Crash and helmet

[Audax67]

Is it possible that the reason you hit your head* is because the helmet sticks out further than your head?


*It was the helmet that hit the pavement, not your head.

I was very glad my helmet stuck out further than my head when I came off in 1997: the brim was gouged by the gravel rather than my nose and forehead. One corner of my glasses was badly scratched, though. And [shocked voice] it did nothing at all to protect my elbow and thigh!

Wear it, don't wear it, your choice. Just don't pronounce a fatwa against either camp.

[Cugel]

No doubt you've noticed that cycling helmets are full of large holes, in an attempt to keep them from boiling your head. In addition, the large holes are bordered by curved and slippery plastic that will be very good at guiding pointy things into the holes.

There are several other design elements of cycling helmets that seem to enhance the chance of a severe head injury rather than preventing one. They can grab and twist your head. They can lever your head to a degree that can damage your spine/neck. And there does seem to be evidence that they induce a degree of overconfidence in some users such that they take risks sufficient to induce an "accident" with all the risks of a head injury, even when wearing a helmet, compared to having no accident.

*************
Face it - they're a triumph of marketing over rationality; a triumph of peer pressure over taking only reasonable precautions. They also seem to be a vehicle to allow various kinds of martinet to indulge themselves in rather totalitarian behaviours!

Not to say a helmet might not help in some situations. If you habitually cycle in a fashion causing you to fall over and bang your head at low speed on a flat surface, you might save yourself a few headaches. My own risk assessment says: so many miles and hours cycling over 62 years and never banged my head so .... . Mind, when I get a bit more decrepit I might revise that risk. But giving up cycling in the manner I do now might seem a better response than wearing a polystyrene hat.

Cugel

[Nearholmer]

My own risk assessment says: so many miles and hours cycling over 62 years and never banged my head

So, it would appear that you are in the group that considers only, or perhaps to a dominant degree, probability.

I strongly suspect that helmets as they currently exist are probably not the best that could be designed to mitigate the effects of the range of foreseeable impacts, and some are definitely unhelpfully heavy, and/or don’t ventilate effectively, but saying that current helmets are imperfect is not the same as saying that helmets are altogether a bad idea.

But, we’ve been round this track a few times before, and since it appears to be circular, or maybe a sort of Möbius strip, we will probably never reach the end of it.

[Mick F]

My own risk assessment says: so many miles and hours cycling over 62 years and never banged my head

So, it would appear that you are in the group that considers only, or perhaps to a dominant degree, probability.

I strongly suspect that helmets as they currently exist are probably not the best that could be designed to mitigate the effects of the range of foreseeable impacts, and some are definitely unhelpfully heavy, and/or don’t ventilate effectively, but saying that current helmets are imperfect is not the same as saying that helmets are altogether a bad idea.

But, we’ve been round this track a few times before, and since it appears to be circular, or maybe a sort of Möbius strip, we will probably never reach the end of it.

Not that I disagree or picking holes, but who are you quoting and from when?

I've never banged my head when cycling, and I've been cycling since I was five? and that's 65years.

[Nearholmer]

Quoting from, where?

Do you mean the business about how people consider low probability, high consequence events, with some focusing very largely on probability, some very largely on consequence, and some attempting to factor-in both?

If so, I’d need to ferret-back through a stack of stuff that I may or may not have kept, from when I was studying this sort of thing properly. What I do know is that the deepest delves into low probability, high consequence events at that time were encapsulated in a document (I think published by HSE, but it might have been another body) called “The tolerability of risk from nuclear generation” (or very similar words). There were further documents agonising over similar issues for multi-fatality rail accidents, and there were multiple papers about individual risk perception, from multiple authors.

The fact that many people focus on either probability or consequence, to the almost complete exclusion of the other, when asked to consider risk, and that colloquial language uses the same word ‘risk’ to mean one, the other, or both factored together, is “common knowledge” in the field, and it’s why a lot of safety training starts by trying to drum into participants that both, not just one or the other, are components of risk.

PS: I just realised: you meant the bit in a buff box. That was Cugel in the previous paragraph.

[mjr]

Until you remember that all except a few full face MTB helmets are only tested for standing falls onto flat surfaces or kerb edges.

