Helmets: Should you wear one?

[DanRVV2006]

I also think a big part of helmets being worn or not is the price! To buy a decent looking, well built, fashionable looking helmet cost near £90! For instance iv tried on a Giro Atmos it fits like a glove and i actualy look ok in it but im 17 i attend college full time and have a part time weekend job i also have to run my car and pay for my social needs where am i meant to find the money for one of them from! Instead i can afford the cheap ass £20 helmet that is as fashionable as putting an orange B&Q bucket on my head! If the helmets cost less i think more people would fork out for them!

 

[Brock]

I don't buy this, its a red herring - if you had decelerated sufficiently such that you are 8cm from your head making contact, if it did actually make contact by virtue of having a helmet it would be at such a low force as to be negligable.

Buy what you like, it seems reasonable to me. I'm glad Jaded gave an example of what I suspected. Wouldn't our skulls have developed a crusty scabrous crumple zone if it was actually beneficial?

 

[alfablue]

I don't buy this, its a red herring - if you had decelerated sufficiently such that you are 8cm from your head making contact, if it did actually make contact by virtue of having a helmet it would be at such a low force as to be negligable.

Buy what you like, it seems reasonable to me. I'm glad Jaded gave an example of what I suspected. Wouldn't our skulls have developed a crusty scabrous crumple zone if it was actually beneficial?[/quote]
Well Jaded's example does not actually support the no helmet is safer argument (it is flawed as I suggest).

For humans to evolve with a crusty scabrous crumple zone would require the majority of humans to suffer severe head injuries prior to parenting offspring, from which only a few (with increasing degrees of crustyness) would survive to pass on their genes. Maybe if everyone cycles, and no one wears a helmet, and we make sure to have plenty of crashes, perhaps this will happen in a few million years

 

[HJ]

I also think a big part of helmets being worn or not is the price! To buy a decent looking, well built, fashionable looking helmet cost near £90! For instance iv tried on a Giro Atmos it fits like a glove and i actualy look ok in it but im 17 i attend college full time and have a part time weekend job i also have to run my car and pay for my social needs where am i meant to find the money for one of them from! Instead i can afford the cheap ass £20 helmet that is as fashionable as putting an orange B&Q bucket on my head! If the helmets cost less i think more people would fork out for them!

There you go, it is a fashion statement, it says look at me I can afford to put a Ninety Quid lid on my head. Come to think of it a 20 quid B&Q bucket would probably give you more protection

[
For humans to evolve with a crusty scabrous crumple zone would require the majority of humans to suffer severe head injuries prior to parenting offspring, from which only a few (with increasing degrees of crustyness) would survive to pass on their genes. Maybe if everyone cycles, and no one wears a helmet, and we make sure to have plenty of crashes, perhaps this will happen in a few million years

According to Prof. Steve Jones the bicycle has had a greater impact on the human genome that any other invention and that was before the invention of the cycle helmet

 

[alfablue]

According to Prof. Steve Jones the bicycle has had a greater impact on the human genome that any other invention and that was before the invention of the cycle helmet

Not denying it has, but how does he figure that?

 

[Tynan]

you get what you pay for when you want something that's light/comfortable and strong, better design and better materials

 

[Brock]

For humans to evolve with a crusty scabrous crumple zone would require the majority of humans to suffer severe head injuries prior to parenting offspring, from which only a few (with increasing degrees of crustyness) would survive to pass on their genes. Maybe if everyone cycles, and no one wears a helmet, and we make sure to have plenty of crashes, perhaps this will happen in a few million years

It's nothing to do with cycling though, it's about banging your head. This happens all the time, whether you're slipping in the bath, tripping over a kerb or running after a woolly mammoth.
Of course, evolution hasn't designed us to cope with crashes at speed, but this is exactly the situation where helmet use is accepted to be of negligible benefit.

 

[Tynan]

this is exactly the situation where helmet use is accepted to be of negligible benefit.

wha? when did that happen?

