General Cycling Discussion - Helmets

I realize that I am largely preaching to the choir here, but I need to vent a bit about the lack of wearing a helmet.

Yesterday, I came upon an accident on a multi-use path (no cars involved). I didn't see the accident, but I did see a woman lying on the ground with a head injury (very obviously so), a bike to the side of the road, and no sign of any helmet. She was already being cared for by more people than she needed (and I could hear the ambulances in the distance), so I didn't stop.

I have to say, I got kinda angry that she wasn't wearing a helmet. Okay, perhaps that's unfair--it's her head and her choice. But, I have to draw the conclusion that a helmet would have served her well. The others involved in the accident (no matter who was at fault) and her caregivers face a certain emotional toil.

So, folks, keep the helmets on.

Thanks for indulging my rant.

Best,
Jamie

Hi Jamie,

Thanks, it's always good to have a headsup :)...the old excuse of wearing a helmet is just too hot can be dispensed of now with the multi-vented types now available.

Cheers

Rich

No brain, no helmet.....
no helmet, no brain...


This little bit of advice saved my life. Last year while on holiday in South Africa, I was knocked down by a drunk driver, who subsequently fled the scene. My helmet, a LIMAR, was totally destroyed, but my head was OK.
Unfortunately there is no helmet yet for kidneys (bruised),elbow (cracked), vertebra (cracked), back (missing skin) and arse (missing a lot of skin!)
The bottom line is that all these injuries will heal, head injuries do not always....
Wear those helmets and keep on rollin!

I'm always preaching about helmet usage too. It just doesn't make any sense not to wear one. I've been saved a couple of times from major head injury as have quite a few of my riding friends.

You could say that it is the rider's choice not to wear a helmet, but ultimately the medical expense that they will incur will trickle back down to the masses through increased insurances (at least in the U.S.) or governmental costs. So we all pay the price and the injured party pays the ultimate price or will indure pain and suffering as a result of a decision not wear the helmet.

I think a lot of people who just ride the bike paths or cruise around the neighborhoods for a casual evening ride don't think they need a helmet. I believe they think that only children or people who ride a lot on the roads need them. They don't seem to realize that falling off of a bike at even a slow speed can be fatal. It is at least three times the distance from your head to the ground as it is when you are laying in a bed and people have fallen out of bed onto a hard floor and been injured seriously and even killed. The brain is delicate and needs protection. I'm still incredulous when I see a local rider with all the nice cycling kit and bike without a helmet. Too macho I guess. But maybe dead macho too.:(

Helmet use is a personal choice for adults - at least in the numerous states that I have lived in.

As for the trickle down effect of insurance costs, that is the price of personal freedoms. I don't complain about my insurance costs because of people that smoke, drink, or have children. Perhaps we should make those activities illegal as well so that we can have a smaller insurance premium or lower taxes...yeah right.

On the trails or the road I always wear a brain bucket. On the motorcycle I do as well.

My personal opinion on bicycle helmets is that it is better than nothing sometimes. I say sometimes because I have been hit by a car doing 40mph on a bicycle prior to the helmet craze that has sweeped the country and survived with nothing more than a few body bruises. Gosh, I guess full body armor on a bike will become the law next.

Judge not lest ye be judged.

Trickle down effect isn't the only consideration. Here in Canada,for the most part we have government health care, as in some other countries.

That is paid directly by the taxpayer, and the costs are huge, which is one of the reasons I support helmet usage, seat belt laws, stiffer drunk driving penalties and higher taxes on cigarettes. It's not a matter of judging these acitivities, or the individuals that engage in them.

However, I don't expect extremes like requiring full body armor.:D

Originally posted by martin

As for the trickle down effect of insurance costs, that is the price of personal freedoms. I don't complain about my insurance costs because of people that smoke, drink, or have children. Perhaps we should make those activities illegal as well so that we can have a smaller insurance premium or lower taxes...yeah right.


