Tekforums

Just a random thought as I meandered into the cycling forum... do you cycling folk take the precaution of wearing a helmet or not?!

Jaimz :rock:

YES!

ive made my reasons clear in another thread.

Yes, apart from during exam week.  Dont ask me why, its just a rather morbid observation Ive made on my own behaviour  :shock:

Nope, most of my ride is not on-road. The majority of it is in wooded cycle tracks, and to be honest even if I ride on-road (saunter to the shops, or through the city centre) I dont feel as if I should wear one then.

If its my time to go.. its my time to go, failing that Ive had golf clubs smacked into my head, my face stamped on, and Ive headbutted enough walls in my time to think "meh... to be honest my heads tough enough"

Interesting mentality  :shock:

The whole "if its my time to go" thing really doesnt hang with me.  Thats the reason the roads in India etc are like they are, people think that if they overtake on a blind bend and smack into an artic lorry, it was their day to die and thats that.  Its a bit stone-age if you ask me.

What if its not his time to die but his time to be a paraplegic or a vegetable in a bed? My brother was very anti-helmet (anti-seatbelt even!); recently a bar-end snapped on him on my ancient Rockhopper and he hit the road. To my surprise hes changed his mind now...

Can we have a "Sometimes" option ?

I wear mine when I am on the road but not for little offroad jaunts.

Im a bad girl, dont wear mine at all on the streets of Bristol really.

Thats despite having been run off the road once (silly woman turned left while I was beside her, luckily we were barely going 5mph), and having properly stacked it off my bike, skidding along giving a massive abrasion down my right forearm, doing something funny to my left ring finger (still isnt quite right) and lots of bruises on my legs. And I still went into my last exam 15 mins later. Had to keep peeling my arm off the table though, blech...

I tended to wear my helmet more in winter when it was dark, along with reflectives and lights. Seemed much more dangerous in the dark.

I always wear a helmet.

A friend recently came off and dislocated his shoulder, broke his collar bone, fractured his wrist and broke all his fingers on one hand. Luckily he has his helment on so he didnt break his head.

If you dont ride like an asshole on the street and use your defensive skills, your chances of bopping your head are as minimal as taking a shower. Its all about risk. You dont wear a helmet in the shower do you? You also dont do endos and grinders in the bath if youre wanting to stay safe.

Current helmet popularity has to do with hysteria and the search for a simple panacea. The streets as dangerous as you make it. 90% of helmeted riders I encounter on the street are behaving in ways that far counteract the slight benefit that the helmet might offer. Theyre zig zagging behing parked cars, afraid to take the lane in traffic, using iPods, riding the wrong way, riding at night without lighting, running busy intersections, weaving, inattentive, and so on. About 80% of helmeted riders I see are wearing their helmet incorrectly. Either its a wrong size or its being worn on the back of the head like a mortarboard or the chin straps are loose or undone altogether.

Heres the newsflash: helmets dont prevent accidents. They reduce an average impact by about 3mph. So if you hit a minivan at 28 with a helmet, youre only actually bopping your head at 25 mph. Fantastic! Now why dont you just try avoiding that minivan altogether, eh? Pay attention--thats right, PAY ATTENTION to the road--this my friends, far more effective for cranial safety when it comes to prevention. Helmets prevent nada, they just shave about 10% of the velocity of impact.

Bottom line: responsible cycling is not dangerous. People that insist on helmets on the street are hysterics. If you insist on responsible street cyclists wearing helmets, then statistically you must support painters on ladders, and zealous trampoline users usage of specialized head gear. Life has a small element of risk. Foam talismans and other semi-religious actions do not reduce this risk, but responsibility do.

Quote from: funkychicken9000Interesting mentality  :shock:

The whole "if its my time to go" thing really doesnt hang with me.  Thats the reason the roads in India etc are like they are, people think that if they overtake on a blind bend and smack into an artic lorry, it was their day to die and thats that.  Its a bit stone-age if you ask me.

lol well if my head can survive a titanium driver being shoved into my head at whatever speed my mate hits a ball, without cracking. Im pretty sure Id survive a bump on the pavement.

Sara you slid off of your bike, and grazed every part of your body except what part.. tiz right! your head! :) To actually hit your head in a fall where a helmet will "save your life" is bloody hard. its the thing you protect. You curl in a ball to protect it, you fling your arms out to protect it, you pretty much sacrifice most of your other body parts to protect your head. You dont need a helmet :)

Granted if your plowed into by an artic at 60mph, your arms wont protect your head, neither will the helmet protect against internal bleeding, and your organs being squeezed out of your nostrils.

Mountain bikers... I see a point, twatting a tree, hurts. Helmets prevent you feeling it too much. Children I see a point, their skulls arent fully developed, and maybe in the winter as the roads are slippery, and coming off and hitting your head is not the nicest sensation in the world, and some allow mounting of lights and reflective tape (handy to allow drivers to see when your about to turn.. (your head movement is easier to see)).

Yup, mets are designed to protect against a very very short fall onto concrete. Who experiences such similar falls? Young children, winter cyclists, and mtbers. Roadies very very rarely go down, and when they do, long term head injuries are extremely rare. How many cyclists have died in the 100 years of the Tour of France? Two. One from heat exhaustion, and the other from fall off a cliff. Woo woo. However, there has been tons of road rash and broken collarbones. I recommend shoulder pads. It would help in 10% of crashes, but make 90% of people look more like Joan Collins circa 87. :lol:

Imagine getting hit sideways by a car on a roundabout.  Going down without having time to get clear of your bike, youre almost certain to end up knocking your head on the ground as you topple over.  I came off in a similar way a few years back, and thank god I was wearing a helmet.  I heard a massive crack sound, but I wasnt in any pain and was able to pick myself up and cycle off without needing surgery.  

To say you dont need a helmet because your reflexes act to save your brain is absolutely rediculous - if anything, that should reinforce how important it is to protect that region.

So far most of the arguments against helmets have either gone along the lines of "Get hit head on at 30 and youre dead anyway" or "you never hit your head".  Both are clearly irrelevent, as theres a whole host of possible scenarios where your dome gets a bump.  Sliding off slippery footbridges with handrails in the ice springs instantly to mind, as that was the last serious off I had.

