as a whole that those posters that currently attack the pro-helmet posters, that they go and do more useful things that would benefit us all. Maybe getting involved in helmet design to make them more palatable to more people if that's a perceived issue? Maybe get involved in advertising campaigns to reduce the amount of crap food that people eat? Maybe suggest other methods of getting lazy bums to go and exercise? Getting involved in better ways of doing multi-size capability safely with helmets that could then be applied to hire bikes?

Those that have first-hand knowledge of the usefulness of helmets should not be dissuaded from suggesting to others that helmet wearing is a good thing. This applies to those that have had reduced injuries as a result of wearnig a helmet, and those that have a properly informed opinion on the subject (medical staff, engineers etc).

I will always suggest to people that I see cycling without a lid that a helmet is a good idea. At a minimum, I try to ask them why they don't.

To keep this on-topic, good on you OP for the choice to wear a helmet, it's likely that as bad as your injury was it's very likely that you would have had more or worse injuries if you didn't have it, and that's a pretty clear message to put out to everyone on this forum. I'm glad that the injuries were not as bad as it seems they could have been. Out of curiosity, what brand of helmet were you wearing and what have you replaced it with?

Beasty

To be fair, the overwhelming majority of posters around here seem to be pro choice on the helmet issue. Most of them tend to stay out of helmet discussions nowadays though as they often go the same way with those with entrenched views (from both sides) dominating the "debate"

coolbeans

Popoutman wrote: »

I find the groupthink on this forum regarding helmets and the fervour to not get more people wearing them to be very distasteful.

As I am someone that regularly does things that can be viewed as risky such as mountain biking and grade 4-5 whitewater kayaking, I am very used to (and trained/certified to) doing appropriate risk management both for myself and for those that I have been in charge of personal safety for. For me it's a no-brainer. With the speeds that I attain when cycling, a helmet will absorb impact energy that would otherwise be transferred to my head or brain, and it will give an extra few cm of deceleration space to reduce the g forces during an impact. The smooth shell will grip on a road surface a lot less than my face or scalp would so I'm at less risk of rotational injuries as well.

As a practitioner of ww kayaking on grade 5 rivers I have been in unfortunate situations of having to benefit from the wearing of and possession of things like helmets and buoyancy aids. I've learned the usefulness of those types of items. The same thoughts of "what happens when things screw up" crosses over very well into my cycling and driving. I always modify my behaviour to be safer and less risky, and I try to minimise the risks to myself in bad situations by the wearing of appropriate PPE. Often it has been my responsibility to give out to people for not wearing the appropriate equipment and to prevent those people from being a risk to themselves and others (and me) when they have refused to wear it.

The near-religious fervour that posters here view the wearing or non-wearing of helmets while on bikes is just bloody harmful. Instead of attacking those that want useful protection for us cyclists, maybe those posters that are always on that particular hobbyhorse should reconsider where their efforts are being directed. Maybe it would be better serving society as a whole that those posters that currently attack the pro-helmet posters, that they go and do more useful things that would benefit us all. Maybe getting involved in helmet design to make them more palatable to more people if that's a perceived issue? Maybe get involved in advertising campaigns to reduce the amount of crap food that people eat? Maybe suggest other methods of getting lazy bums to go and exercise? Getting involved in better ways of doing multi-size capability safely with helmets that could then be applied to hire bikes?

Those that have first-hand knowledge of the usefulness of helmets should not be dissuaded from suggesting to others that helmet wearing is a good thing. This applies to those that have had reduced injuries as a result of wearnig a helmet, and those that have a properly informed opinion on the subject (medical staff, engineers etc).

I will always suggest to people that I see cycling without a lid that a helmet is a good idea. At a minimum, I try to ask them why they don't.

To keep this on-topic, good on you OP for the choice to wear a helmet, it's likely that as bad as your injury was it's very likely that you would have had more or worse injuries if you didn't have it, and that's a pretty clear message to put out to everyone on this forum. I'm glad that the injuries were not as bad as it seems they could have been. Out of curiosity, what brand of helmet were you wearing and what have you replaced it with?

You've gone to a big effort to write all that basing your argument on a premise that does not exist on this forum, i.e. that people here actively discourage others from wearing helmets. That simply does not happen. Helmets are fine, and essential in many circumstances, such as mountain biking, group riding, etc but at other times they can be treated as optional. That's a good thing.

ugsparky

As far as I can see & read, the issue here is NOT about pro-helmet people V anti-helmet people although because it is an emotive subject many people including myself are drawn into thinking so whilst reading the various posts.

After researching the subject a little deeper I'm now questioning my own views on the value and safety that a cycling helmet provides.

I had believed that a cycling helmet would provide a degree of protection akin to a safety helmet at work or a motorcyclist's helmet. Now I'm not so sure, and this is in itself raises issues. I'm happily trying to ride faster, longer, stronger on busy roads and wrongly or rightly I was of the opinion that at least if I came down off my bike at least the mitts would partially protect my hands from being pebbledashed with stones and crap, and my helmet would provide reasonably good protection from impact with hard surface. Am I misguided ?