Alternatively, companies can and do charge lower auto insurance premiums for motorists with clean driving records, and reduced life insurance premiums for nonsmokers. The best of both worlds -- freedom without cross-subsidy.

well, i really believe in helmuts after my bike crash 3 years ago - i was tired after 4 hours on a long technical MTB ride, didn't see a launch and flew 15ft in the air, landed head-first and slid 15ft on my face. my helmut broke as it should and i ended up with only a broken nose, majorly torn lower lip and lots of gravelrash - all repaired just fine... i'm pretty sure i would have broken my neck and had a major concussion w/o the helmut.

at the beginning of this ride one of my friends (4 guys on the ride) didn't have a helmut and my other friend was giving hima hard time- after then crash he then said 'see!' and the guy just said, 'yeah, i don't crash like that...'

anyway, i always wear my helmut when i'm on a 'ride' and definitely for downhill or off-road (ok, i learned the Euro-style of taking your helmut off for a 1000m+ all-uphill climb)

but i admit i still have a problem with short city trips and commuting... i just decided last week to start wearing my helmut on my 10kmx2 work commute - i stopped some time in January, no idea why. for the last 3 years i'll wear my helmut for a few weeks and then stop... but in the city is still necessary - possible crashes with cars, pedestrians, etc...

i also was a motorcylist in Texas for 4 years when it was required to wear a helmet (since rescended in 1998 or so) so i'm in therory used to carrying the helmut with me...

other than i know i should wear mine (also from my own experience) anyone have any other tip for how i can make it a habbit that will stick??

Aside: Jmlee, as an American in Europe like myslef, have you noticed that helmut usage is WAY lower here? for snowboarding/skiing and inline skating too? (i also wear a helmut for these but am a rare bird here in Europe)

Freedom without cross subsidy? Bullcrap. I still foot the bill for everyone that has children with my insurance premiums here in the USA. Plus, I have to foot the bill for the sniveling little snot's education as well. If you have children foot your own damned bills.

The biggest problem I see is that people have too much desire to control other people's lives when they should butt the hell out and worry about themselves.

Originally posted by aerobat
Trickle down effect isn't the only consideration. Here in Canada,for the most part we have government health care, as in some other countries.

That is paid directly by the taxpayer, and the costs are huge, which is one of the reasons I support helmet usage, seat belt laws, stiffer drunk driving penalties and higher taxes on cigarettes. It's not a matter of judging these acitivities, or the individuals that engage in them.

However, I don't expect extremes like requiring full body armor.:D

So money is more important than freedom? Cancel government and let's get on with life.

Joe
:beer:

yes, proportionally, I would say that helmet use here is much lower than in the U.S. But, of course, the number of people on bikes is much, much higher here--for commuting, for shopping, for exercise by both the average Hans and the serious athlete, and I am talking all age groups (5-90). I see a lot of helmets on children, but rarely on their parents. The more serious athletes seem to wear them a bit more. But, in my view, not enough of them put them on.

I'm not sure that I care that much about insurance costs. I take it as self-understood that we as a society should cover each other, even when we do some dumb things. But, I do care a lot when I see someone unnecessarily bleeding from the head at the side of the road.

cheers,
jamie

Originally posted by martin
Freedom without cross subsidy? Bullcrap. I still foot the bill for everyone that has children with my insurance premiums here in the USA. Plus, I have to foot the bill for the sniveling little snot's education as well. If you have children foot your own damned bills.

The biggest problem I see is that people have too much desire to control other people's lives when they should butt the hell out and worry about themselves.

Martin You were once a snivelling little snot yourself!!!

And your propos regarding helmets would be best kept to yourself.

Originally posted by Harry


And your propos regarding helmets would be best kept to yourself.

I am referring to this:

"My personal opinion on bicycle helmets is that it is better than nothing sometimes. I say sometimes because I have been hit by a car doing 40mph on a bicycle prior to the helmet craze that has sweeped the country and survived with nothing more than a few body bruises. Gosh, I guess full body armor on a bike will become the law next."

Hallelujah, preach to the choir baby. Whats the matter Harry? Afraid of contrarian opinions? A "preach to the choir" post needs more viewpoints than those of the choir sheep there princess.

Martin,
If I could understand your comments I would give you an answer.

Why don't you encourage people to don helmets rather than offer your "sometimes" type of argument?

