Helmets - the definitive thread.. ** Mod Note - Please read Opening Post **

Idleater

Suzuki_TL1000R wrote: »

pages recently does the club rules state.....No Helmet No Ride.....Dafug????

Cycling Ireland only covers insurance for members engaged in training activities when wearing helmets, just like the races and sportifs.
And to be fair, group riding is potentially more dangerous than solo leisure cycling or commuting.

rflynnr

Yes, I know this subject has been done (a million shagging times) but this short but balanced piece from The Atlantic struck me as neatly summarising the various perspectives:

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2013/05/do-bike-helmet-laws-really-make-people-safer/5732/

swansea

Been reading through this thread this morning (good bit in here!) as I'm looking to take up cycling again. I'll be cycling a racer with clip-in pedals around Dublin city centre and beyond sometimes. Don't fancy wearing a helmet though. Wore one years ago as a kid but hated it. Wouldn't say it put me off cycling but if it was to be compulsory then it'd be harder for me to get back in to it. Already getting hassle from family members saying it's incredibly stupid not to wear one, even getting told some horror stories of head injuries. Crazy not to wear one?

rp

swansea wrote: »

Already getting hassle from family members saying it's incredibly stupid not to wear one, even getting told some horror stories of head injuries. Crazy not to wear one?

It's almost exactly as crazy-stupid as not wearing a helmet in a car. So if you usually wear one driving, wear one cycling. Simples.

TiBoy

In my cycling career I've had two serious crashes, 20 years apart.

In both crashes my helmet was the first bit of me to hit the ground very fast and very hard.

In both crashes I broke plenty of other bones, including cervical vertebrae and base of skull but did'nt break any part of my skull covered by my helmet.

In both crashes I was hospitalised and immobilized for long periods of time.

In both crashes I was advised the nature of my head injuries would have been even more serious if I had'nt been wearing a helmet.

I have had other crashes where I've hit my head while wearing a helmet but thankfully no serious injury.

This is only my experience however.

I never get on a bike without a helmet

Chiparus

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/15/cycling-helmet-law-bmj-study-hospitals

enas

Might sound unrelated, but I reckon it's a good way to revive the thread, in the case that not everything has already been said. I found this article quite amusing: http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/cwmhmhmhmhql/

The relationship with cycling might sound tenuous, but for me it is very obvious: both for pregnancy and cycling, there is a largely held irrational fear that they are much more dangerous than they really are. And it kind of puts into perspective the opinion of hospital consultants.

tomasrojo

It seems that two federal agencies in the USA have agreed to stop claiming that helmets prevent 85% of head injuries.

http://newswithtags.com/Traffic%20collision/waba-feds-withdraw-claim-that-bike-helmets-are-85-percent-effective#.UbElpErG5ci

This change in policy is very far from a concession that helmets do not prevent head injuries, but I think if you value the scientific method, it's a good move. The source study was always far too flimsy to support the claim.

(The interpretation of odds ratio in the study shouldn't have passed peer review either, but that's one for people who actually enjoy statistical analysis.)

BryanL

Check out how many people would have smacked the back of their heads off tarmac without helmets in this crash

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qaKLN7l9xmQ&NR=1&feature=endscreen

1750W

I crashed at50kph plus on Tuesday night in Enfield. The first thing that came in contact with the road was my helmet. It cracked in 3 places. There is no argument against wearing a helmet as far as I am concerned.

Dermot Illogical

1750W wrote: »

I crashed at50kph plus on Tuesday night in Enfield. The first thing that came in contact with the road was my helmet. It cracked in 3 places. There is no argument against wearing a helmet as far as I am concerned.

Racing?

1750W

Dermot Illogical wrote: »

Racing?

Yep

andy69

1750W wrote: »

Yep

You can actually see your crash in the race photos on the website, mid-sprint, as they were taking photos of the Sprint to the line. Defo was over 50km alright...
Totally agree with ye regarding wearing them, u wouldn't be here now probably if ye hadn't.

Dermot Illogical

Has someone suggested not wearing them for racing? Am I missing something?

I though it was pretty much universally accepted that you wear a lid when racing. It's an insurance requirement if nothing else. Also, the risk of crashing is huge compared to leisure cycling. And crashes are likely to be far more severe.

I think the "If I wasn't wearing one..." posts are muddying the waters when they come from racers. It's a bit like Ralf Schumacher popping into motors and advocating helmets and 4-point harnesses for all drivers based on surviving the few times he's ploughed into walls. It's a given for racing.

Idleater

Dermot Illogical wrote: »

Has someone suggested not wearing them for racing? Am I missing something?