My helmet conforms to the CE EN 1078 standard. This standard is the accepted and adopted BS EN 1078:2012 standard that appears on the British Standards Institute website (the old kite mark as recognised by many people). Unfortunately to view this standard will cost you £136.00 - unless you have other means of obtaining a copy. I honestly now doubt that my cycling helmet will protect me as I believed it would.

Maybe we should open a post on what the actual BS standard is and what exactly it means to the lay person (I'm including myself here). A helmet may protect a skull at an impact when travelling/falling at 10kph from a specified height ... it might be an eggshell at 25kph ... In truth I don't know.

I will always wear my helmet cycling - that's my personal choice. I haven't read a post on the Boards.ie that has said "Don't waste your time wearing a helmet". Like all subjects that can impact on health and safety we do need to be aware of the facts and may I suggest if possible that somebody here can provide details of the BS EN 1078:2012 standard so that people can become more informed as to what degree of protection they achieve from wearing a helmet.

Qualitymark

ugsparky wrote: »

I haven't read a post on the Boards.ie that has said "Don't waste your time wearing a helmet".

No, but there's a thin line between "I [an experienced and expert cyclist] wouldn't be bothered wearing a helmet" and "Helmets are pointless".

Canis Lupus

Popoutman wrote: »

I find the groupthink on this forum regarding helmets and the fervour to not get more people wearing them to be very distasteful.

As I am someone that regularly does things that can be viewed as risky such as mountain biking and grade 4-5 whitewater kayaking, I am very used to (and trained/certified to) doing appropriate risk management both for myself and for those that I have been in charge of personal safety for. For me it's a no-brainer. With the speeds that I attain when cycling, a helmet will absorb impact energy that would otherwise be transferred to my head or brain, and it will give an extra few cm of deceleration space to reduce the g forces during an impact. The smooth shell will grip on a road surface a lot less than my face or scalp would so I'm at less risk of rotational injuries as well.

As a practitioner of ww kayaking on grade 5 rivers I have been in unfortunate situations of having to benefit from the wearing of and possession of things like helmets and buoyancy aids. I've learned the usefulness of those types of items. The same thoughts of "what happens when things screw up" crosses over very well into my cycling and driving. I always modify my behaviour to be safer and less risky, and I try to minimise the risks to myself in bad situations by the wearing of appropriate PPE. Often it has been my responsibility to give out to people for not wearing the appropriate equipment and to prevent those people from being a risk to themselves and others (and me) when they have refused to wear it.

The near-religious fervour that posters here view the wearing or non-wearing of helmets while on bikes is just bloody harmful. Instead of attacking those that want useful protection for us cyclists, maybe those posters that are always on that particular hobbyhorse should reconsider where their efforts are being directed. Maybe it would be better serving society as a whole that those posters that currently attack the pro-helmet posters, that they go and do more useful things that would benefit us all. Maybe getting involved in helmet design to make them more palatable to more people if that's a perceived issue? Maybe get involved in advertising campaigns to reduce the amount of crap food that people eat? Maybe suggest other methods of getting lazy bums to go and exercise? Getting involved in better ways of doing multi-size capability safely with helmets that could then be applied to hire bikes?

Those that have first-hand knowledge of the usefulness of helmets should not be dissuaded from suggesting to others that helmet wearing is a good thing. This applies to those that have had reduced injuries as a result of wearnig a helmet, and those that have a properly informed opinion on the subject (medical staff, engineers etc).

I will always suggest to people that I see cycling without a lid that a helmet is a good idea. At a minimum, I try to ask them why they don't.

To keep this on-topic, good on you OP for the choice to wear a helmet, it's likely that as bad as your injury was it's very likely that you would have had more or worse injuries if you didn't have it, and that's a pretty clear message to put out to everyone on this forum. I'm glad that the injuries were not as bad as it seems they could have been. Out of curiosity, what brand of helmet were you wearing and what have you replaced it with?

Firstly there's no point including kayaking. It's a different helmet and a different sport unless you often get hit by cars/lorries etc when kayaking :P

You should have a look over the wiki entry for cycling helmets. It gives a pretty good overview on the arguments both for and against helmets. HERE

Whilst I have no issue with the use of helmets in sporting events/downhill mountainbiking (as the liklihood of a normal spill is increased) I think it's good to idea to look at the arguments for and against helmet use in the population as a whole, casual, commuters and so on. It's not necessarily as clear cut as 'I have some hardened foam on my head therefore I am safer'.

ROK ON

@Monument

While evidence exists that use of helmets may have contributed to decline in numbers of cyclists in other jurisdictions there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support that assertion in Ireland.

Membership of CI and triathlon Ireland are both at an all time high.
The three largest cycling events - ROK, WW200 and SKT are attracting record numbers of participants.
Cycling races and triathlons are also attracting crazy numbers of participants.
New clubs to cater for cyclists are emerging everywhere.

In all of these activities helmet wearing for better or worse is compulsory. It does not appear to be impacting numbers.

