Helmet or no helmet??

[crumpetman]

Myth.

An insurance company cannot absolve their liability for a leg injury, for example, because someone was not wearing a helmet. How on earth would they argue that a broken leg or collarbone could have been prevented by a helmet?

I am glad that it is a myth. I have read the "reduced compensation" thing on a few different forums but have seen no evidence to support it. It was only after posting above that I thought I would have another look to find out where this assumption comes from, glad I did.

Crumpetman, from that site you quoted above these are very particular points

1. Their design-intended strength is equivalent to a impact speed of about 12.5mph [3]. They were never intended for collisions with cars. They're not a cycle-equivalent of motorbike crash helmets (and you can't wear one of those because your brain would boil). They're not safety gear in the sense of being designed to save your life [1]. They work by the outer shell keeping the polystyrene in place whilst it absorbs the deceleration by being crushed. Counter-intuitively if the shell breaks in the initial contact the total energy absorbed is a lot less: a broken helmet is one that didn't work. This means above about 12.5mph the helmet has little effect; certainly it won't reduce a crash at, say, 30mph by an amount equivalent to crashing at 12.5mph. Ask an engineer. Doctors and nurses aren't usually engineers

They are very good points and those are the main reasons I cite for not wearing a helmet.

 

[JNR]

Crumpetman, from that site you quoted above these are very particular points

1. Their design-intended strength is equivalent to a impact speed of about 12.5mph [3]. They were never intended for collisions with cars. They're not a cycle-equivalent of motorbike crash helmets (and you can't wear one of those because your brain would boil). They're not safety gear in the sense of being designed to save your life [1]. They work by the outer shell keeping the polystyrene in place whilst it absorbs the deceleration by being crushed. Counter-intuitively if the shell breaks in the initial contact the total energy absorbed is a lot less: a broken helmet is one that didn't work. This means above about 12.5mph the helmet has little effect; certainly it won't reduce a crash at, say, 30mph by an amount equivalent to crashing at 12.5mph. Ask an engineer. Doctors and nurses aren't usually engineers

After having thought about it I have changed my mind with regards to helmet, mostly because I had assumed if the helmet breaks apart it will have absorbed energy upon impact causing it to break. Which it might not.

 

[ufkacbln]

That said I did read one report that suggested that Skater helmets would bre a better choice from a safety POV so may take a look at those.

This is the "Rounder, Smoother, Safer" campaign.

The argument basically is that if you are in an impact part of the motion energy is absorbed by the helmet sliding along the ground.

With modern helmets the vents, angled edges and "snag points" this sliding does not happen, but is arrested, causing rotation and injury. Often the helmet can be ejected by this as well.

Professor Hugh Hurt in the US sums it up in correspondence with the US Helmet Standard group ASTM:

During the last couple of years, the technical staff at HPRL has encountered an interesting-and possibly dangerous-problem with the aerodynamic-shaped or streamlined bicycle helmets. These popular helmets have a teardrop design which tapers to a wedge at the rear of the helmet, supposedly reducing aerodynamic drag along with increased ventilation through the many openings in the shell. The adverse effect of this aerodynamic shape is that the wedge at the back of the helmet tends to deflect and rotate the helmet on the head when impact occurs there. Any impact at the front or sides of the streamlined helmet is no different from other helmet shapes, but any impact on the rear wedge tends to rotate the helmet on the head, probably deflecting the helmet to expose the bare head to impact, and at worst ejecting the helmet completely from the head. Actually, everybody who has tested these streamlined helmets over the past years has encountered the problem of these helmets being displaced during impact testing at the rear wedge. Usually additional tape was required to maintain the helmet in place during rear impact tests; usually the basic retention system alone could not keep the helmet in place during impact testing on the rear of the helmet.

Unfortunately, the implication of helmet displacement and possible ejection in an actual accident impact did not register as a real hazard in previous years of testing, but now there are accident cases appearing that show this to be a genuine hazard for bicycle riders wearing these streamlined helmets. Accident impacts at the rear of these streamlined helmets can cause the helmet to rotate away and expose the head to injury, or eject the helmet completely. The forces generated from the wedge effect can stretch the chinstraps very easily, and even break the [occipital--Prof. Hurt used a trademarked name] retention devices.

We request that F08.53 committee study this problem and develop advisory information for both manufacturers of these streamlined helmets and consumer bicyclists who now own and wear such helmets. There is a definite hazard for displacement or ejection from impact on the rear wedge of these helmets, and bicyclists should be warned of this danger by an authority such as ASTM.

 

[ufkacbln]

After having thought about it I have changed my mind with regards to helmet, mostly because I had assumed if the helmet breaks apart it will have absorbed energy upon impact causing it to break. Which it might not.

Another problem with modern design, To get more ventilation and sportier design the material is thinner, to get the support for the structure this material has to then be denser with less ability to absorb impact, so you now have a helmet that is less able to perform its task.

