I would like to know the answer to that one too?

 

Perhaps we can get sensible answers from the pro helmet wearing members rather those who are worried about them spoiling their expensive hair do or find them uncomfortable to wear:rolleyes:

 

I think the question needs defining John, since there are two parameters which will frequently and perhaps always be in conflict, namely protection and comfort.

 

I'd suggest two answers, each meeting an inquirer's priority, whether safety or comfort.

I would like to know the answer to that one too?

 

Perhaps we can get sensible answers from the pro helmet wearing members rather those who are worried about them spoiling their expensive hair do or find them uncomfortable to wear:rolleyes:

 

I find Bell helmets to be both comfortable and protective. They are manufactured for a reputable motorcycle helmet maker, and the larger size fits my wider than average head. We provide customers on our Segway tours with a Bell skate/snowboarding helmet (can't remember the model:confused:))*

Whenever a customer falls off, they ALWAYS strike their head. On two occasions the polystyrene padding has been crushed, making the helmet unusable, but the customers were able to walk away, a little scraped maybe, but fully compost menthol;)

For winter use, I purchased one of the Aldi ski helmets: provides some warmth for the lugholes, but doesn't obscure sound.

 

*Bell Faction

And no, it's not the extra weight/size of this helmet that causes heads to hit the ground, it was our own early experiences on Segways that convinced us of the need for protection for usually novice riders.

Edited December 31, 201312 yr by peerjay56

That James Cracknell article and the Times campaign at the time was just plain silly. He wore a helmet and it split open doing nothing to protect him, so where is the logic of him concluding that others must wear a helmet as a result?

 

The failure of James Cracknell's helmet to remain intact cannot be interpreted as 'doing nothing to protect him'. The force required to split the helmet was force that was not transmitted to his skull. The residual force is what caused his injuries.

How much worse would his injuries have been without that initial dissipation of the total force? Head split in half rather than helmet? IMHO he can rightfully claim that his helmet helped save his life.

The failure of James Cracknell's helmet to remain intact cannot be interpreted as 'doing nothing to protect him'. The force required to split the helmet was force that was not transmitted to his skull. The residual force is what caused his injuries.

How much worse would his injuries have been without that initial dissipation of the total force? Head split in half rather than helmet? IMHO he can rightfully claim that his helmet helped save his life.

 

The force required to split many cycle helmets is very small, given the flimsy nature of most of them, and we don't know the nature of the impact, glancing or otherwise, direction etc. There just isn't enough information to be definitive, but the fact remains that he suffered serious and life threatening injuries despite wearing a helmet.

 

It would have been better for me to have said little to protect rather than nothing to protect, but I was making the point that in truck versus bike accidents, helmets don't even begin to give adequate protection.

The Hövding is slowly coming down in price. On Amazon for £250ish. Going to take the plunge soon once I've paid for new fencing and roof fascia that have been flattened recently!

The Hövding is slowly coming down in price. On Amazon for £250ish. Going to take the plunge soon once I've paid for new fencing and roof fascia that have been flattened recently!

 

The Hövding does seem to offer better protection than conventional designs.

 

Mind you, you'll need lots of them to protect that fence and roof.

.

The Hövding does seem to offer better protection than conventional designs.

 

Mind you, you'll need lots of them to protect that fence and roof.

.

 

 

Now that would get expensive! There does not appear to be any re-activation of the units.

Now that would get expensive! There does not appear to be any re-activation of the units.

 

A bit like car airbags then, replacement only, perhaps not surprising given the similar method.

 

Well worth it if the scars on it show a severe impact was avoided, but an unwelcome expense if it's a activated by a fall but doesn't strike anything.

Imagine tripping on your untied shoe-lace the first time you put it on!

Hi Cakey,

 

I have to agree, not sure where I heard it, but someone once said in my motorcycling days, "if you have a cheap head, get a cheap helmet".

