Helmet - recent accident

[kenbundell]

I was recently involved in a road traffic accident. I collided with a car as it overtook me while I was turning right. Three weeks after I'm still in pain (hip/leg/shoulder) although no bones broken. I'm using CTC lawyers despite the driver's insurance company making me offers for injury and bike. While my injuries are minor and should heal, I shudder to think what they may have been without my helmet. It had a dent in the side where my head hit the ground and the polystyrene inner cracked in three places. As the ambulance man said, "it's done its job". Bell Venture, about £25, value or what?

[gilesjuk]

All helmets have to meet the minimum safety standards, so more expensive helmets are just offering more comfort or styling.

[hubgearfreak]

welcome to the forum ken, i hope your hip/leg/shoulder heals soon

[meic]

I am getting quite worried about the number of people whose helmets are having the polystyrene crack like this in a crash.
I am not a helmet manufacturer but I was a material scientist.
The job of the polystyrene (and the helmet) is to absorb the energy of the collision.
Polystyrene foam can absorb a lot of energy by being compressed and absorbs virtually nothing when it is fractured. Dont take my word for it go out and practice with a bit of packaging material.

The cracking of the foam is probably irrelevant to the amount of energy the helmet did or could absorb but if anything it may show that the helmet did not work in the way it should have.

[kenbundell]

Re meic's point, the polystyrene was compressed with small cracks in the region of impact. The large cracks were at the points where the straps attach. Either way, it saved me from a very hard contact with the tarmac.

[EdinburghFixed]

For all those prospective (or existing) cyclists who may be fretting, it's worth reading "A helmet saved my life!!!!!" for the scientific perspective.

I'm not sure I have the strength of soul to debate it again though!

[[XAP]Bob]

Re meic's point, the polystyrene was compressed with small cracks in the region of impact. The large cracks were at the points where the straps attach. Either way, it saved me from a very hard contact with the tarmac.

The large cracks don't necessarily mean that no energy was absorbed - just that those aren't the bits of damage that are relevant. The "crush" is (as mentioned) the real protection.

Being held in place by the plastic shell of the helmet even fractured polystyrene is able to be crushed and therefore absorb energy.

I wonder if they are designed to crack as well as crush to make people realise that the helmet is now used and should be replaced?

[reohn2]

kenbundell
Sorry to hear about you're "accident" hope you get well soon.The did seem to save a considerable head injury, the cracks I'd say shows how much impact it did take.

I too don't wish to argue the helmet debate yet again.

Get well soon,and I hope they nail the driver in question.

[hubgearfreak]

Either way, it saved me from a very hard contact with the tarmac.

that's certainy true.
if your head is the same dimensions without a helmet as it is with one.

[nortones2]

Gilesjuk raised, perhaps inadvertently, an interesting point re minimum standards. From http://www.helmets.org/helmet10.htm#bell

"Bell's European Market Helmets

Bell has helmets made to the CEN European standard that according to Bicycle Retailer and Industry News will not pass the US CPSC standard and cannot be sold in the US market. Foremost among them is the Bell Meteor II chrono helmet for time trials. This is one you may have seen in Tour de France time trials."

They further state "Europe now has a CEN standard that covers all member states. Helmets can meet it with thinner foam and lighter weight than the US CPSC standard, and often do not pass CPSC impact tests. " It seems a very minimum standard indeed.

Its not easy being a consumer with all this stuff around:) My next helmet: I think the Snell B95 would be a safer bet, if I can find one. Most dealers ain't heard of it. Particularly as the helmets are tested by Snell rather than the "light touch" self-regulatory approach of CEN.

[thirdcrank]

I think that the next cycling helmet manufacturer who makes any claims other than tested to.... will be the first.

[mark a.]

To the OP: glad you're generally ok. Good luck with solicitors and whatnot.

In case you didn't already know (and if you have the helmet receipt) Bell do a crash replacement policy so your replacement helmet will be even cheaper.

[Cunobelin]

I think that the next cycling helmet manufacturer who makes any claims other than tested to.... will be the first.

Which is all they can do.....however there are flaws.

Only Snell test helmets "off the shelf" - most others use batches provided for the manafacturer for testing (no danger of fiddling there?)

Equally there is no proof that these production batch tests work. The classic was the Trek Anthem. This was a certified helmet, yet when one of the consumer organisations tested independently they failed all the CPSC tests and was declared unfit - they all required to be recalled!

There are also big differences in the impact speeds / energies and the anvils used for these impact.

You are even allowed to tape the helmets in place in some test if the helmet comes off the head form.... would you be willing to gaffer tape your helmet in place? After all that is the only way to reproduce the condition it was tested under.........

If you are going to wear a helmet look for Snell B90 as a minimum and Snell B95 preferably. The EN1078 required for sale in the UK is one of the weakest and easiest to pass!

[pwward]

I think those of us who are sceptical about helmets and dislike the effect their promotion is having on cycling feel we can't win.

Helmets crack very easily, often on minimal impact, so everyone who has a crash and bangs their helmet seems to think it saved their life or a brain injury.
For those who crash without them and get a scalp injury or concussion they have to endure lectures from the wise about how important helmets are, despite evidence they don't help much and may increase the severity of rotational brain injury.

I only hope we might escape the prison of our own limited personal experience and look at the research that reflects the experience of thousands of people and paints a different picture about helmet effectiveness.

[EdinburghFixed]

I think it's highly likely that we'll eventually see compulsion and a collapse in numbers. There is such intense resistance from fellow cyclists even to the idea that we should promote cycling as a safe activity (not actively discouraging helmet/high viz use, but not promoting it either) that I can't see how we won't move inexorably towards that endpoint.

On another forum I frequent this discussion came up recently, and there was a bit of a riot from people who felt it was offensive to even discuss the possibility that we should promote "safe, normal" cycling. In other words, it's not only a problem to contemplate cycling as a utility activity that doesn't require body armour and a binman suit, but it's a problem to discuss the possibility!

With fatal head injuries at roughly the 1:20,000 year mark for your average cyclist, it does make me dispair.