Harry,
You can overlook the last post. I was being a smarta$$.

I encourage people to use common sense. If that means wearing a helmet...so be it. If it doesn't mean wearing a helmet...that should be their choice.

Wearing a helmet should not be mandated by politically correct sheep who have nothing better to do than force legislation down other people's throat...especially if they use the same tired excuse "its for the children".

Achtung! This is a long 'n.


Originally posted by bikeman
You could say that it is the rider's choice not to wear a helmet, but ultimately the medical expense that they will incur will trickle back down to the masses through increased insurances (at least in the U.S.) or governmental costs. So we all pay the price and the injured party pays the ultimate price or will indure pain and suffering as a result of a decision not wear the helmet.(

Originally posted by aerobat
Trickle down effect isn't the only consideration. Here in Canada,for the most part we have government health care, as in some other countries.

That is paid directly by the taxpayer, and the costs are huge, which is one of the reasons I support helmet usage, seat belt laws, stiffer drunk driving penalties and higher taxes on cigarettes. It's not a matter of judging these acitivities, or the individuals that engage in them.
Ah, so the promotion of helmets is not so much in the interest of saving lives but more in the interest of saving ourselves money. That certainly clears that up. Isn't it nice that insurance/public health has absolved us of the responsibility to care for others.


Originally posted by nathank
i'm pretty sure i would have broken my neck and had a major concussion w/o the helmut.
I'm pretty sure a helmet won't protect you from a broken neck. If anything, with the larger area and mass it gives your head, it'll make any neck injury more serious.


I'm not interested in a flame war arguing about helmets one way or the other. It's all been done before, and the regular rec.bicycles.soc helmet warmongers at least have actual research at hand to highlight and discuss.

However (you knew there was going to be a however, didn't you?) there's a few things regarding helmets that might be worth considering.

First off, helmets are made of styrofoam. Computer monitors are packed in the same stuff. Take a packed computer monitor and drop it from head height and see if the thing still works. The point is, we seem to attribute some rather magical protective qualities to a material that is really only effective against very minor bumps. Styrofoam as a protective material is grossly overrated.

Second, we generally underrate the protective abilities of the human skull. It is a remarkably tough bone that is really quite difficult to crack. The thing is, it isn't skull cracking that causes most head injuries, it is rapid decelleration causing the brain to slosh around and impact on the inside of the skull. The role of the helmet in this is to decrease the rate of decelleration to something that the brain can safely cope with (I believe the standard requires 3g).

I question the styrofoam hat's ability to do this in real world conditions. It says clearly in all helmet manuals I've seen that they are designed to crush, not crack on impact. It is the crushing of the shell that provides the required reduction in decelleartion. If a helmet cracks, it has failed in it's stated design purpose. I have destroyed four helmets ovre the years. Every single one of them cracked and showed no observable signs of crushing. True it provides some protection, but not as much as a)it's supposedly designed to and b)is necessary for anything more than a fall from a stationary position (which, by the way, is the only test they need to pass to get standards approval)

The current trend of putting more and more holes (vents) in helmets only compromises the design further. First, it limits the ability of the helmet to spread any impact over the covered area, and second, it increases the chances of it cracking. For the best protection you can get from a helmet get one with as few vents as possible. A hard shell would help considerably as well. These would never find a market though, so the standard has been watered down to make helmets lighter and cooler, which is fine, but not as strong, which isn't.

The rumor that helmets need replacing after a few years due to breakdown from u.v. light is, as far as I can tell, a marketing myth.

Note that I have made no mention of helmet laws here. I am only interested in the design of the things, and frankly it is left wanting. I live in a country with mandatory helmet laws, which I have no particular objection to, (but I would be just as happy to be without - I would still probably wear one though), but I figure if we're going to have them, we might as well have ones that actually work.

I've got a few ideas on better helmet design - I'm even thinking of making one myself. I've said more than enough for now, but if anyone's interested I'd be happy to post them here, if only to divert the thread away from what looks like a flame war brewing.