 

That was an advertising slogan for Bell motorcycle helmets back in the 70's, it goes something like... 'got a 10 dollar head, get a 10 dollar helmet'

This slogan is still trotted out these days like it means anything.... The biggest cause of death & brain injury in motorcycle accidents is when your brain goes slamming into the inside of your skull. An expensive Arai or Shoei cannot stop this happening anymore than a cheaper helmet will.

Although I would always wear a helmet on a motorcycle even if they weren't compulsory.

 

As for wearing a helmet on a bicycle, I don't. If I were downhill mountain biking at high speeds then I probably would, but I don't consider I really need one in occasional leisure cycling at slow speeds.

Edited December 31, 201312 yr by Yamdude

The force required to split many cycle helmets is very small, given the flimsy nature of most of them, and we don't know the nature of the impact, glancing or otherwise, direction etc. There just isn't enough information to be definitive, but the fact remains that he suffered serious and life threatening injuries despite wearing a helmet.

 

It would have been better for me to have said little to protect rather than nothing to protect, but I was making the point that in truck versus bike accidents, helmets don't even begin to give adequate protection.

 

I'll not argue with that, but even a 5 star NCAP rating will struggle with that. And collision with an HGV or even a car is not the reason I wear a helmet. It is to protect me in the event that I have a spill from my bike, whether through my own fault or that of someone else.

Proportionality is key with any safety measure - the risk is small and it's not appropriate, for example, to wear full motorcycle leathers and full face helmet for day to day cycling (unless you're Guy Martin doing a ton 2 foot behind an HGV:D) Even the Hovding, at that price, is questionable given the risk. On the other hand, I'm happy that £30-50 is proportionate for the given risk that I envisage.

The appropriate safety measure for possible collision with motorised vehicles is 'avoid it'.

Obviously the first option in any collision with any motor vehicle would be avoidance. Failing that surely any protection is better than no protection at all !

It's your head so it's your choice.

In case scientific study counts.

 

Netherlands research. http://www.swov.nl/rapport/factsheets/uk/fs_bicycle_helmets.pdf

 

A recent study in Australia. Helmets reduce head injury severity › News in Science (ABC Science)

 

"Bicycle riders without a helmet are almost six times more likely to suffer a severe head injury than a helmeted rider, a new Australian study shows.

 

The finding adds to growing evidence supporting mandatory helmet laws.

 

Australia is one of the few countries in the world with mandatory helmet laws for bicycle and motorcycle riders.

 

The research, published today in the Medical Journal of Australia looks at the protective effect of helmets by examining the link between severe head injury in an accident and helmet use.

 

Lead author Dr Michael Dinh from the University of Sydney and his team based their findings on a study of 348 patients aged over 15 years admitted to seven Sydney trauma hospitals in the 12 months from July 2008.

 

The team found cyclists without helmets were 5.6 times more likely to suffer any head injury than cyclists wearing a helmet and 5.5 times more likely to suffer a severe head injury.

 

For motorcyclists the benefit of helmet wearing was not as marked as those without helmets were only 2.2 times more likely to suffer any head injury than motorcyclists with helmets and just 3.5 times more likely to suffer a severe head injury.

 

"The protective effect of helmet use with respect to head injury prevention therefore appears to be greater in pedal cyclists compared with motorcyclists," the team writes."

The Hövding is slowly coming down in price. On Amazon for £250ish. Going to take the plunge soon once I've paid for new fencing and roof fascia that have been flattened recently!

 

Hövding ? Airbag for cyclists

Well, at least one doesn't look like a total kno... silly person before it goes off.

Frankly, these sort of figures are meaningless and also suggest someone trying to pad out the case.

What we need to know is how many accidents...obviously most are not reported.

Of those reported, how many head injuries with helmet/without helmet.

What is 'Any head injury?' could be a trifling scratch

What is 5.5 times more likely than? Sounds obvious to the man in the street, but it could be that of the 348 patients, 2 with helmets and 11 without helmets had serious head injury.

Even the authors of the report admit that they need better data!