What exactly is it youre sacrificing by wearing a helmet?  Certainly not road sense; anyone with an ounce of intelligence knows that one isnt a replacement for the other.  You might look a bit silly, but quite frankly Id rather that minor embarassment than the shame of having to explain to an A&E crew why I didnt think wearing a helmet was really necessary as they stitch my scalp up.

Quote from: maximusotterFoam talismans and other semi-religious actions do not reduce this risk, but responsibility do.

where do i buy a foam talisman?
i would like 6 to hand around my bollocks while i work.

Youre sacrificing comfort and practicality. Cycling is no more dangerous than many other activities where one wouldnt think of wearing a lid, so why are people so religiously adament about using one for just this activity? Its religious zealotry and self righteousness more than any sort of compassion. Its the adoption of a meme, and the refusal to let it go even though logic is breathing its garlicky breath into your face.

Why should I sacrifice discomfort and practicality to prevent the two or three additional cranial lacerations Ill likely get in my lifetime. Ive already had two. The time I spent at the hospital getting stitched up was a minor inconvenience and no big deal. Because of the angle of impact, neither incident was preventable by helmet. Should I wear one and be uncomfortable for that "just right" impact I might get if I cycle continuously for ten lifetimes? How rediculous is that!

Life is full of risk. Take care of the big stuff: dont jump out planes, dont ride motorcycles drunk, dont try to have sex with intoxicated manatees, avoid owning firearms, make sure youve got the bow and arrow pointed the right way, etc--but dont sweat the small and itsy beetsy stuff like bike helmuts. Might as well require styro fedoras for Chicago pedestrians in January and February if theyre caught without Florsheim crampons.

1. Increasing the chance of a Torsion/Rotational injury

2. Increasing the likelyhood of hitting your head

3. Increasing the numbers of tree branches you hit

4. Having to lose control of your bike for a short period because you have to duck lower and stop looking ahead in order to avoid such branches.

5. Sweat sucks when it falls from a sponge that every time you move your head decides to empty itself into your eyes. And the times at which you move your head tend to be the times when you want to make a maneouvre which tend to be the times that you actually want to see, not wheel along one handed trying to get the sweat sting out of your eyes.

6. Turning my head sideways with a helmet on is more awkward, and it impedes my view. Instead of seeing a full sky to floor view, I see a Helmet rim to floor view. Granted this means Ill see cars but it does cause a little bit of a distraction for you.

Im not saying its impossible to hit your head, or that you wont hit your head, im saying your body will throw itself in harms way to protect your head naturally, there is no need to suffer the above 6 items (that are the first few things off of the top of my head (no pun intended :D)) for what amounts to very little extra protection.

Its polystyrene mate... It doesnt protect my damn computer monitor when in the hands of royal mail... why the hell should I trust it to protect my head!

full face helemts enable me to chew.


i presume its also the case with cyclists.

Child cyclist in 2050:

(http://www.neisd.net/tejeda/history_hill2.jpg)

:lol:

The greater debate that umbrellas this is the classic fight between Public Perception and Reality.

Found this paper which pretty much sums up exactly the way I understand the the earth to circle the sun.

Common Beliefs about bike helmuts (http://www.ucolick.org/~de/AltTrans/helmyths.html)

And Ill tell ya wear my opinions are rooted: its in being one of the thousands of bike commuters in Gothenburg and Chicago. Seems those of us that treat bikes as normal safe objects, are the ones that dont fall down as often, and have enough road miles to see this debate for the charade that it is.

Im not going to claim to be some sort of awesome rider, as I corner like a girl, and chicken out at 35mph when descending--just got a lot of miles behind me to form my cynics opinion.

Quote from: M3ta7h3ad1. Increasing the chance of a Torsion/Rotational injury

2. Increasing the likelyhood of hitting your head

3. Increasing the numbers of tree branches you hit

4. Having to lose control of your bike for a short period because you have to duck lower and stop looking ahead in order to avoid such branches.

5. Sweat sucks when it falls from a sponge that every time you move your head decides to empty itself into your eyes. And the times at which you move your head tend to be the times when you want to make a maneouvre which tend to be the times that you actually want to see, not wheel along one handed trying to get the sweat sting out of your eyes.

6. Turning my head sideways with a helmet on is more awkward, and it impedes my view. Instead of seeing a full sky to floor view, I see a Helmet rim to floor view. Granted this means Ill see cars but it does cause a little bit of a distraction for you.

Im not saying its impossible to hit your head, or that you wont hit your head, im saying your body will throw itself in harms way to protect your head naturally, there is no need to suffer the above 6 items (that are the first few things off of the top of my head (no pun intended :D)) for what amounts to very little extra protection.

Its polystyrene mate... It doesnt protect my damn computer monitor when in the hands of royal mail... why the hell should I trust it to protect my head!

Allow me to comment on a few of your points.

1. Bollocks.  Give me a situation where those effects are more significant and the probability of occurance is higher than the knock your head will recieve and Ill give you a gold star.  And remember I have two years of kinematics and rotational dynamics study under my belt.

2.  Increasing the likelyhood of hitting your head?  Are you serious?  My helmet adds an inch or so onto my height.  Im still lower than minivans etc, and lower than a pedestrian the same height as me.  What exactly are you referring to?

3.  See above, this is just rediculous.

4.  Dont know about you, but I dont tend to go blind when I have to lean forwards a bit more.  And I certainly dont lose control of my bike.

5.  Either you have a serious body problem, or you have a rubbish helmet.  Ive ridden 10 miles to the start of a time trial, done the race at a serious pace and then ridden 10 miles back and never have I had sweat drip from my helmet.  Methinks youre just making things up now.

6.  Evidently youre not wearing your helmet correctly, or youve got a rubbish one.  Mine doesnt impede my view and it cost Ã,£20.

Since youre so fond of spouting rubbish without having any practical experience, I suggest you do a little test to see what might happen at a roundabout.

Put on a helmet and get on your bike.  Clip in if youve got SPDs, it all adds to the fun.  Now get a mate to run at your side and give you a wee shove.  If you can unclip and clear the bike before your head hits the deck, give yourself a pat on the back and ceremonially burn your helmet.  If however, like any normal person who becomes the victim of a careless driver who isnt looking out for bikes, you go over sideways and hit your head then youll be glad you put on a helmet at the beginning.