 

[alfablue]

For humans to evolve with a crusty scabrous crumple zone would require the majority of humans to suffer severe head injuries prior to parenting offspring, from which only a few (with increasing degrees of crustyness) would survive to pass on their genes. Maybe if everyone cycles, and no one wears a helmet, and we make sure to have plenty of crashes, perhaps this will happen in a few million years

It's nothing to do with cycling though, it's about banging your head. This happens all the time, whether you're slipping in the bath, tripping over a kerb or running after a woolly mammoth.
Of course, evolution hasn't designed us to cope with crashes at speed, but this is exactly the situation where helmet use is accepted to be of negligible benefit.[/quote]

Agreed, the near-terminal head injuries could occur through non-cycling activity too, but for evolutionary change to occur through the process of natural selection this requires people to die before passing their genes on, with those with slightly "crustier" heads tending to survive so that characteristic is passed on and enhanced in successive generations. Evolutionary selection of characteristics doesn't take place merely from non-fatal injuries to the masses, if they can continue to pass on their non-crusty genes. Evolution occurs through natural selection (survival of the fittest) and mutation (which may provide variants that are more successful) but in either case it only works if there is an enhanced potential to pass these positive variations on compared to others. The nature and frequency of head injuries in human populations have not been sufficient to cause this, indeed, the opposite may have occurred, as increasing brain size has been positively selected (smarter blokes get more food, avoid threats to life, become fitter, more likely to get their girl and therefore pass that characteristic on!), leading to heavier bigger brains without proportionate increases in skull thickness.

In many aspects, medicine is counter-evolutionary; many diseases that would have killed people prior to procreation, or which would have made procreation very unlikely are now survivable so these genes can now be passed on. To counter this, some defects (those that are detectable prior to birth) are detected and termination offered (not saying if this is a good or bad thing) or screening and counselling can limit genetic diseases such as Huntingdon's Chorea - but even then there are many people with this even though it is entirely possible (if one limits all potentially affected offspring from procreating) to eliminate this for ever. (The thing with Huntingdon's Chorea is that the symptoms are likely to occur at an age after people are likely to procreate, so there is no impediment to passing on the afected gene - so no evolutionary deselection of this catastrophic characteristic). So any argument that says "we can't need this or that characteristic because evolution would have given it to us" is logically flawed...unless one looks to God, in which case, s/he has a lot of work to make up!!!

 

[Peyote]

this is exactly the situation where helmet use is accepted to be of negligible benefit.

wha? when did that happen?[/QUOTE]

I think what Brock was saying was that because helmets are designed to cope with the stationary fall of an adult from upright on a bike, (commonly quoted as 12mph), anything in excess of this is outside of the helmets required stress limits and it can therefore be assumed that the protection offered would be lower and as stress increases (with speed of impact) there will come a point when the helmets protection will be negligible.

Hence high speed impacts, helmet provides negligible benefit.

 

[HJ]

According to Prof. Steve Jones the bicycle has had a greater impact on the human genome that any other invention and that was before the invention of the cycle helmet

Not denying it has, but how does he figure that?[/QUOTE]

The invention of the bike meant that the distance the majority of the population could travel in a day was greatly increased. Before, most people would only travel the distance they could walk in a day to find a mate (yes there were horses etc, but the majority of the population couldn't afford them), bikes provided cheep transport for the masses and access to a wider gene pool.

you get what you pay for when you want something that's light/comfortable and strong, better design and better materials

For a helmet to offer realistic crash protection it needs to be the weight and strength of a motorcycle helmet (unless you know some way round the laws of physics). Therefore if you want to wear a helmet while cycling for safety reasons, wear a motorbike helmet, anything else is just a fashion statement, no matter how much you pay for it.

 

[alfablue]

Hairy Jock, for clarification, can you tell me, are you saying that a cycle helmet is never ever of any merit at all in terms of safety? That a cycle helmet has never ever in any circumstances prevented or reduced an injury for any individual ever????

 

[HJ]

Hairy Jock, for clarification, can you tell me, are you saying that a cycle helmet is never ever of any merit at all in terms of safety? That a cycle helmet has never ever in any circumstances prevented or reduced an injury for any individual ever????