Many european helmets (the ones you are using in the UK) are illegal in the US as they offer such a poor standard of protection!

!

This is from the US based (pro-helmet) Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute:

US manufacturers of helmets for racers produce the thinnest helmets you are going to find that meet the CPSC impact standard, and provide the minimum impact performance to be sold as a bike helmet in this country. You could look on the Internet for one of the CEN standard euro models that does not meet CPSC. Those are thinner. But they are not legal for triathlete events even though they are accepted by USA Cycling for racing events here in the US until January 1, 2010. They offer less protection, and when it comes to preventing brain damage, you may be in a world of hurt when you hit. That could end your riding or your triathlete career, and possibly your life or your ability to eat unassisted and tie your shoes. So it's not recommended, and even racers who have been permitted to use them in USA Cycling events will be required to use CPSC helmets after January of 2010.

 

[jimboalee]

The Highway Code say a cyclist "Should" wear a helmet. ie NOT law.

The Highway Code says a Horse Rider under 14 years old must wear a helmet. Other riders should wear a helmet.



Prophecy....

Cyclists under 14 years old MUST wear a helmet.

Other cyclists capable of over 1 horsepower MUST wear a helmet. Spindley legged weaklings in Hi-Viz jackets should wear a helmet.

 

[marzjennings]

The Highway Code say a cyclist "Should" wear a helmet. ie NOT law.

The Highway Code says a Horse Rider under 14 years old must wear a helmet. Other riders should wear a helmet.



Prophecy....

Cyclists under 14 years old MUST wear a helmet.

Other cyclists capable of over 1 horsepower MUST wear a helmet. Spindley legged weaklings in Hi-Viz jackets should wear a helmet.

I think any cyclist that can generate and maintain over 1 horsepower needs a crown not a helmet. Big ol' crown that says bad ass on it.

 

[ufkacbln]

That's not a helmet - its a ladybird that you've pulled the legs off!!

 

[amnesia]

That's not a helmet - its a ladybird that you've pulled the legs off!!

PMSL - first thing I thought too

 

[crankyhorse]

This one is on E-bay at the moment.

HELMET

Its full face so it will keep the flies out of your teeth.

 

[MarkF]

I don't wear one, I don't wear protective gear (apart from my legally required helmet) on my motorbike either. My children, 9, 12 and 15 don't wear helmets and neither does my wife. Both of us cycle to work and the kids are rarely off their cycles unlike their friends who only seem to go on "forced" Sunday, uber family, canal rides, helmeted and with enough hi-viz to be visible from outer space.

Each to their own, if my good lady or children want to start wearing helmets tomorrow, super.

 

[hobbygirl]

you should read dynamicks post ! also the kid who got knocked off his bike by us was not a road biker just a regular kid on his bike who pulled out between the bushes the poor driver had no chance. no helmet worn by the kid thats why there is still a massive blood stain in the road from where his head hit the curb! helmet or no helmet ? theres no contest.

 

[windmiller]

I notice many avid helmet wearers appear to fall off their bikes and land on their noggins on a regular basis. If that was me personally I would give cycling a miss and try and try something less hazardous like base jumping etc.

If a large vehicle hits you at a decent speed a bit of poly on your head isnt going to make any difference, your body will be broken into many fatal pieces, even if the helmet survives. Riding off road or riding competitively I would agree a helmet makes sense.

 

[MarkF]

you should read dynamicks post ! also the kid who got knocked off his bike by us was not a road biker just a regular kid on his bike who pulled out between the bushes the poor driver had no chance. no helmet worn by the kid thats why there is still a massive blood stain in the road from where his head hit the curb! helmet or no helmet ? theres no contest.

I don't force my kids not to wear them, but, I am happy for them to choose not. I worry about them dying from a bust cranium as much as I worry about them being bitten to death by a bunch of renegade guinea pigs.

 

[MacB]

I don't force my kids not to wear them, but, I am happy for them to choose not. I worry about them dying from a bust cranium as much as I worry about them being bitten to death by a bunch of renegade guinea pigs.

almost identical for me, we all cycle and the only time a helmet is worn is by the youngest when entering school, it's the rules(mine are 9, 12 and 14, shortly to become 10, 12 and 15), otherwise he couldn't cycle to school.

If any of us ever take up MTBing then I think we'd wear helmets.

You do get looks from other parents, my particular favourites are the ones casting disparaging glances having just driven their, often tubby, kids to school. If you spoke to them they'd probably come out with some guff, without a trace of irony, about how dangerous the roads near the school are. Then carry on as normal, parking where they like/can get away with and using mobiles when doing the school run.

I do wonder at people that get hysterical over the choice of others not to wear a helmet. There're so many more pressing global matters they could take an interest in that could have a much more beneficial impact.

 

[4F]

I notice many avid helmet wearers appear to fall off their bikes and land on their noggins on a regular basis. If that was me personally I would give cycling a miss and try and try something less hazardous like base jumping etc.

That made me chuckle