Helmet worked for me

[pjclinch]

My wife gave me a helmet as a Crhistmas present around 15 years ago...

General recommendation for helmet replacement is ~ 4 years, so it may be worth considering an update.

Pete.

[JohnR]

My wife gave me a helmet as a Crhistmas present around 15 years ago...

General recommendation for helmet replacement is ~ 4 years, so it may be worth considering an update.

That was my first helmet. It's been gone a long time. I suspect, however, that replacement guidance assumes the worst case of a helmet spending many hours per day in the sunshine which is never good for plastics.

[pjclinch]

My wife gave me a helmet as a Crhistmas present around 15 years ago...

General recommendation for helmet replacement is ~ 4 years, so it may be worth considering an update.

That was my first helmet. It's been gone a long time. I suspect, however, that replacement guidance assumes the worst case of a helmet spending many hours per day in the sunshine which is never good for plastics.

As I understand it expanded polystyrene doesn't age particularly, but anything in regular use tends to accrue minor knocks that will all potentially take a toll on overall performance.
The only way to be sure is destruct testing, which is not too helpful...

Pete.

[irc]

Of course avoiding accidents is better. I overtook two cyclists today on the approach to a roundabout. They were in a kerbside cycle lane. I was going straight through so wasn't signalling until after the first exit. As I entered the roundabout from a standing start they caught me up and undertook me and cut in front of me as they turned right.

As the lane dumps cyclists at the nearside of the entry road it isn't suitable for turning right and on my bike I don't use it. I take the center of the main lane.

Anyway anticipating they might undertake me I was watching them and braked to a stop in the middle of the RAB. Luckily the driver behind me was alert and stopped as well. People don't expect cars to halt in the middle of a RAB.

Thing is the cyclists never even saw me stopping and just carried on unaware that on another day they could have been knocked off.

Here. I was taking the 11 o'clock exit and entered the roundabout just before the riders taking the 2 o'clock exit.

https://maps.app.goo.gl/oM3TrumZkh7dUiNV6

Very bad design IMO. There is no cycle lane in the exit they were taking.

Learning point? Maybe next time I should hug the kerb blocking the cycle lane?

[drossall]

Looks like a bit of a hangover from the old, and dangerous, highway code advice, removed several editions ago, that cyclists should consider going around the outside of a roundabout to turn right. That lane feeds cyclists into a position where there is no good way to go if turning right. I agree with what you do.

[Sweep]

Couple of weeks ago.
Been round London on a "mission" - mix of cycling and train.
Came out of my home station.
Got on bike at very front of stationarytraffic waiting at red light so entirely visible.
Lights changed.
Set off, there's a turn just after the lights but I was entirely visible.
Next thing I know I'm rear ended (from a standing start!) rear wheel trashed, mudguard jammed, I'm thrown to the road in front of the white van that had hit me.
Luckily no damage to me or the bike beyond a new wheel needed.
But helmet impacted/rendered history.
Better than my head.
The driver by the way behaved impeccably, freely admitted his attention had somehow wandered but accepted responsibility without hesitation and sorted things..
Thankfully I was wearing a helmet.
I couldn't have ridden more safely and was barely on the bike.
But anything can happen.
There is no god.
There are helmets.

[Corpulent_Porpoise]

D

[drossall]

Glad you were OK. To recap old ground, splitting polystyrene takes very little energy. Helmets are meant to absorb energy by being compressed, which is how polystyrene does protect things. The two are not mutually exclusive, but cracking a helmet is evidence that it failed and something else protected you - either the helmet also, by compressing, or your skull, which is after all designed to do that. Possibly both working together.

[MartinC]

Glad you were OK......

I too am really glad the 2 posters above are ok. I'm always impressed by the ability some people have to accurately quantify the amount of energy that would've been required to cause a serious head injury in the precise accident they had and also the precise amount of energy the helmet absorbed in the accident. I'm also assuming that they've included the confounding factors of increased head size and weight provided by the helmet and the opportunity for increased rotational forces to the head it provided. It would all be way beyond my ability and I'd love to see the analysis but it's never given. Without any figures exactly the same rationale could be applied to wearing a cotton cap, a woollen beanie or a saucepan.

[Corpulent_Porpoise]

D

[drossall]

Well not really, no. Because, if you were correct about common sense, that same common sense would also tell you that, before helmets were invented, casualty figures were far higher. But they weren't. In fact, it can be hard to demonstrate any historical improvement since helmets came in. The number of people who tell stories such as yours massively, massively exceeds any credible estimate of the likely casualty levels without helmets.

It's not that your helmet definitely didn't work. We weren't there, we can't say, and the only way to be really sure would be to try the same accident again without one, which is neither feasible nor sensible. But, given the actual and limited change in accident figures, it's simply impossible that helmets made that much difference in most of the circumstances in similar reports, not least because there are too many reports.

Add that to the accident I had before helmets were a thing. My foot slipped off a pedal and I crashed to the floor, ending up in casualty being checked for concussion. Fortunately (and it was good fortune), I was fine. But, had a helmet been available to me, and had I been wearing one, I'd definitely have been told that it had saved me, while I was being checked for the same possible concussion.

The important thing is to be riding a bike. That definitely has far more impact (sorry) on your life expectancy than whether you're wearing a helmet, owing to the health benefits. As far as I know, the medical profession only really disagree about by how much, with 20 times more benefit than risk being the nearest to a consensus anyone can get. By all means wear a helmet to do it, but it's ever so easy to tell stories in ways that leave people thinking, "Cycling is so dangerous that I need a helmet, so I'll drive", rather than, "Cycling has massive benefits, and it may be that I could do a little better if I wear a helmet as well."

[Corpulent_Porpoise]

D

[MartinC]

...In theory and without figures, the same rationale could be applied to wearing a cotton cap, a woollen beanie or a saucepan, you're correct. But doesn't common sense tell you otherwise?

I'd echo all that Drossal says above. Common sense tells me that 300 grams of polystyrene doesn't have magical properties and that the level of protection it can provide is very limited. Common sense also tells me that increasing the effective diameter of my head increases the chances and torque of a rotational blow to my head - the ones that cause the most brain damage. By all means wear a helmet if you want, I often do, but the fantastical claims about their effectiveness are just that - fantastical.

[drossall]

Good responses, thanks. As with everything cycling, balance is the thing (sorry again!)

[Corpulent_Porpoise]

D