Since the helmet thread a few weeks back I have decided to try and count the numbers of commuters I pass on a 15minute commute three mornings a week.
Very unscientific as it relies on memory and observation across a fixed route.

About 65% wear helmets. I accept that in all likelihood that DB users would use the system less if helmets were mandatory.

I am not in favour of compulsory anything and I would consider the jury out on the use of helmets in many cycling situations.
But anywhere I look in Ireland I don't see a visible impact on the numbers of cyclists. The only evidence we have is in situations where helmet use is compulsory - cycling as a sport.

ck101

This thread was originally meant to be my story about a crash, how it happened etc. Despite the unfortunate title it was never meant to be a thread "advocating" helmet use. I cant say for certain if the helmet saved my life.

I can say for certain that the injury I sustained was reduced by the helmet. I do remember the crunch and impact of my head hitting the ground. It wasn't nice and I cant imagine the result of my head pounding into the concrete at close to 30 kmh (last recorded speed on Garmin) without a helmet.

Personally I don't care if people do or don't wear helmets. I also don't want to participate in a debate about helmets for the same reason. Someone earlier asked for a photo of the helmet which is linked below.

The helmet was never dropped and was more or less new, the impact was also to the side of the head

http://www.flickr.com/photos/58234209@N02/7862772548/

Max_Charger

monument wrote: »

Ban bottles holders! Ban cycling when tired and distracted!

OP: Doctors say / believe a lot of crazy claims they can't prove or don't have a clue about -- see the book Bad Science or the Guardian columns of the same name.

Sure the helmet may have saved you from cuts etc, but for all we or the consultant knows the helmet could have led to or make the other injures worse than they would have been without a helmet.

Another major issue is that even with many posters telling you to go see a doctor you were slow to do so -- I'm not trying to pick on you but yours is a good example of something that seems to happen a lot where people think their helmet saved from all damage when it really only saved them from visual damage, while the internal injuries go unchecked because nothing looks wrong.

Tell you what, Go out with the OP and he'll have you exactly reenact what happened to him only this time you wont be wearing a helmet so we can finally put this debate to rest. Going by what you said here you have absolutely nothing to worry about so it shouldn't be a problem.

Chips Lovell

While I have strongly held views about helmets, I feel that a thread about someone's own head injury is probably the wrong place to start airing them.

Unless I've missed it, he hasn't argued for mandatory helmets or said anyone was a fool for not wearing them. He simply said that in the case of his own accident he felt a helmet was beneficial.

buffalo

ROK ON wrote: »

@Monument

While evidence exists that use of helmets may have contributed to decline in numbers of cyclists in other jurisdictions there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to supper that assertion in Ireland.

Membership of CI and triathlon Ireland are both at an all time high.
The three latest cycling events - ROK, WW200 and SKT are attracting record numbers of participants.
Cycling races and triathalons are also attracting crazy numbers of participants.
New clubs to cater for cyclists are emerging everywhere.

In all of these activities helmet wearing for better or worse is compulsory. It does not appear to be impacting numbers.

But these are all sports - you can't use the seatbelt wearing habits (or indeed, helmet wearing) of rally or F1 drivers to draw conclusions about seatbelt wearing in cars on public roads.

I always wear a helmet when hitting the hills on the road bike, but rarely when I pop down the shops, or on my commute. It's a entirely different style of cycle.

ROK ON

buffalo wrote: »

But these are all sports - you can't use the seatbelt wearing habits (or indeed, helmet wearing) of rally or F1 drivers to draw conclusions about seatbelt wearing in cars on public roads.

I always wear a helmet when hitting the hills on the road bike, but rarely when I pop down the shops, or on my commute. It's a entirely different style of cycle.

This is a Sports forum.

Mucco

ROK ON wrote: »

Membership of CI and triathlon Ireland are both at an all time high.
The three largest cycling events - ROK, WW200 and SKT are attracting record numbers of participants.
Cycling races and triathlons are also attracting crazy numbers of participants.
New clubs to cater for cyclists are emerging everywhere.

In all of these activities helmet wearing for better or worse is compulsory. It does not appear to be impacting numbers.

You can't draw that conclusion. Numbers could be even higher if helmets were not compulsory. I doubt they would be lower if participants had the choice.

chakattack

monument wrote: »

Just another comment on this:

From this and recent threads like this, it nearly looks like we're going down the road of treating helmets as a religious thing and people are now effectively being told "leave the believers alone".

Personal choice is grand, but when we get to advocating helmets (as the OP and his consultant are doing) we're talking about something that can negatively affect the levels of cycling and thus negatively affect health at a population level and squander a good chance to lower the massive state spending on health.

Seeing as you bring up this crock of sh*t logic (based on a study or two in other countries - I'd love to see them!) at every mention of a helmet, it's you that appears most religious on the subject.

This wonderful study is like your personal Dianetics.

I think the original focus of this thread, one man not cracking his skull and ROK ON's analysis of cycling numbers in Ireland should give you food for thought.

"Truth is what stands the test of experience"