More fuel for the helmet debate

[Browser]

Spotted this story in the Daily Fail earlier, the point for this forum being that he wasn't wearing a helmet when he crashed.
I am aware that there is little definitive empiracal data to show that wearing current designs of helmet prevent or at least mitigate the injurious after-effects of crashing off one's bicycle, but I can't help thinking wearing one can't hurt.
I seem to remember, having spoken to motorcyclists who are ole enough, that the same scepticism greeted the compulsory wearing of motorcycle helmets in this country. Unfortunately, due to lack or knowledge & detailed research about said designs, some of the early helmet shells were made so rigid, presumably one thinks with the idea that if it's as hard as a rock nothing will damage what's inside, that riders heads and therefore brains used to literally bounce around inside them during accidents and cause damage that way. This presumably cannot be said of cycling helmets available now, though how much of their design is given over to head protection and how much to ventillation I can't say.
I presume there is little/no official interest in carrying out such a study? Or that the results would be unpalatable to the general cycling community (see the cyclists airbag).
Me? Didn't used to wear one, even after I was knocked off at the age of 16 (youthful immortality). Now? Always, any help I can get in keeping my feeble brain intact I will take!

 

[raindog]

'ere we go........

 

[Dan B]

I get http://www.tomroyal.com/teaandkittens/blocked.php whenever I visit that site. Thank goodness for Kitten Block

 

[4F]

 

[Ian Cooper]

I didn't wear one until age 35. Now I wear one because my wife insists. I don't really care either way - it's comfortable, takes a second to put on, I don't notice it once it's on, and it's a better mount for my rear-view mirror than any other place I've found. That last point alone is reason enough to wear it. Would it protect my head in a crash? I don't know or care. Since I haven't had a crash since 1984 - not even a close call since 1995, I suspect the issue may be academic - at least I hope so.

 

[numbnuts]

You have to admire his wife so a BIG well done to her
I know someone who damaged their spine and the wife left him for that reason.

 

[sunnyjim]

Spotted this story in the Daily Fail earlier, the point for this forum being that he wasn't wearing a helmet when he crashed.
I am aware that there is little definitive empiracal data to show that wearing current designs of helmet prevent or at least mitigate the injurious after-effects of crashing off one's bicycle, but I can't help thinking wearing one can't hurt.
I seem to remember, having spoken to motorcyclists who are ole enough, that the same scepticism greeted the compulsory wearing of motorcycle helmets in this country. Unfortunately, due to lack or knowledge & detailed research about said designs, some of the early helmet shells were made so rigid, presumably one thinks with the idea that if it's as hard as a rock nothing will damage what's inside, that riders heads and therefore brains used to literally bounce around inside them during accidents and cause damage that way. This presumably cannot be said of cycling helmets available now, though how much of their design is given over to head protection and how much to ventillation I can't say.
I presume there is little/no official interest in carrying out such a study? Or that the results would be unpalatable to the general cycling community (see the cyclists airbag).
Me? Didn't used to wear one, even after I was knocked off at the age of 16 (youthful immortality). Now? Always, any help I can get in keeping my feeble brain intact I will take!

Well you can - things are designed to be cheap to manufacture and meet specifications, like this one:

The helmet shall be so designed and shaped that parts of it.....are not likely to injure the user in normal use.
Helmets should.... be ventilating.
Shock absorbing capacity
The helmet shall give protection to the forehead, rear, sides, temples and crown of the head.
When tested……. the peak acceleration shall not, for each impact, exceed 250 g for the velocity of 5,42 m/s on the flat anvil, and 4,57 m/s on the kerbstone anvil.
NOTE. These are theoretically equivalent to 1497 mm and 1064 mm drop heights respectively.

The problem isn't really helmet design or performance, but an apparent lack of sufficient medical research on what forces can cause brain injuries in any circumstances.. I don't know if the 250g came from any respected medical authority - I've seen 30-70g given as the maximum before concussion & likely serious damage - and that could happen by rapid rotation as well as direct force, so you have to wonder what good the helmet's doing. The 250g may just be a roundabout way of specifying how far the foam should be able to compress.
If the medics could specify the maximum forces allowable, the engineers can design to suit. You might not like wearing it 'though.
These chaps http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0707/0707.4431.pdf have got to the level of dropping rocks on rats, which I suppose is a start. Maybe some of the medically orienteded forrumers can shed some light on current developments.
Then we can start fitting sensors & wires on cycling crash dummies.

A tragic yet heartwarming story, in the DM, but hardly enlightening on the helmet debate.

 

[Recycler]

ISince I haven't had a crash since 1984 - not even a close call since 1995, I suspect the issue may be academic - at least I hope so.

I admire your optimism but, unless I never ride near traffic, my main concern is other vehicles coming into me....and that is largely a lottery. We can do things to reduce the likelihood of being hit, or to mitigate the consequences, but we can't eliminate the possibility of somebody hitting us.

 

[Accy cyclist]

I wear one, i have done for 12 years since a woman i worked with told me about her brother who was killed while cycling on a dual carriageway. He was hit head on and suffered horrific head injuries, she told me that the medics said that if he'd been wearing a helmet he'd have been badly injured but might have survived. I went to Halfords straight away and bought a decent BELL helmet for 50 quid. The only time i cycle without it is if i nip to the shop or ride around the block, but even then i think i'm tempting fate as an accident can happen anywhere, though if i'm not going at speed i tell myself i'll be ok, but what happens if some speeding car hits me?
I wouldn't say that it's uncomfortable to wear, though i wear a sweat band underneath and try to put the head strap over the band to stop the tight feeling.
I had an old helmet that i gave away to a young lad who i saw one day with a badly cut face. He told me that he'd come off his bike, and that he couldn't afford a helmet so i felt good giving it away to a good cause and i see him wearing it which is good.

 

[jdtate101]

Wear one...don't wear one...simple personal choice. I wear one as it prevents ear ache....mine that I would get off my wife should I dare to not wear one. Anything for a simple life me.

 

[4F]

I don't wear one and I don't give a toss if others want to wear one. Now pass me the popcorn before any more "I know some one in A&E And they say zzzzzz" posts

 

[Red Light]

Is it Cucurbitaceae time yet?

 

[Red Light]

I wear one, i have done for 12 years since a woman i worked with told me about her brother who was killed while cycling on a dual carriageway.

I know someone who was killed in a car accident from serious head wounds. Should we all wear helmets in cars?

 

[growingvegetables]

I presume there is little/no official interest in carrying out such a study?

Uuuummmmmm - you are joking?

- 7.5% of the deforestation of the Amazon rainforest is directly attributable to printing reports of such studies.
- 23% of the electricity and other resources required for the internet is used to debate these reports.

And in the end? Cycling is so safe, they STILL can't find enough evidence to make a convincing case one way or the other [except for one single study which really does appeal to me].

Up to you - trust the statistics? Or go with the fact.

 

[Recycler]

Uuuummmmmm - you are joking?

- 7.5% of the deforestation of the Amazon rainforest is directly attributable to printing reports of such studies.
- 23% of the electricity and other resources required for the internet is used to debate these reports.

And in the end? Cycling is so safe, they STILL can't find enough evidence to make a convincing case one way or the other [except for one single study which really does appeal to me].

Up to you - trust the statistics? Or go with the fact.

You jest? Please tell me you're jesting.