Ysee, the thing is all this "Helmets are useless" rubbish just encourages more people to tell themselves they can neglect to wear one because they already feel a bit silly in it.  You obviously own a helmet, so the likelyhood is that at one stage you wore it and felt it necessary to do so.  And now (possibly because of someone ranting about how useless they are on an internet forum) you dont wear it, and preach to others about how apparently theyre more likely to cause damage than prevent it.  See where Im going with this one?  If you dont want to wear one, fine.  Just dont go around trying to justify your own stupidity by telling all and sundry that theyre the ones whove got it all wrong.  Because that would be a bit silly.

And for what its worth, I just skimread that article.  And yes, it fitted exactly into the two categories all anti-helmet propoganda uses - it wont save you when you hit a truck, and head injuries never happen.

Anyone whos interested in that article but doesnt feel like reading it all, just read the last (short) section on "common sense", and see how woefully the author misses the point and scrabbles around for excuses.  "Common sense tells you to wear a helmet but sometimes common sense is wrong".  What a crock of sh*t.  :roll:

Quote from: funkychicken9000[drivelsnip]

Ysee, the thing is all this "Helmets are useless" rubbish just encourages more people to tell themselves they can neglect to wear one because they already feel a bit silly in it.  You obviously own a helmet, so the likelyhood is that at one stage you wore it and felt it necessary to do so.  And now (possibly because of someone ranting about how useless they are on an internet forum) you dont wear it, and preach to others about how apparently theyre more likely to cause damage than prevent it.  See where Im going with this one?  If you dont want to wear one, fine.  Just dont go around trying to justify your own stupidity by telling all and sundry that theyre the ones whove got it all wrong.  Because that would be a bit silly.

Its more like people who wear them are too scared to admit that theyve been sucking on the tailpipe for all this time.

Helmet use is always inversely proportional to the popularity of cycling in a country, and mandatory use has doubled the reported ER cycling head injuries in both Oz and New Zealand. Helmet use discourages cycling, and cyclings health benefits far outweigh any chance of traumatic head injury.

In short, Ill repeat the mantra: can slow virtual impact by 3mph, can preven cranial lacerations. Great. Traumatic cycling injuries are very rare. Why do people suffer an inability to understand statistics?

In the US there are approximately 400, 000 deaths from lung disease per year and 700 dead cyclists. Wearing a helmut would not have saved the vast majority of those cyclists, whose deaths were usually due to impact with a motor vehicle. So lets say that 100 deaths out of 300, 000, 000 Americans would be preventable with a helmut...pretty good odds if you dont wear one.

The logic of "every little bit helps" is ludicrous. I suspect the same folks that are so religious about bike helmet usage, open up their cars and speed given the chance. Really, you should drive 90kph when it says so, not 110--every little bit helps. :lol: Dont walk down stairs, you might fall, take the elevator--every little bit helps. Never eat sweats or pork ribs as they can contribute to poor health--every little bit helps. :lol:

I started riding bikes in the end of the 2nd bike boom, at the end of the 70s. I rode to grade school on public streets. At that time the mantra was "be traffic" and to act vehicular. Cycling fell out of favor by the late eighties and was reborn in many places as some sort of extreme sport, with the usual squawking Henny Pennys screaming "the sky is falling, the sky is falling!!"

Quote from: funkychicken9000

Quote from: M3ta7h3ad1. Increasing the chance of a Torsion/Rotational injury

2. Increasing the likelyhood of hitting your head

3. Increasing the numbers of tree branches you hit

4. Having to lose control of your bike for a short period because you have to duck lower and stop looking ahead in order to avoid such branches.

5. Sweat sucks when it falls from a sponge that every time you move your head decides to empty itself into your eyes. And the times at which you move your head tend to be the times when you want to make a maneouvre which tend to be the times that you actually want to see, not wheel along one handed trying to get the sweat sting out of your eyes.

6. Turning my head sideways with a helmet on is more awkward, and it impedes my view. Instead of seeing a full sky to floor view, I see a Helmet rim to floor view. Granted this means Ill see cars but it does cause a little bit of a distraction for you.

Im not saying its impossible to hit your head, or that you wont hit your head, im saying your body will throw itself in harms way to protect your head naturally, there is no need to suffer the above 6 items (that are the first few things off of the top of my head (no pun intended :D)) for what amounts to very little extra protection.

Its polystyrene mate... It doesnt protect my damn computer monitor when in the hands of royal mail... why the hell should I trust it to protect my head!

Allow me to comment on a few of your points.

1. Bollocks.  Give me a situation where those effects are more significant and the probability of occurance is higher than the knock your head will recieve and Ill give you a gold star.  And remember I have two years of kinematics and rotational dynamics study under my belt.

2.  Increasing the likelyhood of hitting your head?  Are you serious?  My helmet adds an inch or so onto my height.  Im still lower than minivans etc, and lower than a pedestrian the same height as me.  What exactly are you referring to?

3.  See above, this is just rediculous.

4.  Dont know about you, but I dont tend to go blind when I have to lean forwards a bit more.  And I certainly dont lose control of my bike.

5.  Either you have a serious body problem, or you have a rubbish helmet.  Ive ridden 10 miles to the start of a time trial, done the race at a serious pace and then ridden 10 miles back and never have I had sweat drip from my helmet.  Methinks youre just making things up now.

6.  Evidently youre not wearing your helmet correctly, or youve got a rubbish one.  Mine doesnt impede my view and it cost Ã,£20.

Since youre so fond of spouting rubbish without having any practical experience, I suggest you do a little test to see what might happen at a roundabout.

Put on a helmet and get on your bike.  Clip in if youve got SPDs, it all adds to the fun.  Now get a mate to run at your side and give you a wee shove.  If you can unclip and clear the bike before your head hits the deck, give yourself a pat on the back and ceremonially burn your helmet.  If however, like any normal person who becomes the victim of a careless driver who isnt looking out for bikes, you go over sideways and hit your head then youll be glad you put on a helmet at the beginning.