Sounds like politicians trying to justify their own laws

Sounds like politicians trying to justify their own laws

 

That's exactly what it is Mike. The mandatory helmet law has seriously damaged cycling in Australia which now has the lowest incidence of cycling in the world. This is politically at odds with most of the rest of the world where cycling is being actively encouraged for environmental reasons, so the self professed environmentally concerned Australians are self conscious about the effects of this law.

OK, the forum is split on whether wearing a helmet helps prevent injury. May I ask what harm would it do to wear one?

Phil

Other road users give you a "wider berth" when your not wearing a helmet. I assume they think your more vunerable if your not wearing one.

Other road users give you a "wider berth" when your not wearing a helmet. I assume they think your more vunerable if your not wearing one.

 

All of the videos shown on You tube of cyclists getting cut up and so forth; I think negates your opinion Kenny. I could counter that proposal by stating that the majority of cars only give me a wide berth when there is room to do so, and even then some do not bother.

OK, the forum is split on whether wearing a helmet helps prevent injury. May I ask what harm would it do to wear one?

Phil

 

The majority prefer not to, probably similar to the country as a whole where the figure is 27% wearing.

 

Harm is not relevant in this context, it's more a convenience and comfort matter. I don't like hats in general and particularly find strap-on helmets uncomfortable. A helmet is also inconvenient, cycling to me is just an alternative to walking and I do it in street clothing without the nuisance of any special clothing, just as they do in the main cycling countries of the world where helmets are rarely worn.

In the past we have accepted seat belts, helmets and smoking bans so if a cycle helmet law comes in we will accept it.

For my part I'm a recent convert as I now ride most days covering 50 - 100m per week. It keeps my head warm and provides a place to attach a supplementary red flashing light.

In the past we have accepted seat belts, helmets and smoking bans so if a cycle helmet law comes in we will accept it.

 

It will never happen, our governments have resisted every attempt to introduce it, even blocking an attempt to make it mandatory for children.

 

They know that compelling greatly reduces the incidence of cycling as proven where it's been done, and that is the opposite of what they want. In the EU the official opposition to compulsory helmets is even greater and as a transport matter the EU has supremacy and can lean heavily on any member government doing something they disapprove of.

None whatsoever.

I usually wear one, it keeps me warm.

BUT

I see no need at all to make them compulsory. This is just a politicians wet dream.

I am related to a number of politicians and am well aware of their tricks.

They all have a policy in their back pockets, and something like compulsory cycle helmets has a feel good factor and remember to protect the children etc.

Contrary to what you may believe, they don't want this to go through easily, the longer it takes, the more publicity (and money) they get. They get a reputation for fighting to look after people etc.

Politics stinks.

I think we will disagree on this one flecc. You are prepared to accept the risk of head injury because of your belief and that is your choice. The problem is there are lots of brain injury units across the country, full of people who were of the same opinion. Now I know the majority were probably not due to cycling accidents, but even if just one of them was, would it not be worth it to have it compulsory to wear a cycle helmet?

 

I suppose you could quote the example of the smoker who lives to his late fifties before he develops COPD and Cancer, who thought he would never contract either of those diseases and could quote the example of his grandparents who smoked right up until they died of a ripe old age. Or that he has cycled for years without having an accident. I've never had a crash whilst driving in nearly forty years, but I still put a seat belt on. There are wards full of those people with a devil may care attitude, who think that the "Nanny State" is already fit to burst with health and safety initiatives.

 

Now it is understandable why the Government does not step in and ban smoking, not least the big tobacco companies who can and do dictate policy, but I do not understand why the Government would not want to introduce legislation that has the ability to save lives and prevent harm. At the end of the day the NHS has to foot the bill to help people recover from cycling accidents, and it's not as if the cyclist generates vast wealth for the country like the smoker does.

More important than helmets , is proper cycling lanes away from the traffic .

Now if one of our so called muppet leaders came up with this . It would get my vote .

This has to be the only country in Europe why cyclists are classed as badgers

Edited January 1, 201412 yr by Cakey