I have alot of people ask me why I wear my helmet even when i am not on the trails those peole need to wear a helmet all the time cause obviously if you hit your head on the pavement its gonna make you into a mental mess. Also cause I know someone that was hit by a car and they had there helmet on and they owe alot to there helmet. It was destroyed but hey 150 to replace it is nothing. So basically keep it real and where your brain bucket. Hey at least it will keep your head from exploding even if it doesn't work to stop brain damage:crash: if you want your head to look like this computer then don't wear one and go out to the freeway for a leisure ride

Why do some cyclists expend time and energy worrying, ranting, or wondering about riders who don't wear a helmet? Why do so many experienced riders think it the height of foolishness to ride without a helmet? These are puzzling questions. Obviously helmets can help sometimes to prevent serious injuries, but not nearly so often as their indignant promoters like to believe. They simply are not that big of a deal.

Judging from accident statistics, helmet use on a bicycle can be expected to have a preventative effect roughly comparable to helmet use while driving, or helmet wearing while walking near traffic, or helmet wearing while playing on playground equipment. That is, they can have some effect, but it's hard to understand why anyone is so fanatical about it.

To think of another example, more brain injuries, more deaths, and more spent hospital dollars result each year from swimming accidents than from cycling accidents. But why isn't there a widespread movement to require life jackets while using a pool? Why not require water wings for everyone? Why do we not have people posting pithy slogans like, "no life jacket, no brain"?

Why, for that matter, doesn't anyone here post indignantly about drivers without helmets, or joggers without helmets, or ladder users without helmets?

The answer, depressingly enough, is simply that no one has yet seen a slick poster saying "courage for your arms" with a picture of some athlete swimming with water wings. No one has yet been beseiged with propaganda concerning "unhelmeted drivers". No one has yet heard their friends repeat slogans they heard in a swim shop, or an auto repair shop, that they themselves can confidently repeat and post on news groups. That's all.

It's true that some people think of some anecdote involving them or their friends that "proves" how important it is to ride with a helmet. But you don't have to know much about cycling to understand the worries concerning anecdotal evidence, such as selection bias, small samples, etc., etc. To give an example of one problem, if a pedestrian is hit by a car, knocked into the air, but walks away without injury, no one thinks how "lucky" the person was to have survived without a helmet. No one thinks about helmets at all in that case. If pedestrians _did_ wear helmets, a scene like that would become yet another occasion for a story of how a helmet saved a life. Similar problems exist for reports about cycling accidents and helmets.

But few cyclists think about this. Why? Why do cyclists, people who insist on making detailed and critical arguments about traffic planning, oil use, or just cycling in traffic, swallow all of the slogans whole about helmets?

War a helmet if you like. It might help you one day--- though I hope you never have occasion to find out. Just save the lectures for a behavior that actually warrants it.

Originally posted by jmlee
...I need to vent a bit about the lack of wearing a helmet.

Yesterday, I came upon an accident...I did see a woman lying on the ground with a head injury...
I had an accident that happened so fast, I don't remember hitting the ground.

My helmet lost a big chunk where my forehead is located. My glasses were scraped totally white on the left lense.
My mouth needed plastic surgery. But I am alive (or at least in my right mind) today because of my Louis Garneau helmet.

(LG gave me a new helmet. )

I will wear my helmet, thank you.

Better safe than sorry. Wear your helmet, and teach kids to wear theirs. It may not ALWAYS save lives, but it will always be there to do its best to save lives.

I agree with Martin's post on page 1. Good stuff.

Everyone has the right to voice opinion, of course but Allister's last comments are comical at best. I'm sorry, I don't want to sound aggressive but the mis-information is really stupefying.
The idea, for example, that because a helmet cracks it doesn't absorb had me laughing. Where do you think the energy to create those cracks came from? Did you bother to read your manual that clearly states DONOT use your helmet after a crash even if no damage is visible? Styrofoam can be completely compromised internally (between the inner and outer surfaces) without being visibly damaged. EVERY helmet manufacturer clearly states this information.

If you had the choice of dragging your skull across hot tarmac with or without a helmet which would you choose? Ignoring the fact it has been proven that even the n-th mph deceleration of the brain a helmet causes is enough to stop brain damage, you completely forget the issue of massive skin loss, abrasions and reconstructive surgery that someone alluded to earlier (I realize that you are advocating helmets and maybe this paragraph isn't directly pointed at you, Alister).