Ysee, the thing is all this "Helmets are useless" rubbish just encourages more people to tell themselves they can neglect to wear one because they already feel a bit silly in it.  You obviously own a helmet, so the likelyhood is that at one stage you wore it and felt it necessary to do so.  And now (possibly because of someone ranting about how useless they are on an internet forum) you dont wear it, and preach to others about how apparently theyre more likely to cause damage than prevent it.  See where Im going with this one?  If you dont want to wear one, fine.  Just dont go around trying to justify your own stupidity by telling all and sundry that theyre the ones whove got it all wrong.  Because that would be a bit silly.

You call my words rubbish, yet you spout even more of your own out?!

Give me a break mate.

1. Ive read studies and reports on it Will link them up here if I can find them. I also understand the physics of having something catch on the road causing your head to twist.

2. If you have an inch wider head, the distance your head has to travel to the floor is decreased, the amount of force that your shoulders can absorb prior to your head hitting the floor is decreased also (as your head will hit before they cushion the blow fully.

Heres a little test. Without a helmet lay on the floor, find a book or similar object that will fit through the gap created by holding your head level.

Next... wear a helmet, now do the same test with the same object. Doesnt fit? ahhh thatll be because youve just increased the size of your head. Chances are if you are in an impact, your shoulders will take the blow, giving your hand time to raise (as would be natural) to provide a cushion for your head, and it would also be more likely that the shoulders would absorb all of the impact energy (if a helmet can do it, im pretty damn sure, muscle, sinew, fat, and bone can do it) in a sideways fall and you will be on the "bounce" up (as your body will bounce) without your head touching the floor. Wear a helmet and you lose that natural defence.

Also along the lines of point 3. Tree Boughs and branches, I myself ended up riding into a damn tree on the way in today because I couldnt duck low enough and maintain a forward looking position. If I was wearing a helmet Id have hit it more fully than just a glancing leaf blow on the back of my head.

Point 4. Duck down... Duck down low they way I have to when travelling under drooping damn trees on the trail (that incidentally cover the entire path) where do your eyes go? Ahhh looking at your cross bar yet? Yup! Voila, you are now no longer in control of your bicycle youve lost most of your forward vision, and your technically riding blind. Travelling at 20mph your covering roughly 9 mtrs every second. You look down for two seconds, your 18-20 mtrs further down the road you were on.

5. Its a problem with any helmets that are fitted well to your head, and utilise the common "sponge pad" fitting method. I sweat, I sweat a hell of a lot. The front forehead pad on my Giro helmet collects sweat and dumps it into my face when squeezed, which happens when I turn my head.

6. Its correctly fitted, however with a fat face due to being overweight the strap pulls uncomfortably tight when rotating my head, and turning my head to view traffic I end up with the peak of my helmet impeding the view of traffic I have.

In response to your other witterings. http://www.cyclehelmets.org/ Read it. I read it, and agreed on my experiences with helmets, and made a choice.

And its not a "biased" website... it contains articles for and against, purely for the people who read it to decide on their own grounds.

I recommend my trademark Columbus cap, (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00070MMZE/104-8770707-3234328?v=glance&n=1036592) 8 ounces of luxurious chamois butter (http://circlecitybicycles.com/cbutter.htm), and a dozen 8x10s of Carmen Electra (http://www.freakingnews.com/entries/4500/4935puWT_w.jpg) as a panacea.  I hope your bathroom has a lock. :lol:

If your 16+ youve probably got really good road skills and know the highwaycode inside out. If youre 8-12yrs old you probably dont.

Im saying the former shouldnt be educating the latter through example.

Yes.

same as wearing a seat-belt if you ask me..  feels wrong without it.

Quote from: M3ta7h3adListen up, here comes the science bit!

I hate to say it mate, but for all your supposed sciencey talk you have absolutely no grasp on the concepts of momentum and energy.

When you tip over sideways on a bike, you have angular momentum.  What happens when your shoulder hits the ground?  You dont "bounce back up", far from it.  Your body isnt a solid beam, surprise surprise bits move!  Your body stops, your head carries on due to its momentum and hits the ground.  Fall over sideways without anticipating it and I would put money on your head making contact with the floor.  Who cares if your head hits the ground 0.01s before it would do if you werent wearing a helmet?  If youre wearing one youll walk away from it like I did when it happened to me, and if youre not then you may just have a trip to A&E and some lovely concussion to go with it.  That type of contact is exactly what a helmet is designed to soothe, they never pretended to help in head-on collisions with lorries.  Toppling sideways as often happens when cars pull out into you at roundabouts, crossings and junctions is where they come into their own.

As for your argument about ducking under trees, if you cant see a safe way through then get off and walk round them.  Saying that helmet wearers are going to suffer more tree-related injuries is rediculous, as its the devil-may-care attitude of deciding to cycle through shrubbery in the first place which is at fault.

And Max, you can spout all the statistics about road deaths and helmet adoption all you like; Im not saying that helmets necessarily save a statistically significant amount of lives.  But if you could go and find me statistics for split scalps, cracked skulls and serious concussion related to cycling I think we both know what theyd show, and thats why wearing a helmet is sensible.

So wearing something that causes accidents because of heatstroke, annoyance, and sweat cascades, is good because it prevents injury in a few select cases? Circular logic! :w00t:

FC2K, dont use some assumptive imaginary figures, if you want to play the numbers game, quote some numbers. None of this "9/10 ER nurses say..." baloney. Yeah, Ive had stitches twice, so what, helmut wouldnt have helped in either case. Even if it had, I wouldnt be converted. People fall walking every day, but we dont have pedestrian helmets.

By far and away the thing that affects safety is behavior, and by focusing on the red herring of helmets, subscribers to that sort of theology undermine public safety.

I often see whole families out riding these days, as cycling is very popular in our local parks and residential streets. Invariably, theyre riding three abreast or on the wrong side of the road or weaving or running stop signs causing motorists to slam on their brakes. But theyve got their Helmuts on! Yay, woo.

