Who wears a helmet?

[Little yellow Brompton]

Well, you can't beat a good theory theory, can you? My actual experience all means nothing, because the Prof says it's bollocks.

Perhaps I dreamed it all? The skid on the ice, the backward fall off the bike, and the flick of the head smashing into the road surface. And then walking away none the worse for wear, despite the damage to my helmet.

Yes, that must be it. All a figment of my imagination.

Errr that calculation, you can do it , can't you? I only ask because it's starting to sound as if you don't really know much about the physics involved and are basing your religion on just one miracle.

Of course you could try and work out the energy in your own incident,
"The skid on the ice, "
Translating forward momentum into sideways momentum.

"the backward fall off the bike,"
Falling backwards, so negating some of the kinetic energy that was contained within your forward velocity

"and the flick of the head smashing into the road surface."

OIC so you had already hit the ground with your body and your head was now travelling a whole 4-5 inches to hit the ground

"And then walking away none the worse for wear, despite the damage to my helmet."

Your helmet broke because of hitting the ground after your body had already hit, and you still think that a helmet is a "good thing" ? I admire your beliefs, even some very good Catholics have more doubts in their doctrine than you, with more to base theirs on.

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

You just don't seem to get the point. The accident happened, we know that. The helmet however may have been entirely irrelevant. You may have banged your helmetless head and walked away. I did with the dumper truck.

I was twatted off at approx 20mph , dopeycow 1 moved over on me and ran over my wheels between the kerb and her crappy Astra, I was catapulted off, carrying my forward Kinetic Energy( minus the bit where my thigh thwacked against the saddle , plus the bit her Astra would have imparted) and landed on my shoulder/forerams , my head flicked foward and hit above my left eye, pushing my glasses into my face cutting me and scratching them.
It's obvious that my glasses saved my life , didn't they?

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

You just don't seem to get the point. The accident happened, we know that. The helmet however may have been entirely irrelevant. You may have banged your helmetless head and walked away. I did with the dumper truck.

Or more likely , not banged the helmetless head because the head was now 3 inches thinner.

 

[totallyfixed]

Well, you can't beat a good theory theory, can you? My actual experience all means nothing, because the Prof says it's bollocks.

Perhaps I dreamed it all? The skid on the ice, the backward fall off the bike, and the flick of the head smashing into the road surface. And then walking away none the worse for wear, despite the damage to my helmet.

Yes, that must be it. All a figment of my imagination.

No it is not your imagination and I do not come on here to belittle what are obviously very real and often emotive experiences. Over the years I must have spoken to many cyclists who have a tale to tell one way or the other, what I will say though with absolute conviction are two salient things to this discussion.
Firstly, it takes one hell of a knock to accelerate the brain inside the skull to where the point is reached that damage to the brain is caused, this is simply because the human skull is designed that way.
Secondly it is also made so that in an oblique impact the skin will slide against the skull's surface [sorry to be so graphic] and so prevent a rotational injury to the neck.
Two things are of real interest to me here, you are more likely to hit your head in the first place when wearing a helmet firstly because your head is now that much bigger, and secondly because some of the instinct to protect your head has gone because of the helmet. Hence I always say funny how those who wear helmets are always crashing / banging their heads.
The other really important point to make is that in an oblique impact [which the majority are likely to be], if you are wearing a helmet there is a much greater chance of the helmet not sliding along the surface of a road / path etc and twisting / rotating what is essentially an over large head resulting in possible damage to the cervical part of the spine
In conclusion a helmet may save you some external abrasion / cutting of the scalp but it will not affect the acceleration of the brain at the forces necessary to make a difference, however there is a real possibility of a rotational injury that is likely to be worse than cuts to the scalp, I know this to my misfortune. For these reasons I will never wear a helmet.

 

[Licramite]

unfortunately it doesn't take one hell of a knock to cause bleeding to the brain, a relatively innocuous blow can cause it , especially on the back of the head.
Contusions are a real danger - as the earlier article about the girl dying skiing. slow brain bleeds. - by the time they are spotted are very dangerous.

If you had a blow to the head, helmeted or not , if you were knocked out , even for a moment, if you get headaches after, or feel suddenly drowsy - go to A&E.
I would say a blow enough to break your helmet would be a good indicator that you may need to see a doctor.

I personally believe in helmets , having been smacked on the head in all sorts of situations and having dealt with people with head injuries. but like seat belts and air bags I accept they can also pose a risk. But If you won't wear a helmet because of the risk , get your airbags disabled and your seat belt removed because in comparison - they are lethal.

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

[quote="Licramite, post: 2264823, member: 23536"
I would say a blow enough to break your helmet would be a good indicator that you may need to see a doctor.

.[/quote]
And you have the science to back that up?

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

So you wear one all the time now?

Don't be silly Adrian, that's not how it works!

You wear a helmet when cycling because it's " Common sense innit?" 'cos it's dangerous, no matter what the stats say , the stats are wrong.


