Wearing a Helmet

[SwissVan]

 

Not true' date=' the foam is construction IS designed to reduce the impact. Simple way to demonstrate this is to let someone tonk you on the head with a heavy kitchen spoon with and without a helmet. Tell me there is no softening of the impact. Then consider that when the head hits the tarmac at 40km/hr. It won't stop the brain contacting the inside of the skull but it sure will reduce the impact - possibly the difference between life & death.

 

These helmets don't get the safety approval awards just because they look nice. They get tested.

[/quote']

 

 

Agree - that is what the designers attempt to do, but there is a limit to what you can achieve whilst still trying produce a lightweight, aerodynamic, sexy looking helmet that will sell.

 

My point was that a cycling helmet can do little to stop the internal injuries that are a result of sudden stoppage at speed.

 

Its a personal choice, MOI will take his chances with skinny cycling helmet on rather than off, as you suggest every little bit helps.

 

 

[Sir Fed]

Even Lance always wore a helmet(Giro) and definetly not the cheaper ones.

 

The reason Lance or any of the professionals out there wears a helmet is largely commercial. Giro and Bell are some of the biggest sponsors in the sport and organisers and riders are obliged to market their products by wearing them.

[linnega]

But even that' date=' why does the Tour riders ride (or are forced to ) with helmets, does the Organizers believe this then? Even Lance always wore a helmet(Giro) and definetly not the cheaper ones.[/quote']

A better question would be to ask why so many pros didn't wear a helmet until they were compelled to, and why so many continue to not wear helmets in training. Why too were there so few deaths (2 in the 90s) in the peloton despite the number of crashes. A few weeks ago Isaac Galves died wearing his helmet (albeit on the track). For most of his career Armstrong didn't wear a helmet even after Casartelli's death. Only in recent years did Bell (the Giro helmet brand owners) force Armstrong to wear his helmet. Why did Armstrong choose Giro's most expensive helmets? Because they paid him to of course.

 

 

 

[pastapouch]

Ok so maybe the ICU and TDFO and the rest of them should actually have a few helmets tested and give us the results... and see what comes out. Must say, my first MET saved the head well at 40km/h. And that was going over the handle bars, broke it in 3. If it wasn't for that helmet, I would have had serious head injuries... I came down f^*&*($ hard...

[The Saint]

Draw your own conclusions - don't wear it if you don't want to but any form or prevention is far better than trying to seek a cure when you are incapable of doing so.

 

Each year about two million people suffer from a MORE serious head injury, and up to 750,000 of those are severe enough to require hospitalization Brain injury is most likely to occur in males between ages 15 and 24

[Windbreaker]

The earlier question about whether a PnP R200 helmet provides as much protection as a Giro is an emphatic yes and probably more. Bell/Giro make their helmets to be as light as possible with the best possible airflow and to just pass the minimum safety standards. If your dealer is telling you that the expensive helmets offer more protection then he is a lieing bastard and don't buy from him again.

The "research" done in the US (Seattle) on children was discredited and the researchers eventually withdrew the paper. You do have to hit your head extremely hard to damage as as your skull is 1000s of times harder than a bicycle helmet. Helmets are extremely effective at low speeds' date=' but then your risk of serious head injury at low speeds is extremely low. At high speeds there is no evidence that helmets provide any benefit but logic tells you that the milliseconds that it takes for the helmet to crack may provide some impact absorption. Once cracked the helmet cannot provide any protection.

All this is obviously academic as many of you believe in your helmets and will continue to wear them - but then many Americans voted in a moron as president so it isn't always logic and clear thought that win in modern times.[/quote']

 

And the website which presents the "data" says that tennis is more dangerous than cycling! And it is seven times safer than swimming. Can't remember meeting any competitive swimmers who had any serious injuries to present. Most cyclists that I know have an injury or two. So is it possible that the web-site is a bit biassed?

 

This helmet debate reminds me of the seat belt debate when usage was first enforced.

[cat-i]

 

 

 

Sorry' date=' bored and stirring up the emotions a little. Honestly though, I have been riding for over 20 years, most of which without a helmet or just a hairnet. Yet, despite countless crashes on both road and track, I have never once had so much as a scratch on my helmet or head. Which makes me question the frequency of everyone else's stories.