However the independent testing done by groups like folksam and virginia tech do indicate that most mtb helmets tend to do far better than the minimum requirements. A better standard testing process though would be very useful for actual more extreme sports cycling uses as it is otherwise not obvious for consumers to see which helmets have actually valued protective capabilities and which have simply minimised that to max out aero/ventilation/weight etc.

Indeed. Until that testing is well known, it's a bit of a lottery. Was the OP using a stronger helmet, did they just get lucky or did they know, and if they knew, was there risk compensation?

[Mike Sales]

Cycling is safer, per distance travelled but probably feels less safe due to the fact that most roads are now motor traffic sewers, cars are much larger and parked everywhere and anywhere due to a 3-4x increase in case ownership. It is not the safest in Europe and i don't recall seeing the claim anywhere. That said, the Netherlands cyclist fatality rate per distance isn't actually that much lower at about 1/3rd per distance cycled of GB, though that is up on previous years largely due to old men killing themselves on ebikes. Can't recall how injury rates compare, there may be a larger difference there.

Our impression of increased danger is an illusion? We should be allowing our eleven year olds to ride busy A roads to school?
I think that those of us who do have the temerity to ride busy roads take much more care than I did as a boy, and we avoid such roads when we can. There are many posts here, like the thread about the A30, advising such avoidance. Would you say this advice is misplaced? when I began criss-crossing the country by bike I used A roads as a matter of course. These days I am concentrating hard whenever I hear an engine.

Ok, we are only the second safest, after a country with a much smaller population spread over a large area.

The United Kingdom has the second safest roads in Europe, according to figures released by the European Automobile Manufacturers Association (ACEA).

Based on the number of road fatalities per million inhabitants, the UK is ranked second with a figure of 28. Only Sweden’s roads are safer, with 25 road deaths per million people.

https://www.wdm.co.uk/news/uk-second-sa ... -in-europe

I've seen Malta also cited as "safer", but it is obviously a very different road environment.

[roubaixtuesday]

I have never worn a helmet, and have always argued strongly against their use. It always seemed obvious to me that the head was one of the least likely parts of your body to collide with the road, as you tend to automatically protect it with your limbs if you do come off

Hmm....though I hadn't bothered with a helmet for twelve years, now that I tend to black out on the bike, they've proved useful over the past 18 months. The last fall without a helmet (2020) resulted in notable concussion side effects for 5-6 weeks. As did those in 2019.

In contrast last Mondays out of the blue black out, clearly resulted in the head hitting the ground, without the slightest concussion related effect. Whilst wearing a helmet. And given that I've never had any awareness prior to a fall/30+ emergency ambulance rides over the past 4 years, there's never been any sign that I've automatically protected the head, given the injuries sustained.

[Removed as I was ignorant of context, and apologies]

[Mike Sales]

I have never worn a helmet, and have always argued strongly against their use. It always seemed obvious to me that the head was one of the least likely parts of your body to collide with the road, as you tend to automatically protect it with your limbs if you do come off

Hmm....though I hadn't bothered with a helmet for twelve years, now that I tend to black out on the bike, they've proved useful over the past 18 months. The last fall without a helmet (2020) resulted in notable concussion side effects for 5-6 weeks. As did those in 2019.

In contrast last Mondays out of the blue black out, clearly resulted in the head hitting the ground, without the slightest concussion related effect. Whilst wearing a helmet. And given that I've never had any awareness prior to a fall/30+ emergency ambulance rides over the past 4 years, there's never been any sign that I've automatically protected the head, given the injuries sustained.

Blimey.

Have you ever considered falling off your bike less often?

That is a bit unfair. The man has blackouts and I think he is very brave to carry on riding, even with a helmet!

[horizon]

people consider low probability, high consequence events, with some focusing very largely on probability, some very largely on consequence, and some attempting to factor-in both?

That's really interesting - I hadn't looked at it this way before. The other dimension I would add though is influence, that is to say, to what extent we can influence the probability. Although flying is (AFAIK) safer than driving, we know that we at least can slow down if we are the driver - we have some influence over the probability of the consequence.

