How can wearing a helmet offer no protection from injury?

[theclaud]

Could that be because the sort of folk that spend money on lids are more likely to be serious cyclists and MTB'ers. The former is liable to do more mileage, and the latter is a high risk group.

You need understand the why as well as the how.

We used to have someone who could pronounce authoritatively on such matters. In his absence, how do you suggest we distinguish between serious cyclists and frivolous ones?

 

[Norm]

...and where has Norm gone ? Mudslinging on another thread I hope

Sorry, I fell asleep waiting for something worth a response. Although, to be honest, this wasn't it.

 

[Drago]

We used to have someone who could pronounce authoritatively on such matters. In his absence, how do you suggest we distinguish between serious cyclists and frivolous ones?

The serious ones smoke meerschaum pipes, the others wear those funny hats more often associated with jesters.

 

[Norm]

... the others wear those funny hats more often associated with jesters.

Isn't the word for those 'helmets'?

 

[lukesdad]

Sorry, I fell asleep waiting for something worth a response. Although, to be honest, this wasn't it.

The oppurtunity to respond was there, back in the mists of time, you failed miserably.

 

[shouldbeinbed]

I'm not sure it's a good idea to attach lights and cameras to helmets, as in the event of a crash they could create localized pressure on the helmet which could exceed it's ability to protect the wearers head.

I understand that idea but simply on probability: the number of times you
a) crash
b) crash in such a way that the helmet hits the ground
c) crash in such a way that that particular part of the helmet hits the ground
d) etc... with such force to drive it into the helmet creating localised pressure points

are minimal and such an 'a-d' crash would most likely have exceeded whatever protective/or not properties a helmet may have anyway.

I'd also say that of the crashes I have had, with and without anyone elses help, my head has barely ever hit the ground and only once with any force.

IMO lights up there win this particular risk assessment hands down and then some. A maybe once in a decade crash vs the every single ride benefit of the increasing your visibility with a set of lights that are not obscured by the chassis and solid structures of the vehicles around you, Also having the advantage of being directional should you need to 'flash' someone looking to cross that maybe hasn't registered you being so close or a driver edging ever further over the give way line into your path.

It also depends what sort and and where they are - I've always tended towards small but powerful lights, the front one always sits within the frontal structure of the helmet or directly on top of it (I've never flipped so far in the air I've speared into the ground crown first before) and the front light wherever located has never yet hit the ground when I have.
The rear one usually nestles within either the solid ridged polystyrene area that is thick enough to cope with the odd ding or you could use the 'fairy light' type multi LED's that thread into the rearward vents.

I have been hit and run at speed (one of 2 times in 30+ years cycling I was actually grateful I did have a hat on) and landed with the back of my head hitting the ground. the helment stayed intact (although went straight in the bin at home), the light casing smashed to fragments but barely even made an indentation into the polystyrene underneath it.

 

[Licramite]

Well if you go by the Dutch study , 94% of injuries on bicycles in holland were amoungst mounting bikes (in holland?) and road racers, - so that narrows it down to a very specific age group and sex- 77% didn't wear hemets.
So it's saying people who use thier bikes for Sports (mtb & club type racing) are more likely to be involved in an accident, - Helmets have nothing to do with it.- (being dutch is more likely they are loony tunes.)
If you carry that to a British perspective were helmet wearing is far more common , then you can see how the 'Helmet' can be seen as the culprit.
So to an extent its true but it's got nothing to do with helmets and all to do with activity.

 

[ufkacbln]

Newts and helmets who'd have thought it ?

According to the stats 60% of all head injuries occur when pi$$ed as a newt!

 

[ufkacbln]

Young enough to be desperate enough to mount a bicycle no doubt.

I apologise for this, it is NSFW and has caused a few forumites to blush!

Do not read if you ever want to look at your bike in the same way again

 

[srw]

IMO lights up there win this particular risk assessment hands down and then some.

I make you wrong. A high-level bright light is very distracting to other road users, and causes a lot of dazzle. I have many more problems on my (bike) commute because of being unsighted temporarily by helmet-mounted bike lights than I do from motorised vehicles. Now I'm only a cyclist, so if I am dazzled it doesn't affect you. But if I were a driver...

 

[lukesdad]

I make you wrong. A high-level bright light is very distracting to other road users, and causes a lot of dazzle. I have many more problems on my (bike) commute because of being unsighted temporarily by helmet-mounted bike lights than I do from motorised vehicles. Now I'm only a cyclist, so if I am dazzled it doesn't affect you. But if I were a driver...

Would that not depend on where the beam was aimed ?

 

[srw]

Would that not depend on where the beam was aimed ?

You haven't forgotten that this is a light on top of a head, so it is not so much aimed as thrown around the place according to the movements of the head.

Most top-head-light-wearers seem to have adjusted their lights to face exactly where they are looking. Very sensible - it means that they can see what they're looking at. Until what they're looking at is another road user who gets a car-headlight-strength beam full in the eye.

 

[lukesdad]

Good points, ive only used a helmet mounted light mtbing. In this instance to get the same flood in the area you are interested a handlebar mounted light would need to be raised from the horizontal IME.

 

[srw]

That is very useful for looking straight at a car driver in a "will they, won't they pull out in front of me" position

True - but from experience (of being on the receiving end) it's easy to forget and look at someone who's travelling towards you with no possibility of pulling out in front of you - until they're dazzled.

If helmet lights were restricted to little flashy "here I am" jobs, and people reserved main illuminating lights for handlebars the roads would be a little less hazardous.

[edit]
And don't get me started on handlebar lights pointing upwards... Front lights should be pointed downwards, towards to the road. More than enough light is cast up to let other people know you're there. And back lights should be roughly parallel.

 

[ufkacbln]

Cleaning some files when I came across a report from the Scottish Executive.. (Extent and Severity of Cycle
Accident Casualties)

Those who were wearing a helmet at the time of their accident were much less likely to have
an injury to their head or neck (7% compared to 14%). Those wearing a helmet were more
likely to injure their upper limbs (46% compared to 35%) or their lower limbs (25%
compared to 17%).

Also an interesting comparison between helmet and non helmet use when it comes to those needing follow up or admission!

Wearing a helmet made very little difference to the outcome for the casualty as measured by
the proportion in need of medical follow up or admission to hospital. Of those wearing a
helmet 24% were admitted or discharged with follow up compared to 26% of those who
were not wearing a helmet.

So for whatever reason (risk compensation, stye of riding etc) it appears that wearing a helmet increases some injuries, yet has little effect on the head injury outcomes for those requiring admission!