My helmet most likely saved my life yesterday

[Cowsham]

It's because the subject produces so much heat

Only here Pete -- only here....

If you look in the comments section of any general audience cycle safety piece with open comments you will soon find that that is far from being the case.

Pete.

But on general cycling forums ?

[mjr]

Only here Pete -- only here....

If you look in the comments section of any general audience cycle safety piece with open comments you will soon find that that is far from being the case.

Pete.

But on general cycling forums ?

Most ban the discussion entirely, from what I've seen. A few other pre-moderate it.

[mjr]

That people are trying to make the case that wearing a helmet is not imparting a safety benefit is amazing.

I don't think anyone is denying there are safety benefits, such as impact protection for the top of the head. Some of us though also accept there are safety drawbacks, and some of us further suspect they outweigh the benefits.

What is really amazing is that you are claiming the untested back of a helmet is protective enough to have saved your life, but failed to answer a simple question about whether it showed signs of compressing (which is necessary for it to work) before it split (which means it failed, at least eventually). That evasiveness makes it look like you know, deep down, that the helmet maybe saved some scratches and scrapes, but didn't significantly change the outcome.

I hit my head hard off the ground. So much so that the helmet split. I had not a hint of a headache, graze and certainly no concussion.

I've known people with pretty mild impacts, both helmetted and not, end up with concussion. Maybe you got lucky, but it doesn't sound like that hard a hit.

Had I not been wearing a helmet, the consequences would have been far worse. I do not believe, given the smashed helmet, that anyone can argue against that assertion.

Anyone who has broken up some polystyrene can argue against that! If it's the wrong sort of impact, polystyrene breaks up easily, and then that can lever and crack some helmet shells fairly easily.

Some helmets smash really easily. Such helmets are great self-advertising devices!

So why, for the sake of less than £100, would anyone not buy a decent helmet and wear it?

Because they're hot, heavy, do at least as much harm as good, are difficult to recycle and I'd rather spend that money on food and drink!

[pjclinch]

Because they're hot, heavy, do at least as much harm as good, are difficult to recycle and I'd rather spend that money on food and drink!

Hot... I suffered in them on days when the temperatures are much over 20 C and I'm working hard, but in general I don't find this an issue.

Heavy? Not really, I don't really notice mine when I'm riding tbh.

Hard to recycle? I'd not really thought about that much, but you're probably right.

Would rather spend it on food and drink? Maybe, but if I want to some riding with a lid (and it turns out I do) then I'll have one anyway and £15 for a Planet X/Lidl/Aldi helmet as I typically use won't exactly get me a Michelin star feast.

Mainly I don't want to wear one for most of my riding because they're a faff. And anyone who is certain they aren't doesn't extend that reasoning to just wearing them all the time, and since accidents around the house are far more common than riding bikes, "why wouldn't anyone do that?" Because it'd be a faff (and they'd feel like a numpty) is, I'd wager, the answer.

Pete.

[cycle tramp]

I do find the existence of this particular forum sub-section quite puzzling, if I am being honest.

I hit my head hard off the ground. So much so that the helmet split. I had not a hint of a headache, graze and certainly no concussion.

Had I not been wearing a helmet, the consequences would have been far worse. I do not believe, given the smashed helmet, that anyone can argue against that assertion.

So why, for the sake of less than £100, would anyone not buy a decent helmet and wear it?

For the very same reason you yourself don't race a recumbent bicycle..
..my dear sir, I as much as anyone appreciate the diamond frame bicycle. They are fairly easy to store, don't take up too much room to park, and you can see over hedges and parked cars...
..the issue with them is when you're trying to race them, in which case they have the aerodynamics of a brick, unless to tuck yourself into something small ball with then limits your ability to see in front of you..further to this their center of gravity is far too high... and if you fall off of them you are going to hit your shoulder and maybe your head...
Racing diamond framed bicycles is a risky business... race a recumbent instead... perhaps one with a fairing and three wheels

[Cugel]

Because they're hot, heavy, do at least as much harm as good, are difficult to recycle and I'd rather spend that money on food and drink!

Hot... I suffered in them on days when the temperatures are much over 20 C and I'm working hard, but in general I don't find this an issue.

Heavy? Not really, I don't really notice mine when I'm riding tbh.

Hard to recycle? I'd not really thought about that much, but you're probably right.

Would rather spend it on food and drink? Maybe, but if I want to some riding with a lid (and it turns out I do) then I'll have one anyway and £15 for a Planet X/Lidl/Aldi helmet as I typically use won't exactly get me a Michelin star feast.

Mainly I don't want to wear one for most of my riding because they're a faff. And anyone who is certain they aren't doesn't extend that reasoning to just wearing them all the time, and since accidents around the house are far more common than riding bikes, "why wouldn't anyone do that?" Because it'd be a faff (and they'd feel like a numpty) is, I'd wager, the answer.

Pete.

No helmet for me in the riding I do. I can think of riding where I would wear one (rather more substantive than the usual TdF style things, mind) but these days avoid such cycling environments instead. (MTB trails, cluttered town streets, chain gangs and actual races).

I raced for years before 1990ish when helmets weren't required because there weren't any. Another ten years post 1990 racing as a veteran wearing a compulsory helmet. I found the added weight of a helmet (projecting forward in the racing position) always gave me neck ache that didn't occur when not wearing a helmet; and on a hot day (21 degrees C or over) they made me sweat so much it ran into my eyes.

In all my years on a bike (now 66 years) I've never banged my head, racing or otherwise.