Does anyone actually know how hard the head has to be hit to cause an injury? I dont but I ask because I was once hit on the head by a delivery from Garth Le Roux which was probably around 130km/h (and a cricket ball is hard) with only a mild concussion to show for it (no, I didnt wear a helmet back then either).

[/quote']

 

 

i've also been riding for quite a while ... wearing a helmet for most of the time. once after a MTB ride changed something & went out for a quick test. Without a helmet. and fell off the bike. i wasn't going fast at all - probably 10 kays per hour or so.

Base of Skull fracture. quite serious. i survived to tell the tale ... and to wear a helmet for next time!

 

you were probably lucky. or i was unlucky. other people may or may not wear their helmets. don't know if wearing a helmet would have changed the outcome. but i put mine on every time i clip in.

 

 

 

[The Saint]

Here are the facts. Article at http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/481959/skull_study_proves_bike_helmets_work/index.html?source=r_health

 

Dropped or hit hard, helmeted skulls didn't crack under pressure, researchers say

 

Experiments conducted with water-filled human skulls confirm that bike helmets that meet U.S. standards do protect kids from head injury.

To come up with the results, the researchers dropped helmeted skulls onto a metal anvil, testing whether the helmets protected against fracture-inducing impact.

While the method may seem startling, the results should please parents everywhere.

"We were able to objectively measure that helmets do provide a benefit, absolutely, beyond question," said study lead author Dr. Chris A. Sloffer, a neurosurgical resident at the University of Illinois College of Medicine, in Peoria.

The findings were expected to be presented Tuesday at the annual meeting of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons in San Francisco.

Sloffer and his co-author, pediatric neurosurgeon Dr. Julian J. Lin, noted that an estimated half a million Americans sought emergency treatment for bicycle-related injuries in 2004. Head injuries accounted for 69,500 of these cases.

In the same year, 600 people died as a result of bicycle accidents, with two-thirds of those deaths due to traumatic brain injuries.

The researchers further pointed out that children 15 and younger are the age pool at greatest risk for bicycle injuries, accounting for 40 percent of related deaths.

In the United States, the most recent national safety standards for bicycle helmets were established by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) in 1999. The standards were drafted to ensure that helmets do not block rider vision, do not come off when a rider falls, and offer significant protection upon impact with a hard surface.

< = ="http://a.as-us.falkag.net/dat/dlv/aslmain.js" =text/>

< = =text/>

Ads_kid=0;Ads_bid=0;Ads_xl=0;Ads_yl=0;Ads_xp='';Ads_yp='';Ads_xp1='';Ads_yp1='';Ads_opt=0;Ads_wrd='[KeyWord]';Ads_par='';Ads_cnturl='';

 

 

< = ="http://a.as-us.falkag.net/dat/njf/41/rednova.com/health_exp_rect__300x250_250x250.js" =text/>

 

< = ="http://.as-us.falkag.net//asl.js?rdm=78347114" =text/>

 

< = ="http://a.as-us.falkag.net/dat/bjf/00/01/29/58.js" =text/>

 

function Ads_PopUp() {}

 

< = ="http://a.as-us.falkag.net/dat/brf/00/31/20/84.js" =text/>

 

http://red.as-us.falkag.net/dat/bgf/trpix.gif&amprdm=03644300&ampdlv=41,3594,164232,12958,312084&ampkid=12958&ampchw=912958-&amptcs=&ampbls3=111111A&ampbls4=11&ampuid=1&ampdmn=.mtn.coampscx=1024&ampscy=768&ampscc=32&ampjav=1&ampsta=,,,1,,,,,,,0,0,0,27966,27957,27943,21172,0&ampiid=164232&ampbid=312084

Sloffer and Lin assessed these standards by testing four identical, commercially available helmets on four human skulls. The skulls had been filled with water to approximate the weight of a child's head -- about four pounds.

The researchers dropped the skulls -- bare or helmeted -- from various heights onto a metal anvil. Skulls without helmets were dropped from a height of two feet and up until a fracture was observed.