Quote from: maximusotterBottom line: responsible cycling is not dangerous. People that insist on helmets on the street are hysterics. If you insist on responsible street cyclists wearing helmets, then statistically you must support painters on ladders,

what a big load of sh*te

it is a fairly sensible precaution - if you fall of your bike you could bump your head - doing this when on the road & with a car isnt really very good for you

it is not like slipping in the shower or tripping up when running & it doesnt have to be the cyclists fault either as anyone whos cycled in a big city ought to know - cab drivers have an ongoing war with cyclists in London & can get very aggressive

the bottom line is that a helmet could save your life or save you from serious injury & not wearing one while on busy roads is a bit silly to say the least

Quote from: maximusotterSo wearing something that causes accidents because of heatstroke, annoyance, and sweat cascades, is good because it prevents injury in a few select cases? Circular logic! :w00t:

FC2K, dont use some assumptive imaginary figures, if you want to play the numbers game, quote some numbers. None of this "9/10 ER nurses say..." baloney. Yeah, Ive had stitches twice, so what, helmut wouldnt have helped in either case. Even if it had, I wouldnt be converted. People fall walking every day, but we dont have pedestrian helmets.

By far and away the thing that affects safety is behavior, and by focusing on the red herring of helmets, subscribers to that sort of theology undermine public safety.

I often see whole families out riding these days, as cycling is very popular in our local parks and residential streets. Invariably, theyre riding three abreast or on the wrong side of the road or weaving or running stop signs causing motorists to slam on their brakes. But theyve got their Helmuts on! Yay, woo.

In this country, heatstroke is rare and sweat cascades arent a problem for the majority of the cycling public out on their pleasure rides or commutes.  So no circular logic here.  Also I dont see anywhere where Ive quoted any figures.  Ive stated what happens when a person falls sideways as Id like to think I understand the various motions involved quite well.  Perhaps you could point the figures you dissagree with out and Ill try to address them?

But its important also to note that you can be as safe as you like, but theres a limit to what you can protect yourself from.  You cant always account for other peoples behaviour, women driving into you while theyre busy applying their makeup, etc etc and this is why people take precautions.

I fully appreciate that the majority of cycling accidents are behavioural.  But really thats a seperate issue; if people feel wearing a helmet stops the need for sensible biking then they need the problem addressing through education - not by taking the helmet away!  Theres really no need to compromise on safety.  With more education people are more than capable of being safe cyclists, helmet or no helmet.  I dont think anyone can dispute that really.  

Quote from: Dave

Quote from: maximusotterBottom line: responsible cycling is not dangerous. People that insist on helmets on the street are hysterics. If you insist on responsible street cyclists wearing helmets, then statistically you must support painters on ladders,

what a big load of sh*te

it is a fairly sensible precaution - if you fall of your bike you could bump your head - doing this when on the road & with a car isnt really very good for you

it is not like slipping in the shower or tripping up when running & it doesnt have to be the cyclists fault either as anyone whos cycled in a big city ought to know - cab drivers have an ongoing war with cyclists in London & can get very aggressive

the bottom line is that a helmet could save your life or save you from serious injury & not wearing one while on busy roads is a bit silly to say the least

Problem with your drivel is that its based on Public Perception, and not on any kind of real experience or science.

Countries or regions that have instituted helmet laws for cycling are "paradoxically" experiencing a greater cyclist injury rate. Probably due to increased confidence.

If you routinely fall 3 foot onto smooth concrete, then by all means wear one. If youre someone like me that rides 5-7K per year and finds them uncomfortable, the statistics fail to overcome that discomfort.

not one for being stubborn or sticking your head in the sand at all are you max - though if you get a chance speak to a few paramedics and ask them what they think about the injured cyclists they pick up who werent wearing a helmet

simply saying - oh its uncomfortable is a bit lame - they weigh next to nothing tbh..

5-7k per year without a helmet in central london & youd have to have a death wish tbh...

Quote from: funkychicken9000

Quote from: M3ta7h3adListen up, here comes the science bit!

I hate to say it mate, but for all your supposed sciencey talk you have absolutely no grasp on the concepts of momentum and energy.

When you tip over sideways on a bike, you have angular momentum.  What happens when your shoulder hits the ground?  You dont "bounce back up", far from it.  Your body isnt a solid beam, surprise surprise bits move!  Your body stops, your head carries on due to its momentum and hits the ground.  Fall over sideways without anticipating it and I would put money on your head making contact with the floor.  Who cares if your head hits the ground 0.01s before it would do if you werent wearing a helmet?  If youre wearing one youll walk away from it like I did when it happened to me, and if youre not then you may just have a trip to A&E and some lovely concussion to go with it.  That type of contact is exactly what a helmet is designed to soothe, they never pretended to help in head-on collisions with lorries.  Toppling sideways as often happens when cars pull out into you at roundabouts, crossings and junctions is where they come into their own.

For a guy who appears to proclaim himself "ENGINEERING PHYSICS DOODAD" You appear to try and "forget" what you need in order to try and make others appear stupid.

Can you tell me, what happens during elastic deformation?

Your head hitting the floor 0.01 seconds before your shoulders have fully compressed is the same difference between your head hitting a deflated airbag, or a full one.

Your body specifically your hips, spine, neck and head can be simulated by a hinged beam.

If using the elastic deformation hint, and the hinged beam concept you still cannot figure out exactly what I mean, I believe you need to have a bit of a gander at some GCSE Physics books.

Helmets are for kids, mtbs, and cyclists concerned with visibility, Oh lets add one more... slightly misguided physics students.

Quote from: funkychicken9000

Quote from: maximusotterSo wearing something that causes accidents because of heatstroke, annoyance, and sweat cascades, is good because it prevents injury in a few select cases? Circular logic! :w00t:

FC2K, dont use some assumptive imaginary figures, if you want to play the numbers game, quote some numbers. None of this "9/10 ER nurses say..." baloney. Yeah, Ive had stitches twice, so what, helmut wouldnt have helped in either case. Even if it had, I wouldnt be converted. People fall walking every day, but we dont have pedestrian helmets.

By far and away the thing that affects safety is behavior, and by focusing on the red herring of helmets, subscribers to that sort of theology undermine public safety.

I often see whole families out riding these days, as cycling is very popular in our local parks and residential streets. Invariably, theyre riding three abreast or on the wrong side of the road or weaving or running stop signs causing motorists to slam on their brakes. But theyve got their Helmuts on! Yay, woo.