**********
To the OP: unless the polystyrene element of your helmet was squashed permanently flat or near-flat, the helmet absorbed very little energy. A crack in the plastic shell or the polystyrene can be induced by very little force so it seems likely that without that squashed poly, the helmet didn't "save your life" or even a significant head bang. If the poly was squashed flat, the likely maximum force absorbed would have been just 7Nm or less, which is all that the cycling helmets of the racing style are designed to absorb.

[cycle tramp]

I do find the existence of this particular forum sub-section quite puzzling, if I am being honest.

I hit my head hard off the ground. So much so that the helmet split. I had not a hint of a headache, graze and certainly no concussion.

Had I not been wearing a helmet, the consequences would have been far worse. I do not believe, given the smashed helmet, that anyone can argue against that assertion.

So why, for the sake of less than £100, would anyone not buy a decent helmet and wear it?

The alternative reply.. firstly, I'm glad to hear that you're okay, and if I rode for the same reasons and style that you did I would probably wear one more often..
..but I don't, because I don't cycle in the same nanner that you do... and yes while I appreciate yours and Gordon Ramsey's concern over my lack of helmet wearing... if I'm cycling along a shared use path at less than 12 mph (any faster and I'll break my 'biscuits for cheese' selection and my crisps become crumbs) I am less likely to need one.
Everyone cycles for different reasons and dare I say different pleasures....and as a result one balances the need for safety equipment varies...

(Yesterday one of my chickens had a damned good attempt at pecking my right eye... I am not about to suggest chicken owners wear goggles.. I might advise that you need to know the temperament of your chicken before you put it on your shoulder and go 'Aarh Jim Lad')

[Mike Sales]

In spite of the lack of evidence of helmet effectiveness in population level studies, it has somehow become the conventional wisdom that the answer to the obvious vulnerability of cyclists amongst heavier, faster vehicles, is that cyclists ought to wear a helmet.
The frequent, though mistaken, repetition that helmet wearing is the solution to high cyclist casualty rates in certain countries diverts attention from measures which are known to work in other countries, and provides a ready to hand, victim blaming justification for not implementing those effective measures.
Cyclists are often killed or maimed by damage to body areas not protected by a helmet, though the head is vulnerable always.
We should not forget pedestrians. They make up a sizeable proportion of road casualties.

[drossall]

CycleChat and YACF both have helmet ghettos. Not really just a feature here. But neither here nor anywhere else can anyone still be bothered to talk about them, unless someone comes along and says how important they are or how massively beneficial or how everyone should wear one. Occasionally, someone will come along and ask a straight technical question, such as particular fits or whatever, and get a straight answer.

Must have got pretty heated a few years ago. They were used as a case study by Ben Goldacre and his colleague, authors of the Bad Science series of books. As far as I know, they were interested not so much in helmets per se, but in them as an example of the use and misuse of statistics in medicine and public policy.

[Cowsham]

if I'm cycling along a shared use path at less than 12 mph (any faster and I'll break my 'biscuits for cheese' selection and my crisps become crumbs) I am less likely to need one.

You know an awful lot about cycling !

[pjclinch]

if I'm cycling along a shared use path at less than 12 mph (any faster and I'll break my 'biscuits for cheese' selection and my crisps become crumbs) I am less likely to need one.

You know an awful lot about cycling !

I don't think knowing lower speeds tend to correlate with fewer crashes is particularly cycling specific information...

Pete.

[mattheus]

I do find the existence of this particular forum sub-section quite puzzling, if I am being honest.

It's because the subject produces so much heat

Only here Pete -- only here....

It will continue to be a wider "source of heat" while helmet-wearers create rules to make others conform.

[Mike Sales]

Chris Boardman put it very well when he said that helmets are not even in the top ten of things that keep cyclists safe. He sees focussing on helmets as a 'massive red herring' which diverts attention from doing the important things for cyclist safety, and even hinders those measures.

cycle helmets.org/1207.html?NKey=107

I quite understand the appeal of a helmet to the individual cyclist, since it is something they can do for themselves in the absence of much progress in the effective measures.
I suspect that this is also the appeal of cycle helmets to road safety campaigners. This is the red herring effect.
Though the evidence is that mass helmet wearing makes no difference to the cyclist casualty rate (see Oz) it might just make a difference in an individual's incident.

[Cowsham]

if I'm cycling along a shared use path at less than 12 mph (any faster and I'll break my 'biscuits for cheese' selection and my crisps become crumbs) I am less likely to need one.

You know an awful lot about cycling !

I don't think knowing lower speeds tend to correlate with fewer crashes is particularly cycling specific information...

Pete.

Sorry Pete that joke musta went over your head there.
https://youtu.be/jQsPenSt3x0?si=g--M5g9b5u_Tg5RO

[Steady rider]

Information from 1989 research reported on 78 impacts to helmets, 6 of which were to the rear.
Research from 2018 provides acceleration levels and HIC levels, from four impact zones, including rear impacts, appears to show Accel and HIC levels may be higher from rear impacts.

The accident was due to a loss of control by one rider, affecting another rider. Road and if wet could contribute to braking issues?
Some evidence suggests helmeted have a higher fall-off rate.

In respect of accident avoidance, looking at helmet damage may offer little information.

Was disc brakes being used?
Was it a smooth road surface?
Was it wet or oily surface?
Did the cyclist try to correct the skid, by releasing the brakes momentarily? I recall the back end of the bike moving sidewards, and releasing the rim brakes several times during a skid of perhaps 30+m.