What is safe to wear under a helmet?

[Pebble]

Has any reason been given to explain why wearing, lets say, a fleece beaney of equal thickness (with no buttons on), would cause a helmet to become less effective / fail ? Reasons are important as it allows me to do my own risk assessment.

[thirdcrank]

Two reports have been made that this thread should be in the Helmet forum. When I saw the first one yesterday evening I thought there was a case for arguing that the discussion was primarily about recommendations of hats to keep warm or protect from the Sun which were compatible with helmets. Inevitably that is a somewhat subjective judgement. Looking at subsequent posts and the thread overall I now agree with the reports that it should be in the Helmet forum, and have therefore moved it.

The first line of the OP makes reference to the safe performance of helmets. As you say, moderation requires subjective judgement and IMO usiing the words helmet and safe (or variants) together points to the sub-forum without waiting for reports. Apart from anything else, discussion like this defeats the purpose of a helmet subforum. imo

[slowster]

The first line of the OP makes reference to the safe performance of helmets. As you say, moderation requires subjective judgement and IMO usiing the words helmet and safe (or variants) together points to the sub-forum without waiting for reports. Apart from anything else, discussion like this defeats the purpose of a helmet subforum. imo

The title and opening post do not always determine how a thread will develop. It was yesterday evening when I saw the first report. I quickly skimmed it and saw posts recommending specific hats that would work with a helmet. It was late and I was unsure in my mind of what action to take, and the default in that situation is to leave it/wait. I therefore left the report open for other moderators in case they took a different/stronger view. When I logged in this morning there was a second report, so I reviewed the thread again and moved it to the Helmet forum.

As for 'without waiting for reports', I do not read every thread and would not have read this one were it not for the two people who did go to the trouble of making reports (for which they have my thanks).

[mjr]

Has any reason been given to explain why wearing, lets say, a fleece beaney of equal thickness (with no buttons on), would cause a helmet to become less effective / fail ? Reasons are important as it allows me to do my own risk assessment.

The reason I've seen is that the retention system
(the padded soft plastic bars, or on cheaply-made helmets just the pads on the actual helmet polystyrene) gripping a soft hat has much less friction than the retention system grabbing a mix of scalp and hair, increasing the risk of the helmet sliding around on the head in a crash, possibly to the point where the non-protective edge can do serious harm on impact like make a corner to break the jaw or neck across, which is also likely to crack the helmet and reduce its impact absorption.

[thirdcrank]

Here's what I understand to be the current rule on posts about helmets. Although I say "current" I do not remember it ever being different. My reading is that the "helmet" sub-forum is the default place for all helmet discussions - and with good reason.

Cycle helmet debates

On almost every cycle forum there is at least one helmet debate, and more often than not it turns nasty. Thus we have created a separate sub board for cycle helmet debates. This brings together all of the debate in one place, making it easier to see if threads on any particular helmet issue have already been started, and also easier for the moderators to police discussion.
Before starting a new thread please be sure that it has not been covered before - most have and so you can save yourself a lot of typing.
When replying please be sure that you have read and understood properly that you are replying to - helmet threads seem to have a tendency to generate misunderstanding.
When replying please be sure that you make your post as civil, respectful and polite as possible - if you are trying to convince someone of your views, it is much easier to do so if you treat them in a civil manner rather than insulting them.
Please try to avoid making statements along the lines of “it’s like this because I say it is”: for instance “you are stupid to ride without a helmet”. This, is guaranteed to cause annoyance and the thread will descend into chaos. Rather try to write “I would not ride without a helmet because ....” and list a set of logical reasons, etc.

viewtopic.php?t=3661

There's never been anything suggesting that there should be a discussion about helmet threads before they are moved there.

[mjr]

It's a Giro,

My Giro had a pretty good retention system. It was too hot to wear anything under, though, so I don't remember if it said not too.

After the falls which caused substantial damage to the helmets, they were still securely held in place ( including the beanie) when I was rescued by passers by. What a pity I hadn't been wearing full body armour !

Yeah, helmets do nothing to prevent the torso being crushed by a truck!

It's strange how I fell more frequently when using a helmet and how helmets are spectacularly damaged by falls. In the rarer falls before and since using one, I've only once hit my head and that was well within the padding capacity of a thick beanie. It seems strapping a weight on the top of my head made it more likely to hit the ground harder and destroy the helmet.

Helmets seem to be self-convincing.

[slowster]

There's never been anything suggesting that there should be a discussion about helmet threads before they are moved there.

I made a statement on the thread in my capacity as a moderator. I have not suggested there should be a 'discussion about helmet threads before they are moved there'. Protracted discussion of moderation of a thread on that same thread is generally undesirable. If you have an issue with moderation on this thread, I suggest you either:

- submit a report,
- start a thread in 'Using the forum',
- or send Vorpal a PM

as appropriate.

[thirdcrank]

There's never been anything suggesting that there should be a discussion about helmet threads before they are moved there.

I made a statement on the thread in my capacity as a moderator. I have not suggested there should be a 'discussion about helmet threads before they are moved there'. Protracted discussion of moderation of a thread on that same thread is generally undesirable. If you have an issue with moderation on this thread, I suggest you either:

- submit a report,
- start a thread in 'Using the forum',
- or send Vorpal a PM

as appropriate.