In this country, heatstroke is rare and sweat cascades arent a problem for the majority of the cycling public out on their pleasure rides or commutes.  So no circular logic here.  Also I dont see anywhere where Ive quoted any figures.  Ive stated what happens when a person falls sideways as Id like to think I understand the various motions involved quite well.  Perhaps you could point the figures you dissagree with out and Ill try to address them?

But its important also to note that you can be as safe as you like, but theres a limit to what you can protect yourself from.  You cant always account for other peoples behaviour, women driving into you while theyre busy applying their makeup, etc etc and this is why people take precautions.

I fully appreciate that the majority of cycling accidents are behavioural.  But really thats a seperate issue; if people feel wearing a helmet stops the need for sensible biking then they need the problem addressing through education - not by taking the helmet away!  Theres really no need to compromise on safety.  With more education people are more than capable of being safe cyclists, helmet or no helmet.  I dont think anyone can dispute that really.  

Prove to me that helmets work. Period. The burden of proof is in your court, not mine. Prove that they work beyond preventing laceration. Prove that theyre statistically worth while. You wont be able to. The figures beyond subjective guesses simply dont exist.

Want a real argument? Talk to a Dutchman, theyll probably collapse laughing. Last time I was in Amsterdam, people could spot the Americans because of their beanies, and folks found it highly amusing.

In addition to proving that helmets are effective statistically, go ahead and prove that cycling is a hazardous activity when done on the road responsibly. Thats another impossible task, but youre welcome to piss away your time on it. Meanwhile, Ill spend mine in the saddle.

I know Im right, so no more posting here for me. Bye now. :lol:

Quote from: M3ta7h3adFor a guy who appears to proclaim himself "ENGINEERING PHYSICS DOODAD" You appear to try and "forget" what you need in order to try and make others appear stupid.

Can you tell me, what happens during elastic deformation?

Your head hitting the floor 0.01 seconds before your shoulders have fully compressed is the same difference between your head hitting a deflated airbag, or a full one.

Your body specifically your hips, spine, neck and head can be simulated by a hinged beam.

If using the elastic deformation hint, and the hinged beam concept you still cannot figure out exactly what I mean, I believe you need to have a bit of a gander at some GCSE Physics books.

Helmets are for kids, mtbs, and cyclists concerned with visibility, Oh lets add one more... slightly misguided physics students.

Thats exactly your problem, GCSE logic :lol:

Youre making the classic mistake, using an incomplete toolkit to try to analyse a problem.  You only know about elastic deformation and freely pinjointed beams, so you dont consider the more important mechanisms; conservation of linear momentum, conservation of angular momentum, etc etc.  If you applied these principles correctly then you would notice that the effects of elastic deformation of your shoulder is somewhat insignificant when compared to the effects that stopping your body whilst leaving your head unsupported.

GCSE knowledge lets you solve GCSE problems.  Theyre the ones without momentum, deformation, mechanical resistances and anything involving rotation.  Sadly that means that with GCSE knowledge you cant successfully even begin to analyse the mechanism of a person falling over.  I reckon A level maths would give some insight, but still not enough.  Simple as that really  :(

the way some of the nutters round here drive your likely to have skull to windscreen action a little too often

Quote from: funkychicken9000

Quote from: M3ta7h3adFor a guy who appears to proclaim himself "ENGINEERING PHYSICS DOODAD" You appear to try and "forget" what you need in order to try and make others appear stupid.

Can you tell me, what happens during elastic deformation?

Your head hitting the floor 0.01 seconds before your shoulders have fully compressed is the same difference between your head hitting a deflated airbag, or a full one.

Your body specifically your hips, spine, neck and head can be simulated by a hinged beam.

If using the elastic deformation hint, and the hinged beam concept you still cannot figure out exactly what I mean, I believe you need to have a bit of a gander at some GCSE Physics books.

Helmets are for kids, mtbs, and cyclists concerned with visibility, Oh lets add one more... slightly misguided physics students.

Thats exactly your problem, GCSE logic :lol:

Youre making the classic mistake, using an incomplete toolkit to try to analyse a problem.  You only know about elastic deformation and freely pinjointed beams, so you dont consider the more important mechanisms; conservation of linear momentum, conservation of angular momentum, etc etc.  If you applied these principles correctly then you would notice that the effects of elastic deformation of your shoulder is somewhat insignificant when compared to the effects that stopping your body whilst leaving your head unsupported.

GCSE knowledge lets you solve GCSE problems.  Theyre the ones without momentum, deformation, mechanical resistances and anything involving rotation.  Sadly that means that with GCSE knowledge you cant successfully even begin to analyse the mechanism of a person falling over.  I reckon A level maths would give some insight, but still not enough.  Simple as that really  :(

Really? Consider this... all of those topics that you seem to think I havent covered are in the WJEC A level syllabus for Physics, that strangely enough I do have. Along with the years foundation in Engineering I did at university, granted this covered maths/mechanics/physics and some chemistry strangely enough, but im pretty sure I have enough grounding to understand all of the above that you mention.

What you say doesnt make sense either scientifically or otherwise! But this is going around in circles so lets change the topic slightly.

Ni: With regards to "my head is larger", would you or would you not say a head covering of say an inch or so, would indeed increase the dimensions of said head.

With regards to "more likely to hit things", would you or would you not say, a larger "target area" as it were, increases the likelyhood in which said target area will be involved in an impact.

Max is coming at it from the viewpoint of, providing you arent a complete idiot on the road you arent going to need one. Where as im having to explain to a guy that is into engineering as far as im aware some basic concepts in physics, I havent actually needed to prove anything im having to bloody type stuff to help FC9K "get" what I mean. (Perhaps its my way of explaining, I will freely admit some of my descriptions could be vague and unclear, if I had something other than MSPaint on here Id come up with some nice drawings).

Youve never had to cycle down a busy trail thats overgrown so bad in places that many letters have gone to the council in order for them to sort it out. Its certainly not cycling like a spaz, its keeping left when a shedload of people are passing on the right, and having to keep going as a shedload of people are behind you. Trees get in the way theres nothing I can do about them, and I duck as far as im comfortable ducking.