Because you think a ventalated helmet will not do a good job doesn't really mean anything. All of them pass SNELL and ANSI standards. Obviously, they are less effective with a protruding surface that may enter through a vent hole (which every manufacturer's instruction book will tell you). Other than that, they are very effective. There is no scientific data to support your idea. Guess what, fashion is a part of cycling. If someone who otherwise would not wear a helmet wears one more frequently because they like it, is it not better? Geez, is this rehashing common sense 101?

Also, which companies market their helmets as needing to be replaced frequently from UV damage? Every helmet I have bought has stated that the helmet will last up to 10 years with no real deterioration but amount of sun exposure will vary that figure. I have never, ever heard of a helmet company saying otherwise.

As far as people not wearing a helmet, I don't care. It's their choice. In training rides if they are bare-headed, well, there is a term for that: Natural Selection.

I fully do not want to start a flame war. I guess this could be considered a rebuttal to your post or something. Anyway, I won't respond anymore to this but will read on with amused interest.

Obviously helmets can help sometimes to prevent serious injuries, but not nearly so often as their indignant promoters like to believe. They simply are not that big of a deal.

Lies, damned lies, and statistics. The only statistic that counts is the one that involves you.

Helmets may not save many lives, but I am happy to think that wearing mine offers me a better chance when the time comes. And my ego is not big enough to make me think that I can't get involved in an event that can kill me. I am enjoying life too much not to do something simple like wearing a helmet.

re helmets in Europe - indeed much, much lower than in the U.S. But I think I have actually seen an increase in use on little kids over the last 18 months.

Cheers...Gary

Originally posted by RacerX
I agree with Martin's post on page 1. Good stuff.

Because you think a ventilated helmet will not do a good job doesn't really mean anything. All of them pass SNELL and ANSI standards. Obviously, they are less effective with a protruding surface that may enter through a vent hole (which every manufacturer's instruction book will tell you). Other than that, they are very effective.

...

As far as people not wearing a helmet, I don't care. It's their choice. In training rides if they are bare-headed, well, there is a term for that: Natural Selection.

I, and I think many of us, share Martin's and RacerX's position, which is pro-helmet (with ample caveats and limitations) and anti-mandatory helmet law.

My only nit-picky exception to RacerX's post is that today's helmets must pass Consumer Product Safety Commission tests, which are a bit tougher than the traditional American Society of Testing and Materials and ANSI tests, but somewhat less stringent than those of the Snell Memorial Foundation. I do not know whether this is significant, since the protection difference between no helmet and any properly-fitted helmet is far greater than that between any two helmets with different certifications. Unfortunately, none of the tests addresses the single most important issue, which is proper sizing and fitting of the helmet's retention system to each individual's head.

I had my first serious crash after years of riding in January. I was in a short paceline and the leader did not mention a pothole. The hole turned my front wheel and I ended up doing a header at 25 mph. I landed on my right temple which cracked and crushed my helmet and the shell was shredded. On my second impact - I came down on my shoulder and arm - fractured scapula (shoulder blade), fractured clavicle (collar bone), and 2 bad fractures in the ulna (elbow).

The protection I received from my helmet was excellent. I did not even have a headache afterwards. Of course, the helmet did not protect all those other parts of my body.

I am not stating that the helmet saved my life, it might have but I don't know that. But I am glad I had it on. I figure that I would rather do the damage to my helmet then to my scalp and skull. I have yet to meet anyone who trashed a helmet in a crash who regretted having it on at the time.

My neck was not damaged, but it did act like a shock absorber. This gave me an appreciation that even if the helmet gave 100% protection to the skull, it would not protect the neck and you die of a broken neck instead of a fractured skull.

Originally posted by Allister

Ah, so the promotion of helmets is not so much in the interest of saving lives but more in the interest of saving ourselves money. That certainly clears that up. Isn't it nice that insurance/public health has absolved us of the responsibility to care for others.


Allister, I guess I didn't make the intent of my post clear. I was trying counter the specific argument of non helmet wearers, that if they get in an accident it is only themselves that feel the effects and are hurt.