I though it was pretty much universally accepted that you wear a lid when racing. It's an insurance requirement if nothing else. Also, the risk of crashing is huge compared to leisure cycling. And crashes are likely to be far more severe.

I think the "If I wasn't wearing one..." posts are muddying the waters when they come from racers. It's a bit like Ralf Schumacher popping into motors and advocating helmets and 4-point harnesses for all drivers based on surviving the few times he's ploughed into walls. It's a given for racing.

I was going to post the same thing. There's a massive difference between requiring helmets for racing / sportif insurance reasons and mandatory use for going to the shop.
I'd have to check garmin / strava to see when I was last at 50kmph or in a bunch when commuting (when I do wear a helmet as it happens).

1750W

Both the above posters are actually missing the point. It's got nothing to do with the speed that was travelled or the fact it was in a bunch of cyclists. It's a simple matter that you stand a far better chance of surviving a bicycle accident when you hit your head if you are wearing a helmet.

I wonder how the no helmet advocates feel about wether children playing on bikes should wear helmets for their own safety or is the risk to a child of injury not worth the effort of insisting in a child wear a helmet?

adamski8

1750W wrote: »

Both the above posters are actually missing the point. It's got nothing to do with the speed that was travelled or the fact it was in a bunch of cyclists. It's a simple matter that you stand a far better chance of surviving a bicycle accident when you hit your head if you are wearing a helmet.

I wonder how the no helmet advocates feel about wether children playing on bikes should wear helmets for their own safety or is the risk to a child of injury not worth the effort of insisting in a child wear a helmet?

No not worth it imo, children fall off bikes all the time no big deal.
Kids climb walls and trees and such too you know, sometimes they fall and hurt themselves, its call life, things can hurt you from time to time, why not make children wear helmets from birth sure!

Ive heard of much more people who have hurt themselves from stairs than bikes so should everyone who walks down stairs wear a helmet too?

1750W

You've managed to convince me beyond all doubt that wearing a helmet while cycling is absolutely unnecessary thanks.

blackplum123

adamski8 wrote: »

No not worth it imo, children fall off bikes all the time no big deal.
Kids climb walls and trees and such too you know, sometimes they fall and hurt themselves, its call life, things can hurt you from time to time, why not make children wear helmets from birth sure!

Ive heard of much more people who have hurt themselves from stairs than bikes so should everyone who walks down stairs wear a helmet too?

Agree with you entirely, winter - icy paths , better wear a helmet walking.
Climbing a ladder -wear a helmet
Driving a car -wear a helmet
Having a shower ...might slip wear a helmet
Life is full of dangers , you can't wrap yourself in a blanket all your life.....

adamski8

Dont do anything and stay in bed i say.....but wear a helmet in case you fall out

TiBoy

blackplum123 wrote: »

Agree with you entirely, winter - icy paths , better wear a helmet walking.
Climbing a ladder -wear a helmet
Driving a car -wear a helmet
Having a shower ...might slip wear a helmet
Life is full of dangers , you can't wrap yourself in a blanket all your life.....

Cars have airbags the existence of which recognises the inherent danger

Ladder climbers on building sites have to wear helmets I think?

Me out training, doing cruise intervals at 40 kmph I'm going to wear a helmet.

Me out training, pootling along on the way to do cruise intervals, I'm going to wear a helmet.

Shower slippers make sure you have someone in the shower with you to land on:D

Dermot Illogical

1750W wrote: »

Both the above posters are actually missing the point. It's got nothing to do with the speed that was travelled or the fact it was in a bunch of cyclists. It's a simple matter that you stand a far better chance of surviving a bicycle accident when you hit your head if you are wearing a helmet.

I wonder how the no helmet advocates feel about wether children playing on bikes should wear helmets for their own safety or is the risk to a child of injury not worth the effort of insisting in a child wear a helmet?

I'm not missing any point "actually".
You, on the other hand...

Seweryn

adamski8 wrote: »

why not make children wear helmets from birth sure!

Exactly .
Believe it or not, there is a company in UK that actually makes them!

"Learning to walk in a world of hard surfaces" is the company slogan... :rolleyes:

This is the ultimate example of how dangerous our life became after all the previous 250,000 years of Homo Sapiens...

Spook_ie

Seweryn wrote: »

Exactly .
Believe it or not, there is a company in UK that actually makes them!

"Learning to walk in a world of hard surfaces" is the company slogan... :rolleyes:

This is the ultimate example of how dangerous our life became after all the previous 250,000 years of Homo Sapiens...