As for proof: http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html?1052 I suggest you start there, if you have athens access you can read some of the references it mentions, some however are printed journals only (unfortunately the one that describes what im trying to explain to FC9K, that wearing a helmet increases the chances that your head will be involved in a collision, is one of those).

Just to prove im not going completely bonkers, the website actually mentions some stuff from the journal I mention for FC9K.

QuoteThere is a good deal of circumstantial evidence that helmeted cyclists are more likely to crash, and data from one study [4] suggests that those wearing a helmet are more than 7 times likely to hit their heads if they do.

Many falls result in arm and shoulder impacts that keep an unhelmeted head just clear of the ground. A helmeted head, being twice as big and a little heavier, is more likely to hit something.

Im going to echo Niges sentiments, truly a classic Tekforums thread. Lovin the banter :lol:

Back when I used to cycle as a nipper I never once wore a helmet. Despite many nasty falls borne of my own stupidity and fearlessness, I never once received any serious head wounds (even at a time when only front braking was available on my bike). From what I can also remember it wasnt really that hard to keep my head away from the ground when falling off either; I have a feeling that unless the initial blow to yourself or your bike is enough to cause you to fall fast enough or to have taken enough of a concussive blow to not be able to fall relatively safely, then you are not going to knock your noggin either as it is not difficult to react. You rbody and brain have automatic mechanisms for this kind of thing, the same way tripping over in the street is not going to guarantee you a trip to A&E - your body takes over and assists you in  an inelegant recovery. Sure there are bound to be exceptions, but Im with max & MH on this. Id take no helmet on comfort vs risk.

Quote from: M3ta7h3adReally? Consider this... all of those topics that you seem to think I havent covered are in the WJEC A level syllabus for Physics, that strangely enough I do have. Along with the years foundation in Engineering I did at university, granted this covered maths/mechanics/physics and some chemistry strangely enough, but im pretty sure I have enough grounding to understand all of the above that you mention.

What you say doesnt make sense either scientifically or otherwise! But this is going around in circles so lets change the topic slightly.

 :rofl:

Ok mate, I can see this is getting to you and Im sorry you evidently feel so strongly about it.  Id walk you through the maths behind this and explain it all to you, but Im afraid Im a lazy guy and so Im not going to spend the next 30 minutes doing all the gubbins necessary to leave you with your foot in your mouth.  In the nicest possible way of course  :lol:

From perpetual motion cycling by "shifting your weight around" to the notion that sitting in a bath somehow lets you accelerate to the speed of light without injury, this forum has more than its fair share of zany physics.  Keep em coming, gives me a smile now and then  :D

It doesnt really matter though does it? I came 1st in NI in physics at A-level and I averaged 92.5% throughout my degree - and you know what? It doesnt matter a damn because its a 100% made up science!

I could just as easily say wearing a cycling helmet causes cornflakes to be eaten by some people - its true, and it isnt!

There are three things that matter - (i) being happy (ii) being ignorant of things that make you unhappy and most importantly (iii) football is sh*te.

Anyway back to the point - my take on it would be - why NOT wear a helmet - knowing the protection is there is better than knowing it isnt?

Certainly motorcyclists who ride without protective gear are pushing their luck. It isnt up to YOUR skill or how YOU ride 100% of the time, there are other people to think about too. Any accident I have ever had hasnt been my fault. I was glad the protective gear was there - I could easily have not worn it to keep cooler or whatever, or because i thought the way i was riding wouldnt get me into trouble and i would be sans hands and most of my skin now!

At the end of the day whats getting to me is your attitude on these forums, always has and always will.

Perpetual motion? if thats what you think my thoughts on pedalling were then your sorely mistaken  :shock:  (I would have thought better of such a physics whizkid as yourself). As by its own definition "shifting" means to move, to move you are required to input energy at least in my tiny ape like brain it appears to be that way. Perpetual motion seems to me to suggest the notion of motion continued regardless of energy input, which isnt what "shifting your weight" is. :roll:

 :lol:  :lol:  :lol:

What you have said in this thread is complete bollocks. As others have mentioned, they very rarely hit their heads, or have yet to do so in a fall. I believe this is down to the bodys reactions, and the actual nature of the human body. If A is attached via a hinge to B, and A hits the ground, then a damping effect occurs (as we are in a gravitational field here, and the fat,muscle and bone ultimately... will compress on impact, and expand after impact) (oh.. and damping.. laymans terms.. BOUNCES!), B in some cases will not necessarily have to impact the ground as well as A, and if B does impact, it will not be as vicious an impact as it would without the damping effect of A.

Its a damping effect.. it dampens things.  :roll:

Now substitute A with Shoulder, hinge with Neck, and B with head. Simple enough to understand now? Angular velocities, and other such wonderful words do not even need to come into it, as we arent dealing with exact figures, its a simple description of what happens when a collision occurs involving a body seperated by a hinge.

Im not talking bollocks, considering its been documented in medical journals as far back as 1988. So that leaves only one option left here, Your wrong mate. k..thx..and bai. (or game, set and match however you like it).

Quote from: BXGTi16VIt doesnt really matter though does it? I came 1st in NI in physics at A-level and I averaged 92.5% throughout my degree - and you know what? It doesnt matter a damn because its a 100% made up science!

I could just as easily say wearing a cycling helmet causes cornflakes to be eaten by some people - its true, and it isnt!

There are three things that matter - (i) being happy (ii) being ignorant of things that make you unhappy and most importantly (iii) football is sh*te.

Anyway back to the point - my take on it would be - why NOT wear a helmet - knowing the protection is there is better than knowing it isnt?

Certainly motorcyclists who ride without protective gear are pushing their luck. It isnt up to YOUR skill or how YOU ride 100% of the time, there are other people to think about too. Any accident I have ever had hasnt been my fault. I was glad the protective gear was there - I could easily have not worn it to keep cooler or whatever, or because i thought the way i was riding wouldnt get me into trouble and i would be sans hands and most of my skin now!

True, but then you look at injury statistics.

Car Drivers have more head injuries than cyclists (should they then wear helmets??)

Pedestrians also, suffer more head injuries than cyclists (Again... should they wear helmets??)

Using an escalator causes more head injuries than riding a bike.