I am sorry that my sincere attempts to support your invaluable - voluntary - work as a moderator should come across as some sort of criticism. To summarise my position, anybody posting on this forum "signs up" to the rules. The longstanding relevant rule here is the one I have posted verbatim above. IMO anybody ignoring that explicit rule has either not read the rules, chosen to ignore them or a combination of both.

I would not expect anybody, especially a volunteer like you are, to provide round-the-clock monitoring of this and I'm sorry if that appeared to be the case. I do say, however, that the first report made by a forum member of this rule being broken should be sufficient to open the trap door into what has been described as the "oubliette."

Making a rod for your own back is a cliché that comes to mind

============================================================
PS I cannot think of a simple reason for a member to report something like this if

breach of forum rules on helmet discussions

is not sufficient, not least because anything else puts the onus on individual members to re-iterate the existing rules

[pjclinch]

Given there's no obvious attempt at marketing/design of helmets to cope with the differences between folk with elaborate hairstyles and the likes of my "Patrick Stewart" cut, I can't really see how an under-hat would particularly swing things. The differences between hairstyles and hair types quite possibly make for at least as much difference as any given wearer having an under-hat.

To pass the standard testing lids are strapped to a smooth headform. It doesn't have hair, or as far as I'm aware wear an extra hat. So unless you want to worry that helmets can only be trusted to do as specified if the wearer's head is exactly like the test headform then I don't think you need to worry about a beanie under a lid, as long as the basic fit of the helmet stays good.

I often wear a Buff in balaclava-mode under mine if it's winter MTB, to keep my ears warm. I've had kids at sessions take off under-hats where they've affected the fit of the helmet, but with a bit of adjustment left in the cradle and a suitably thin under-hat it's not generally a problem.

Pete.

[Mike Sales]

Patrick Stewart?
The paradigm of baldness used to be Yul Brynner.

[pjclinch]

Patrick Stewart?
The paradigm of baldness used to be Yul Brynner.

Times change. If I ask my kids (early 20s) who Yul is they may well not know, but they will know PS.

Pete.

[Bmblbzzz]

Given there's no obvious attempt at marketing/design of helmets to cope with the differences between folk with elaborate hairstyles and the likes of my "Patrick Stewart" cut, I can't really see how an under-hat would particularly swing things. The differences between hairstyles and hair types quite possibly make for at least as much difference as any given wearer having an under-hat.

I think a possible reason has been pointed out by mjr, and it's one I've heard too: that a hat might slip over your head, introducing an extra layer of movement between helmet and head in a way that hair, however long, wouldn't. Whether that's a serious problem I don't know. I've also seen some people wearing a helmet a hat so thick that the helmet only contacts their head at its rim, which is now perched on top of their skull with a huge gap between the rest of the helmet and head. That's bound to make some difference to the way the helmet behaves, but again I don't know what. I dare say some tests have been done, whether on cycle, motorcycle or maybe even construction helmets.

[roubaixtuesday]

It's a Giro,

My Giro had a pretty good retention system. It was too hot to wear anything under, though, so I don't remember if it said not too.

After the falls which caused substantial damage to the helmets, they were still securely held in place ( including the beanie) when I was rescued by passers by. What a pity I hadn't been wearing full body armour !

Yeah, helmets do nothing to prevent the torso being crushed by a truck!

It's strange how I fell more frequently when using a helmet and how helmets are spectacularly damaged by falls. In the rarer falls before and since using one, I've only once hit my head and that was well within the padding capacity of a thick beanie. It seems strapping a weight on the top of my head made it more likely to hit the ground harder and destroy the helmet.

Helmets seem to be self-convincing.

You fall off frequently enough to judge the effect of helmets on that frequency?

I think you need cycling lessons!

[roubaixtuesday]

In terms of actually answering the question, given that the effect of helmets on safety is very small, and there's no data whatever on wearing something under them, then it seems reasonable to conclude that wearing thin headgear under a helmet makes an insignificant effect on your overall safety.

Though I'd argue that in the rain a casquette is safer than nothing, as it prevents salty water from the pads running into my eyes, an eventuality that so excrutiating it makes me stop in agony with my eyes screwed up!

I wear buff, casquette, both or nothing according to weather and whim.

[mjr]

You fall off frequently enough to judge the effect of helmets on that frequency?

I think you need cycling lessons!

Yet more need when I used a helmet? That's a bit odd, isn't it?

I fall off a lot less often now. I don't know whether my decisions are better when my head isn't wrapped in wall insulation, or other road users treat me better, or something else is responsible. Helmet use was for many years and non use was for many years before and after, so it's enough to notice a difference even with infrequent falls. I think that's fairly unusual, too, a product of learning before helmets were common.

I think I'm noticing similar with group rides: it's rare that a non user falls (not seen one in years. Last I know about was a heart attack), plus some of the user crashes seem pretty daft (last one I saw rode into the back of a stopped bike). This is only anecdotes and group rides do have more users because of various official advice, with not even CUK daring to advise against. Does anyone else think they're noticing this?