ICE say helmet wearing is "absolutely crucial" on a trike

[admin]

Agree with irc, a human head has evolved over millennia to survive impacts: we have strong skulls and our hair makes our heads slippery in contact with the ground to avoid rotation. We also know instinctively where our head is, and we automatically sacrifice limbs in order to save us bashing our heads if we fall. This is why racing cyclists suffer so many shoulder-blade injuries, and road rashes to legs and arms, and relatively few head injuries.

Adding a thick polystyrene hat with lots of slots in it must surely increase the risk of sudden head rotation. Also your helmet can hit the ground even when your head is a couple of inches away from the ground, and would otherwise not have hit at all, being held away by your arms or shoulders (been there, done that!).

[pjclinch]

Helmet doing harm... easy example, last time I fell off and banged my head I was wearing a helmet. I took it on the chin, so the helmet had no protective effect, and as it made my head effectively heavier it meant my chin hit the deck harder than it would otherwise have done.

Was that a serious issue? probably not, but it's a very simple demonstration that doesn't require much in the way of "what if?", imagination or tenuous conjecture.

Pete.

[Audax67]

I repeat, or restate: In case of accident the FFCT, our insurer the MMA, and the legislative and judicial arms are less critical of those who insist on helmets being worn in their events as a condition of entry. Therefore I put it in the rules and entrants will comply or be as politely refused as circumstances allow.

I do not give a tinker's damn what others think of the advisability of wearing helmets. I wear one. If you don't want to it's no skin off my nose. I don't expect my helmet to protect me in the event of me being hit by a heavier vehicle, nor if I come off at 80 kph on a downgrade, nor yet if I get thumped in the face by an anti-helmet activist. I consider that it will help protect my head to a certain extent in low-speed accidents, and this has been borne out twice in 15 years. In any case it makes a convenient mount for lights etc.

WRT the evolution of the human head, sacrificial limbs, etc.: The human head evolved to survive impacts at human running speed onto savannah soil. When I rode into a post à la Didier Rous in 2002 I was doing abut 30 kph. The bike stopped dead and I did a cartwheel onto tarmac. My collar-bone broke because of the sacrificial reflex (and its structure) but that didn't stop my head hitting the ground. The helmet broke as intended, absorbing some of the energy of impact in doing so. Without the helmet I might not have broken my skull, but I could have had a pretty good concussion. So I'm sorry if incompetent fitting strangles the odd child, but I haven't heard any cogent reason for riding bare-headed.

Nitey-nite.

PS: hair? What hair?

[Mike Sales]

Helmet doing harm?
Myself, when I feel more endangered I take steps to counteract the danger. If I believed that helmets were essential for safety I would modify my behaviour if I found myself without one. I have heard helmeteers go so far as to say that they would not ride without one. I presume that this would lead them to ride on an intimidating road with a helmet, but without one would stay at home. It seems to me that by grossly overestimating the protection offered by a helmet they have been led into taking a higher level of risk.
We all manage our risks and try to keep danger to a level acceptable to ourselves. Unless we believe helmets are next to useless, we will be led into danger.
This overestimate of helmet efficacy is constantly encouraged by helmet advocates who tell us they are indispensable.

[TonyR]

The helmet broke as intended, absorbing some of the energy of impact in doing so.

The helmet didn't "break as intended". It failed and in doing so failed to absorb much if any of the energy of impact. If it had worked as intended the helmet would have been intact but with an area of crushed polystyrene. What you saw was not compressive deceleration by the polystyrene crushing but failure by brittle fracture. If you want to see the difference in energy absorption of the two modes take a thickish (~1") piece of polystyrene packing material and try and crush it to half its original thickness. That's how much energy is needed to compress it as intended in a helmet. Now try to snap it. That's how much energy is needed to break it as not intended in a helmet.

Oh, and at 30kph you are already more than 100% over its design limit for impacts so its not surprising it failed really.

[broadway]

So I'm sorry if incompetent fitting strangles the odd child, but I haven't heard any cogent reason for riding bare-headed.

Then why don't you wear a helmet at all times? The only people I know that have had head injuries are non-cyclists. The only deaths of people I have known have been heart attacks, maybe if the had cycled helmet-less instead of smoking they would still be alive?

[Audax67]

The helmet broke as intended, absorbing some of the energy of impact in doing so.