You don't wear a helmet when walking because it's "Common sense innit?" 'cos it;s not dangerous , no matter what the stats say , the stats are wrong.

Cognitive dissonance ,rules! OK?

 

[Licramite]

[quote="Licramite, post: 2264823, member: 23536"
I would say a blow enough to break your helmet would be a good indicator that you may need to see a doctor.

.

And you have the science to back that up?[/quote]

yo have the science to say I'm wrong?

to shay

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

And you have the science to back that up?

yo have the science to say I'm wrong?

to shay[/quote]
Errr I'm sorry but, you, are the one making a statement , the statement was " I would say a blow enough to break your helmet would be a good indicator that you may need to see a doctor" . It's you that needs to provide the evidence that your statement has some veracity. Once you have done that I ( and possibly others) then will examine your evidence. This is what's called " The Scientific Method" . The Scientific method doesn't work by you coming out with a statement of what you believe and asking others to show that you are wrong, that's, religion or homeopathy ,In science the status quo remains until you have shown that your opinion is correct . So you have said "I would say a blow enough to break your helmet would be a good indicator that you may need to see a doctor"

To start,

How much of a blow does it take to break a helmet?
How much of a blow does it take to cause damage enough to be worth seeing a doctor?

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

My turn. Don't be silly LYB, this is Lycramite you are talking to.

Sorry, I'm naive enough to believe that we live in a logical , scientific, world, is there something about lycramite I should know? Another point is that , very often in helmet wars it's not the direct shot you are looking for , but the richochet shot, to the person reading who has until now thought " it's common sense innit?" but then sees people espousing common sense who can't back up their position in reality.


Ahhh! I see this is the poster that couldn't answer the question days ago, no reason to think there will be an answer this time... :-(

 

[lukesdad]

I was twatted off at approx 20mph , dopeycow 1 moved over on me and ran over my wheels between the kerb and her crappy Astra, I was catapulted off, carrying my forward Kinetic Energy( minus the bit where my thigh thwacked against the saddle , plus the bit her Astra would have imparted) and landed on my shoulder/forerams , my head flicked foward and hit above my left eye, pushing my glasses into my face cutting me and scratching them.
It's obvious that my glasses saved my life , didn't they?

Nah its obvious you ve had a bang on the head.

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

Nah its obvious you ve had a bang on the head.

Wasn't that obvious before I used my "evidence"?

 

[lukesdad]

my oh my, i hope you're not in the legal profession with an argument like that.

If i don't use oven gloves, I'll get burnt every time i get something out of the oven.

If i don't use a helmet when cycling, I won't crack my skull every time i ride my bike.

If i don't wear safety goggles when using my grinder, there's a big chance something will hit me in the eye because i can feel bit's of stuff hitting my face every time i use my grinder.

my risk assessment says;
Oven gloves, yes,
safety goggles, yes,
helmet when cycling on normal roads, no.
helmet when bombing down MTB routes... in theory, yes, but i don't do that type of cycling.

Interested on the theory for MTB care to elaborate ?

 

[Licramite]

yo have the science to say I'm wrong?

to shay

Errr I'm sorry but, you, are the one making a statement , the statement was " I would say a blow enough to break your helmet would be a good indicator that you may need to see a doctor" . It's you that needs to provide the evidence that your statement has some veracity. Once you have done that I ( and possibly others) then will examine your evidence. This is what's called " The Scientific Method" . The Scientific method doesn't work by you coming out with a statement of what you believe and asking others to show that you are wrong, that's, religion or homeopathy ,In science the status quo remains until you have shown that your opinion is correct . So you have said "I would say a blow enough to break your helmet would be a good indicator that you may need to see a doctor"

To start,

A) How much of a blow does it take to break a helmet?
B) How much of a blow does it take to cause damage enough to be worth seeing a doctor?[/quote]

oh ok - the answer is yes. to first question about evidence

A) it takes a force sufficient to break the helmet - which is clearly more than the designed force the helmet can take.
B) probably A.

does that satisfy you?

my point was a bang on the head should be taken seriously , even a relatively minor wound, if followed by any of these symptoms such as double vision, giddiness, nausea,sleepiness,headache, strange pains in the head or if you were knocked out or concussed even for less than a minute - medical advice should be sort.

and may I ask - whats wrong with religion or homeopathy - do you honestly believe science has all the answers?

 

[Licramite]

Sorry, I'm naive enough to believe that we live in a logical , scientific, world, is there something about lycramite I should know? Another point is that , very often in helmet wars it's not the direct shot you are looking for , but the richochet shot, to the person reading who has until now thought " it's common sense innit?" but then sees people espousing common sense who can't back up their position in reality.


Ahhh! I see this is the poster that couldn't answer the question days ago, no reason to think there will be an answer this time... :-(

sorry what was the question days ago that I didn't answer ?