With cycling this is both true and untrue: we have some influence over the danger of coming off on a difficult stretch of road but little influence over the behaviour of drivers (I notice that these two things are confused in the thread).

I think my own position regarding helmet wearing is that if you think you need one, then you really shouldn't be cycling. And that's the position in fact that many, many people take - they simply won't cycle.

[Mike Sales]

Quoting from, where?

Do you mean the business about how people consider low probability, high consequence events, with some focusing very largely on probability, some very largely on consequence, and some attempting to factor-in both?

If so, I’d need to ferret-back through a stack of stuff that I may or may not have kept, from when I was studying this sort of thing properly. What I do know is that the deepest delves into low probability, high consequence events at that time were encapsulated in a document (I think published by HSE, but it might have been another body) called “The tolerability of risk from nuclear generation” (or very similar words). There were further documents agonising over similar issues for multi-fatality rail accidents, and there were multiple papers about individual risk perception, from multiple authors.

The fact that many people focus on either probability or consequence, to the almost complete exclusion of the other, when asked to consider risk, and that colloquial language uses the same word ‘risk’ to mean one, the other, or both factored together, is “common knowledge” in the field, and it’s why a lot of safety training starts by trying to drum into participants that both, not just one or the other, are components of risk.

PS: I just realised: you meant the bit in a buff box. That was Cugel in the previous paragraph.

Another aspect to risk evaluation is that people regard risks over which they have some control differently to those which are imposed upon them.

[drossall]

The United Kingdom has the second safest roads in Europe, according to figures released by the European Automobile Manufacturers Association (ACEA).

I know that this kind of thing was being said decades ago. The problem, of course, being that the safety depended on being inside a car. For pedestrians and cyclists, we had a very poor record indeed. Not sure of the latest figures.



I'm a trendy consumer. Just look at my Pixel 6a using hovercraft full of eels.

[Stevek76]

Our impression of increased danger is an illusion?

Quite possibly. Unfortunately it seems quite hard to find actual casualty rates (rather than absolute numbers) in earlier years. Certainly since 2004 casualty rates have been fairly constant and fatality rates have dropped.

In the present year it's clear that cycling in general is currently perceived to be much more dangerous than it actually is. That cycle helmets exist and pedestrian ones do not, despite the latter having a higher fatal head injury rate, shows that. And driving is not all that much safer.

Of course, this disparity is why efforts to shift people out of cars and onto bikes need to concentrate on the perceived safety as that's what determines people's decisions.

The United Kingdom has the second safest roads in Europe, according to figures released by the European Automobile Manufacturers Association (ACEA).

Well that's all road users, and yes GB is actually very good when it comes to motor vehicle users (which are the majority of road user casualties) but is less good when it comes to pedestrians and cyclists. Not the worst by any means but certainly a good way behind the best.

[Mike Sales]

The United Kingdom has the second safest roads in Europe, according to figures released by the European Automobile Manufacturers Association (ACEA).

I know that this kind of thing was being said decades ago. The problem, of course, being that the safety depended on being inside a car. For pedestrians and cyclists, we had a very poor record indeed. Not sure of the latest figures.

Indeed. Especially for children.

The UK has a poor position for child pedestrian safety compared to other western European countries. It has
a high child pedestrian death rate high levels of childhood inactivity and obesity.

http://www.pedestriansafety.org.uk/euro ... afety.html

[roubaixtuesday]

Hmm....though I hadn't bothered with a helmet for twelve years, now that I tend to black out on the bike, they've proved useful over the past 18 months. The last fall without a helmet (2020) resulted in notable concussion side effects for 5-6 weeks. As did those in 2019.

In contrast last Mondays out of the blue black out, clearly resulted in the head hitting the ground, without the slightest concussion related effect. Whilst wearing a helmet. And given that I've never had any awareness prior to a fall/30+ emergency ambulance rides over the past 4 years, there's never been any sign that I've automatically protected the head, given the injuries sustained.

Blimey.

Have you ever considered falling off your bike less often?

That is a bit unfair. The man has blackouts and I think he is very brave to carry on riding, even with a helmet!

Ah, apologies all round.

If there is a reason why you're more vulnerable than average, wearing a helmet makes a lot more sense.

I shall amend the original post too.