Lesson learned NEVER ride without your helmet !

[Profpointy]

Would you even consider wearing one when not on a bike.

I wear one caving, but do of course hit my head more as a result. But that said, I need something to hold my light, and falling rocks aren't unheard of. That said, it ain't going to help if the rock is the size of a television, which I have seen!

 

[classic33]

I wear one caving, but do of course hit my head more as a result. But that said, I need something to hold my light, and falling rocks aren't unheard of. That said, it ain't going to help if the rock is the size of a television, which I have seen!

I've worn one when climbing or caving, but it was more about wearing one when walking or sat in the house. Both points having being raised since by others.

 

[matticus]

For example it is quite obvious (surely?) that you are between 50% and 100% more likely to hit your head if wearing a helmet. Whether the benefit of reduced injuries from the protection the helmet confers make up for the considerably increased chance of banging your head in the first place is highly debatable. From the stats I've seen these things look like they balance out

👍

 

[classic33]

lg


I think one group of medics / dentists were pushing for full face helmets for that very reason.
Presumably they'd never ridden a bike themselves. Whilst a normal bike helmet is no real hardship, whatever the pros and cons, a full face one would be very unpleasant to wear. I do choose a full face helmet for riding my motorbike, and it is unpleasant when town riding in hot weather, and I'm merely sat there rather than working hard pedling

Helmet type of choice for me is a full face one. There's protection for the back and side of the head. Protection not there in with a road helmet.

It's the type that was worn at the time I was T-boned at a junction on my way home from work in 2005. The shoulder taking the major impact on the cars bonnet. The head followed through when the upper torso stopped moving. I blame the neck being flexible for allowing that to happen.

The left leg took the main impact, front of the car. Left foot still on the pedal, held in place by toeclip and strap.*

Not certain where you get the 50 - 100% figure of a helmeted head being more likely to impact than a non helmeted head though. There's too many variables in any collision to be that certain beforehand. The body will continue moving, until brought to a halt. The last part of that will often, but not always, be the head.

*If the foot had come out, there's every chance the bike and myself would have parted company, with first the bike hitting the road then me. It caused me to land firmly on the bonnet, taking the weight off the bike and lifting the bike in the process. Maybe it's a case of "A toeclip and toe strap saved my life."

 

[boydj]

https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/9/9/e027845



Seems good to me. There are more.

It also seems to suggest that if you wear a helmet you are more likely to suffer broken bones and other injuries. It seems to me, though, that helmeted cyclists must be more likely to be doing more risky types of cycling, like racing or fast, off-road downhill cycling. The study excerpt makes no mention of the type of cycling and I don't see a breakdown anywhere.

 

[tinywheels]

john caudwell,seems to credit his helmet with saving his life.
amazing how divisive this subject is.
I also find my poc useful for holding my camera and one of my lights. This may be one of the other benefits

 

[newfhouse]

I also find my poc useful for holding my camera and one of my lights. This may be one of the other benefits

Is it possible that clamping hard or sharp objects to your skull with only a thin layer of polystyrene as a buffer may do more harm than good if you land on your head? Which manufacturers recommend doing such a thing and what testing has been done?

 

[glasgowcyclist]

john caudwell,seems to credit his helmet with saving his life

People do this often. I’ve yet to find any such claim to be made, supported or endorsed by the manufacturer of the helmet in question.

If helmets really could do this, it seems curious to say the least that a manufacturer wouldn’t seize upon the massive publicity to improve sales. They don’t, not even when it makes international news, as in the James Cracknell case.

 

[ianrauk]

When I went through a minivan windscreen I found that my Buff and cycle cap had a hole caused my the crash. I am giving credit that wearing a buff with a cycling cap saved my life.

 

[tinywheels]

Is it possible that clamping hard or sharp objects to your skull with only a thin layer of polystyrene as a buffer may do more harm than good if you land on your head? Which manufacturers recommend doing such a thing and what testing has been done?

Possibly, but I don't give a flying fark
I consider the greater danger is posed by dodgy drivers,failing to see me.
However , the said objects would snap off at the slightest hint of hitting the deck.

 

[newfhouse]

Possibly, but I don't give a flying fark
I consider the greater danger is posed by dodgy drivers,failing to see me.
However , the said objects would snap off at the slightest hint of hitting the deck.

It seems a bit inconsistent to promote a hat you think has necessary safety properties and then compromise it by attaching random stuff to it. Are you sure you have thought it through?

I agree that the chances of injury are tiny, but as this post shows, non-zero.
https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/searching-for-a-reasonably-priced-helmet-cam.279596/post-6536320

 

[matticus]

When I went through a minivan windscreen I found that my Buff and cycle cap had a hole caused my the crash. I am giving credit that wearing a buff with a cycling cap saved my life.

Sounds like the windscreen saved your life. Thank god car makers use an energy-absorbing, non-rigid layer for that purpose instead of steel!

 

[icowden]

For example it is quite obvious (surely?) that you are between 50% and 100% more likely to hit your head if wearing a helmet.

Why? What is your evidence? The only reference I can find to it being more likely that "wearing a Cycle helmet means you are more likely to hit your head" is the 2002 Wasserman et al study which even cyclehelmets.org admit is not a great study (little weight can be put upon this study), and the conclusion drawn is looking at the numbers who have hit their head vs those who have not and concluding therefore that helmets make you hit your head (rather than the more obvious, it isn't very likely you will hit your head, but if you do, the helmet helps).

This is a good example of "Correlation is not causation" (just because two things correlate does not necessarily mean that one causes the other).

 

[Profpointy]

Why? What is your evidence? The only reference I can find to it being more likely that "wearing a Cycle helmet means you are more likely to hit your head" is the 2002 Wasserman et al study which even cyclehelmets.org admit is not a great study (little weight can be put upon this study), and the conclusion drawn is looking at the numbers who have hit their head vs those who have not and concluding therefore that helmets make you hit your head (rather than the more obvious, it isn't very likely you will hit your head, but if you do, the helmet helps).

This is a good example of "Correlation is not causation" (just because two things correlate does not necessarily mean that one causes the other).

You don't really need a study to prove a bigger target will be hit more; it's a simply matter of geometry. Bear in mind we are talking about cross-sectional area not diameter so if a helmet is, say 40% bigger crossways it is going to be maybe 64% more likely to be hit. This may or may not be a price worth paying for the protective benefit when you are hit.

In a previous thread someone seemed perversely to be disputing this, so just take it to absurdity as a thought experiment and imagine you have a 2m wide helmet and consider if you are more likely to hit your head, rather than other parts of your body if you fall off.

 

[tinywheels]

It seems a bit inconsistent to promote a hat you think has necessary safety properties and then compromise it by attaching random stuff to it. Are you sure you have thought it through?

I agree that the chances of injury are tiny, but as this post shows, non-zero.
https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/searching-for-a-reasonably-priced-helmet-cam.279596/post-6536320

I'm very risk averse, and pretty sure the attachments on the helmet will detach easily. By the way I do not promote the wearing of helmets. As I also do not promote wearing helmets on motorcycles.
Freedom of choice should be down to an individual.