The helmet didn't "break as intended". It failed and in doing so failed to absorb much if any of the energy of impact. If it had worked as intended the helmet would have been intact but with an area of crushed polystyrene. What you saw was not compressive deceleration by the polystyrene crushing but failure by brittle fracture. If you want to see the difference in energy absorption of the two modes take a thickish (~1") piece of polystyrene packing material and try and crush it to half its original thickness. That's how much energy is needed to compress it as intended in a helmet. Now try to snap it. That's how much energy is needed to break it as not intended in a helmet.

Oh, and at 30kph you are already more than 100% over its design limit for impacts so its not surprising it failed really.

Interesting point. I don't know if what you say re failure is correct and I can't be bothered verifying it. I will observe that directly crushing a solid piece of material and deforming a grid structure of that material to breaking point are different kettles of fish. But it's not worth squabbling about.

[Audax67]

So I'm sorry if incompetent fitting strangles the odd child, but I haven't heard any cogent reason for riding bare-headed.

Then why don't you wear a helmet at all times? The only people I know that have had head injuries are non-cyclists. The only deaths of people I have known have been heart attacks, maybe if the had cycled helmet-less instead of smoking they would still be alive?

That contains more non sequiturs than I care to count.

Anyway, I can see that I have blasphemed some kind of religious belief with my late posts: I'm getting out of here before I'm burned at the stake.

Toodle pip.

[TonyR]

Anyway, I can see that I have blasphemed some kind of religious belief with my late posts: I'm getting out of here before I'm burned at the stake.

Which is probably why you can say:

I haven't heard any cogent reason for riding bare-headed

And the "religious beliefs" you "blasphemed" are generally known as science and evidence.

[MartinC]

.................. You'd have a very thin time arguing that wearing a helmet brought you to harm.............

I know of several people who've been advised by their doctors that the neck injuries they've suffered are the result of wearing helmets. They're just as convinced that their helmets did them harm as you seem to be that they've saved your life. Clearly you "know" that they're wrong but I can't see how.

The irritation I have with the helmet evangelists is the same I have with anyone who tries to foist their superstitious beliefs on the rest of the world. If you press then for a coherent rationale of why they think they work It usually comes down to "because I know they do and you're all stupid".

Anyway I don't need a helmet 'cos I've got a St Christopher medal, it's saved my life on numerous occasions.

[TonyR]

The irritation I have with the helmet evangelists is the same I have with anyone who tries to foist their superstitious beliefs on the rest of the world. If you press then for a coherent rationale of why they think they work It usually comes down to "because I know they do and you're all stupid".

That plus the reversal of the usual burden of proof. The natural state is without a helmet. If someone wants to change that by putting a helmet on your head they need to prove as a minimum it will do no harm and preferably that it does some good. The helmet evangalist position though always seems to be that the natural state is wearing one and its for others to prove that wearing one will do harm.

[TonyR]

.................. You'd have a very thin time arguing that wearing a helmet brought you to harm.............

I know of several people who've been advised by their doctors that the neck injuries they've suffered are the result of wearing helmets. They're just as convinced that their helmets did them harm as you seem to be that they've saved your life.

"bicycle-related fatalities are positively and significantly associated with increased helmet use"
Rodgers GB (1988). "Reducing Bicycle Accidents: A Re-evaluation of the Impacts of the CPSC Bicycle Standard and Helmet Use". Journal of Products Liability 11: 307–17. (a review of 8 million cycling accidents - the biggest study ever done)

[Mick F]

I remember seeing a motoring programme - may have been Top Gear pre Clarkson - where they showed that seat-belt wearers drove faster and took more risks.

Maybe wearing a helmet makes you ride faster and take more risks?

[Mr. Viking]

I wear a helmet if I'm going mountain biking because I'm reckless, and quite likely to fall off and hit my head. If I was racing (unlikely given the shape I'm in) I would probably wear one too, for the same reason. When i am cycling to get about I am very unlikely to fall off and injure myself, so I don't see the point. I am at no more risk in that situation than I am when walking, or driving.

[TonyR]

I remember seeing a motoring programme - may have been Top Gear pre Clarkson - where they showed that seat-belt wearers drove faster and took more risks.

Maybe wearing a helmet makes you ride faster and take more risks?

You're referring to the Isles Report which was suppressed by the Government at the time but later leaked. What it found was more worrying. While driver injuries stayed the same, those for passengers and vulnerable road users - cyclists and pedestrians - rose when seat belts were made mandatory. http://www.john-adams.co.uk/2007/01/04/ ... es-report/

Risk compensation as it is known has been shown to be a factor in helmet wearing although the studies to date on it have not been of very good quality. A Canadian study found children rode faster and their bikes suffered greater damage in an accident if they wore helmets but again numbers were small and the study was not good quality.