When your children are learning to walk you minimize the dangers by moving coffee tables and other household objects out of the way

Capt'n Midnight

1750W wrote: »

I wonder how the no helmet advocates feel about wether children playing on bikes should wear helmets for their own safety or is the risk to a child of injury not worth the effort of insisting in a child wear a helmet?

Unless a child is actually cycling then wearing them is dangerous. Far too many children have been strangled by them.

http://cyclehelmets.org/1227.html



To me the helmet issue is fairly clear

In situations where a cyclist can be expect to fall, like racing or off road, then helmets are already worn.

In situations where the main danger is motorists, a helmet almost certainly increases the risk of collision.

And until someone can show evidence otherwise I'll keep saying that a bicycle helmet is not designed to offer significant protection in collisions with vehicles at typical observed speeds.

Spook_ie

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Unless a child is actually cycling then wearing them is dangerous. Far too many children have been strangled by them.

http://cyclehelmets.org/1227.html



To me the helmet issue is fairly clear

In situations where a cyclist can be expect to fall, like racing or off road, then helmets are already worn.

In situations where the main danger is motorists, a helmet almost certainly increases the risk of collision.

And until someone can show evidence otherwise I'll keep saying that a bicycle helmet is not designed to offer significant protection in collisions with vehicles at typical observed speeds.

As regards children

Four pathologists writing in The Medical Journal of Australia say that "Accidental hanging is still occurring among young children who wear bicycle helmets while engaging in activities other than bicycle riding. … Although such deaths are rare, it is important for parents and child carers to ensure that bicycle helmets are only worn by children for their intended purpose

So regretable as any death is, do you believe that the parents were irresponsible in allowing their children to use cycle helmets or irresponsible for allowing them to wear them when not cycling?

Carawaystick

Surveyor11 wrote: »

The cycling helmet debate seems to cause endless debate when raised here, with the "yays and nays" equally entrenched. It sounds like a debate that will go on as long as cycling is around.

I'm curious if this is common in other sports where head impacts at varying speeds are common? For example snow sports, rock climbing, water skiing, sailing? Is this debate just particular to cycling and maybe reflective of the type of people who cycle?

I rockclimb. Climbing helmets are designed to protect against stonefall. I can't remember the spec, but it's something like stones falling with a low enough energy to avoid a substantial risk of neck injuries - so tiny pebbles whizzing into you or a fist sized stone bumping you, not a head sized rock which if a helmet stopped it could break your neck. If you don't avoid a rock that size, no ppe will fix that problem.

One important benefit of a lid is to prevent banging your head off steep rock, however the lid being so much bigger than your head, increases the liklihood of a bang.

Apart from helmets, there are huge risks taken in climbing, many climbs would cause death or very serious injury if a person fell. The obvious climber solution is not to fall, so the risk is avoided. Simple
There's a lot of personal responsibility involved, and the thought of some govt compulsion determining how to climb is anathema.

I only know of two people dying in the last 20 years rockclimbing in Ireland, one was washed away from a rock platform at the base of a climb, and another fell walking away from the top of a climb.




I've skied a few times and the vast majority of on-piste skiers in France used no ppe, there wasn't even a thought of anything

Carawaystick

1750W wrote: »

I crashed at50kph plus on Tuesday night in Enfield. The first thing that came in contact with the road was my helmet. It cracked in 3 places. There is no argument against wearing a helmet as far as I am concerned.

Are helmets supposed to crack? I mean they're supposed to inelastically compress to absorb the impact. If it cracks, then the energy has not been absorbed by the helmet

galwaycyclist

Spook_ie wrote: »

As regards children



So regretable as any death is, do you believe that the parents were irresponsible in allowing their children to use cycle helmets or irresponsible for allowing them to wear them when not cycling?

In Australia helmets are compulsory, so the primary responsibility for these deaths lies with those who proposed and imposed compulsory helmet wearing.

Capt'n Midnight

Spook_ie wrote: »

As regards children

So regretable as any death is, do you believe that the parents were irresponsible in allowing their children to use cycle helmets or irresponsible for allowing them to wear them when not cycling?

Wearing helmets off a bike is a known lethal hazard.

Wearing helmets on a bike doesn't provide irrefutable benefits in the same way that doing so in a car would. And there is a lot of evidence that cyclists and motorists take more risks in an encounter when the cyclist wears a helmet.

IF cyclists had to wear motorbike helmets which are designed to take impacts at vehicular speed then yes I'd believe that they would offer significant protection in a collision with a vehicle. But they are only designed for falling from a bike at ~20Km.