Acceleration monitors fitted onto all the skulls compared degrees of impact deceleration -- the force the head absorbs when it's forced to come to a quick stop.

The researchers found that U.S. standard helmets offered the intended head-injury impact protection in falls originating from as high as three feet off the ground. The tests did not involve drops from heights exceeding three feet, so it's unclear what protection might be offered beyond that level, Sloffer said.

In contrast, un-helmeted skulls experienced impacts approximately four to eight times that of helmeted skulls in the heights tested.

Further tests, designed to simulate accidents involving "crushing situations" -- such as being impacted by a vehicle -- demonstrated that helmeted skulls are able to resist compression at loads as high as 470 pounds. By contrast, un-helmeted skulls fractured under these conditions.

"These tests demonstrated that there is a significant decrease in deceleration -- the force that the head feels when it comes to a quick stop -- if you are wearing a helmet compared to if you are not," said Sloffer.

This benefit should hold up whether a bicyclist simply falls on his or her head, or suffers a crushing impact, the researchers found.

Future study should explore the relationship between the force of impact and the degree and nature of brain injuries, the researchers said. And because helmets used for skateboarding, in-line skating, baseball, and roller hockey are governed by different CPSC standards, the team said their future research will also focus on the relative benefits of these types of equipment.

The findings should give helmet-less bikers pause for thought, Sloffer said.

"To people who are against wearing helmets because of freedom issues or what have you, I can now say that, 'Yes, there is a benefit [to helmets], and I can prove it,' " he said.

Sloffer believes the findings can help improve helmet design, too.

"Helmet designers could always use our methods and take what we've learned, feeding that back into the helmet design stage to make a helmet that's even better and provides even greater protection," he said. "There's no reason why we couldn't design a helmet that is even better."

Dr. Dennis Durbin, a pediatric emergency physician at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia and a member of the National Committee on Injury and Poison Prevention with the American Academy of Pediatrics, expressed enthusiasm for the findings.

He said the current study backs up earlier lab work conducted in the mid-1990s. That research suggested that bicycle helmets reduced the risk of serious brain injury in an accident by up to 88 percent.

But Durbin cautioned that all the research in the world won't make a difference if riders aren't aware of how best to wear a helmet in the first place.

"They have to fit snugly to the head, low over a forehead," he advised. "A lot of people put it on and flip it back on their head, so if they were to look up, they would not see the brim of the bicycle helmet, and that is not good. People need to be made more aware that there's a proper way to wear a bicycle helmet, if you want to get the maximum benefit out of it," he said.

[casspir]

Irrespective of all the mumbo-jumbo regarding helmets or not, there are no personal issues in the decision.  It is law.  (Unfortunately implementation and application is a non-performer!) 

I was involved in two skirmishes with cars. 

In the first case I was thrown off the bike and landed on my back with my head kinda whiplashing to the tar.  Helmet needed replacement and head not even a head-ache tablet!

Second incident I rear-ended a delivery truck that decided to pick-up the lady walking in the yellow area.  He swerved in front of me and stopped immediately.  I ended unconscious for about 10 minutes and had severe helmet burns to my forehead, cuts to the lip, nose and chin.  This happened at 32km/h.  Another helmet replacement!

Both these incidents have without any doubt, strengthened the pro-helmet arguments.  Maybe our cycle helmets are not completely up to scratch and developed for maximum air-flow, but they still provide a substantial amount of protection. 

 

It is plainly stupid to cycle without a helmet.  Look around and see how many kids play around without helmets.  As a parent it frightens the ****  out of me!

 

Regards,

 

casspir

 

[goofs]

Here are the facts. Article at http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/481959/skull_study_proves_bike_helmets_work/index.html?source=r_health

 

 

As much as there are articles for, there are plenty more against wearing. Would not be too surprised if one of the major helmet manufacturers sponsored this test.

[Mudsimus]

In the end its a personal issue. Wear your helmet or dont. And if you want to believe the bullsh!t research, wich ever way it may point go ahead. I feel safe wearing my helmet and look cool doing so  , so I'll keep wearing it.