Properly fitted, at low speeds it might prevent light grazing to the head, but then again the vast majority of cyclist will stick their arm out to protect the head anyway. When I was a kid we didn't cycle helmets, but despite the fact that we often fell off our bikes I never know of anyone who suffered a head injury as a result. Head injury as a result of cycling are as about as common as head injuries caused by walking or running. How often do you see people wearing a helmet to go for a run or to walk down to the shops?

In circumstances where head injury is likely to occur i.e. being hit by a car or come off your bike at speed, then a cycle helmet is not strong enough to make any material difference. To do so it would need to be the weight and strength of a motorbike helmet.

To suggest otherwise is a bit like saying that because an oven glove is enough to take the Sunday roast out of the oven, that it is a suable replacement for an asbestos glove when handling a crucible of molten metal.

 

[alfablue]

Hairy Jock, for clarification, can you tell me, are you saying that a cycle helmet is never ever of any merit at all in terms of safety? That a cycle helmet has never ever in any circumstances prevented or reduced an injury for any individual ever????

Properly fitted, at low speeds it might prevent light grazing to the head, but then again the vast majority of cyclist will stick their arm out to protect the head anyway.[/quote]

Well in my own accident I came off the bike at about 20mph (no other vehicle involved, and note, I am not saying my head hit the ground at 20mph) having gone over the bars when the steering gave way. I bounced on the pavement fracturing my pelvis and shoulder. My head hit the floor, the helmet sustained damage, my head didn't. It happened so fast there was no sticking arms out to stop myself, and if I did the forces involved would be to great for that anyway. No doubt you will argue that my head only hit the ground because of the helmet, which is poppycock - there must have been great force applied to my shoulder, no way would I have held my neck rigid to stop my head hitting the floor. Infact, the helmet may have prevented a neck injury too as my neck wasn't overextended.

When I was a kid we didn't cycle helmets, but despite the fact that we often fell off our bikes I never know of anyone who suffered a head injury as a result.

When I was a kid we had no seat belts in cars, and parents believed it was safe to hold their kids on their laps in the front seat, believing they could restrain them in a collision. Funnily enough, I never knew anyone who was injured in a car crash, so I could argue that it was therefore safe, and seatbelts were unnecessary (I wouldn't though, maybe you would).

In circumstances where head injury is likely to occur i.e. being hit by a car or come off your bike at speed, then a cycle helmet is not strong enough to make any material difference. To do so it would need to be the weight and strength of a motorbike helmet.

Well, obviously I believe that in my accident which left my hospitalised for 7 weeks and on crutches for a further 3 months and with severe problems with my shoulder, the absence of any head injury at all, given the nature of the impact, is due to my helmet. Feel free to tell me otherwise, as after all, everyone else knows better than I how I fell, even if they weren't there!!!!

Now I am not in any way saying my experience should be generalised, but it is an instance where it helped, and there could, just possibly be other examples, and I don't believe that you have the knowledge to say otherwise.

 

[col]

Hairy Jock, for clarification, can you tell me, are you saying that a cycle helmet is never ever of any merit at all in terms of safety? That a cycle helmet has never ever in any circumstances prevented or reduced an injury for any individual ever????

Properly fitted, at low speeds it might prevent light grazing to the head, but then again the vast majority of cyclist will stick their arm out to protect the head anyway. When I was a kid we didn't cycle helmets, but despite the fact that we often fell off our bikes I never know of anyone who suffered a head injury as a result. Head injury as a result of cycling are as about as common as head injuries caused by walking or running. How often do you see people wearing a helmet to go for a run or to walk down to the shops?

In circumstances where head injury is likely to occur i.e. being hit by a car or come off your bike at speed, then a cycle helmet is not strong enough to make any material difference. To do so it would need to be the weight and strength of a motorbike helmet.

To suggest otherwise is a bit like saying that because an oven glove is enough to take the Sunday roast out of the oven, that it is a suable replacement for an asbestos glove when handling a crucible of molten metal.[/QUOTE]


Sorry Hairyjock,i cant agree,if my head is going to nut the road at any speed,i would much rather there be an inch or more of polystyrene between my head and the road.