So effectively the entire world is relying on a piece of polystyrene thats been proven to cause risk compensation (you ride a little wilder... because you feel safer), to protect their heads against an injury that will happen once in a blue moon.

Also the margin that which a polystyrene hat will protect you, and a skull wont is so narrow that chances are if your going to end up a vegetable after a crash, you would end up one wearing a helmet, or not wearing one.

A cycle helmet protects against grazes and cuts, and minor injuries, and thats it. Cycle fatalities between helmeted and non-helmeted people are the same in various countries, only difference is in "admissions for head injuries" i.e. an A&E visit for some butterfly stitches, or a concussion.

Quote from: M3ta7h3adAt the end of the day whats getting to me is your attitude on these forums, always has and always will.

Perpetual motion? if thats what you think my thoughts on pedalling were then your sorely mistaken  :shock:  (I would have thought better of such a physics whizkid as yourself). As by its own definition "shifting" means to move, to move you are required to input energy at least in my tiny ape like brain it appears to be that way. Perpetual motion seems to me to suggest the notion of motion continued regardless of energy input, which isnt what "shifting your weight" is. :roll:

 :lol:  :lol:  :lol:

What you have said in this thread is complete bollocks. As others have mentioned, they very rarely hit their heads, or have yet to do so in a fall. I believe this is down to the bodys reactions, and the actual nature of the human body. If A is attached via a hinge to B, and A hits the ground, then a damping effect occurs (as we are in a gravitational field here, and the fat,muscle and bone ultimately... will compress on impact, and expand after impact) (oh.. and damping.. laymans terms.. BOUNCES!), B in some cases will not necessarily have to impact the ground as well as A, and if B does impact, it will not be as vicious an impact as it would without the damping effect of A.

Its a damping effect.. it dampens things.  :roll:

Now substitute A with Shoulder, hinge with Neck, and B with head. Simple enough to understand now? Angular velocities, and other such wonderful words do not even need to come into it, as we arent dealing with exact figures, its a simple description of what happens when a collision occurs involving a body seperated by a hinge.

Im not talking bollocks, considering its been documented in medical journals as far back as 1988. So that leaves only one option left here, Your wrong mate. k..thx..and bai. (or game, set and match however you like it).

You proposed that it was possible to move the bike merely by using your weight as a power source and putting force on alternate pedals.  As I explained in great detail (and as you eventually admitted), this is bollocks.  You proposed a perpetual motion machine, it was impossible.  Simple as.

You continue to make very little sense about the rest of this though.  Youre saying the impact is worse when you wear a helmet, Im saying thats complete bollocks and explaining why.  I couldnt care less whether you agree or not; your argument is flawed but you cant see why because youve only been taught basic principles, it aint your fault.  Three years ago I would have possibly agreed with you, but since doing half a degree in the subject I know better.  These concepts arent obvious, you dont question them unless you know what youre looking for.  Take a falling chimney, for example.  Any idea why it will *always* break roughly 1/3 of the way from the top as it rotates?  Its this kinda thing Im talking about.  Unless youve been taught the principles, youd call me a liar every time.  

Im not saying "You should wear a helmet because of physics and stuff", Im merely saying that Id rather be wearing a helmet if I fell like I described.

But you know what, who cares.  Ill wear one, you dont have to, Im sure you dont mind little old me deluding myself that its safer now do you :)

actually all ive really said is "you are more likely to hit your head", and wearing a helmet can actually cause more head injuries because of that.

Thats all.

At the end of the day your right I couldnt give two hoots if you wore a helmet. Nor could I if anyone else does, but I do not appreciate being treated like an idiot. When its clear what I am saying is true. Your shoulders compress less before impact with the floor wearing a helmet than not. This "0.01" seconds makes no difference, does make a difference, an extra few ms-1 knocked off of the velocity at which your head hits the floor makes all the difference. And less not forget about the increased mass as well (helmets do weigh something :))

And the pedal thing, yes Ill admit I was seeing the wrong end of the stick at that point, but my theory was coming from "well if walking forward is achieved by actually forcing ones self to become unbalanced in a certain direction. Surely the same would apply to cycling". Same theory that allows robots to walk by the use of a heavy pendulum. Fair enough it may be wrong but you can at least understand why I thought that.

max states the right reasons for not wearing a helmet, ive just been having an argument with you really.  :lol:

Ive had loads of injuries where wearing a helmet would have shifted the injurys further down.

Ive got a monster scar on my shoulder and under my eye.  With the force I hit the floor, Id have bust my jaw.

Ill take the scar :)

Ive ridden like a real ass before now, through the city center and on the normal roads.  Ive been in countless collisions with cars, Not always my fault though.  Ive never hit my head through road riding.  If bike helmets are anything like motorbike helmets, then they are designed to stop you scuffing the skin and lessening the blow.  Wont do jack if you hit a kerb.  wont stop something impaling it.

Off road riding should really warrent helmet use, as there are rocks and tree roots and all sorts.  Its quite dangerous out there.  Still I dont wear one.  I have one but I dont wear it.  And I cant see my self wearing it any time soon,

Well before this turned into a bickering fight (stopped reading it properly about halfway through page 3 when people started getting silly) I thought Id reply...

Riding into work each day I dont wear a helmet.  I have no doubt its a good idea and Im kind of suprised people are saying its not.  My helmet fits well, doesnt hinder movement and theres no way it makes trees uproot themselves and attack me lol.  It helps in a small set of circumstances and I wouldnt try and claim it doesnt.

However, I personally find wearing it a pain in the ass for quiet street riding and zooming through parks (I pick quiet routes and tend to get off at busy intersections).  They make your head warmer than not wearing it (no matter how good the design), you pretty much look a bit of a prick and then you have to babysit it during the day or use up your bag space to hold it or lock it onto your bike.

I choose not to wear it as the benefits are small enough that the inconvenience of having it is too much for me.  No doubt stupid but its my personal choice.

On the other hand when Im chucking my bike around (mountain biking) I sure as hell use it because slipping on rocks, hitting trees or just smacking a landing too hard is all to common and hitting your head happens with when your pushing it or misjudge how slippery something will be when wet.  On roads I go out of my way not to get into situations where I could be knocked down but it will no doubt happen some day.  Until then I turn up to work not looking like a sweaty headed freak. :)