I always wear one, and encourage others to do the same. I have had one or two crashes that had the potential to do damage, even if my helmet didn't have to do it's job in that particular instance, so I certainly empathize with people like Pete, whose helmets have saved them, nor do I enjoy hearing stories about people left bleeding by the side of a bike path for lack of one.

I only want to adda bit about helmets, since I think it is a libertarian issue and we can wear or not wear them as we choose.

The idea that non-helmet wearers 'raise the insurance costs' for the rest of us is chimaerical; because some company will come along that offers lower medical insurance for those people who use this equipment, just as I have lower medical insurance costs since i do not smoke.

But to the helmet issue specifically. People OVERESTIMATE what helmets are supposed to do. They are designed to prevent a MINOR accident from having MAJOR impact on the sides of your skull. Thats IT. They are not designed to do much more prevent a low velocity accident from doing damage that could have been easily prevented. Mountain climber wear helmets and I hardly think they assume it will help them in a major fall down K2; instead, they are hoping that loosened rocks and gravel will not make for a bad hair day.

I have worn a helmet from my first tour and from day one. Not only are they better for your head from a safety standpoint, they can be aerodynamic and they are positively geeky, which should be the goal of every biker.


roughstuff

Originally posted by RacerX
Everyone has the right to voice opinion, of course but Allister's last comments are comical at best. I'm sorry, I don't want to sound aggressive but the mis-information is really stupefying.
The idea, for example, that because a helmet cracks it doesn't absorb had me laughing. Where do you think the energy to create those cracks came from?

I never said it didn't absorb any energy. I said that if it cracks, it has failed in the stated design purpose of crushing on impact, and is not providing as much protection as it could if it did.


Originally posted by RacerX
Did you bother to read your manual that clearly states DONOT use your helmet after a crash even if no damage is visible? Styrofoam can be completely compromised internally (between the inner and outer surfaces) without being visibly damaged. EVERY helmet manufacturer clearly states this information.
I wish I still had my helmet manual so I could quote some of the stuff in it that I found comical.


Originally posted by RacerX
If you had the choice of dragging your skull across hot tarmac with or without a helmet which would you choose? Ignoring the fact it has been proven that even the n-th mph deceleration of the brain a helmet causes is enough to stop brain damage, you completely forget the issue of massive skin loss, abrasions and reconstructive surgery that someone alluded to earlier (I realize that you are advocating helmets and maybe this paragraph isn't directly pointed at you, Alister).
I don't think there's any doubt that a helmet will protect you against superficial injuries, which is largely why I wear one (apart from the fact that it's mandatory here.) Trouble is, that's not how they're marketed. 'Helmet saved my life' makes much better ad copy than 'helmet saved my hair-do.'


Originally posted by RacerX
Because you think a ventalated helmet will not do a good job doesn't really mean anything. All of them pass SNELL and ANSI standards. Obviously, they are less effective with a protruding surface that may enter through a vent hole (which every manufacturer's instruction book will tell you). Other than that, they are very effective.
Yes, all helmets are required to pass a standards test. In fact, the Australian Standard is more stringent than the US ones. However, the question is, are these standards stringent enough for real world conditions? I've read the Australian Standard. Frankly, the standard sucks, but I encourage you to check it out for yourself.


Originally posted by RacerX
There is no scientific data to support your idea. Guess what, fashion is a part of cycling. If someone who otherwise would not wear a helmet wears one more frequently because they like it, is it not better? Geez, is this rehashing common sense 101?.
I suggest you do a bit more research on the subject before claiming there is 'no scientific data' to support the idea that helmets with more holes are less effective than those with less. Since you're so hot on common sense, this is a classic example. Consider this: which hurts more when applied to the head with equal force, a sharp object or a blunt object? Which is more likely to crack under a given stress, a thin object or a thick one? I don't know about you, but 'common sense' tells me the answer is the former (well spotted, surreal) in both cases. If you don't believe that, then all I can suggest is that you do the experiment for yourself.

What I'm arguing for here is a better helmet design. You seem to be saying that you're happy with helmets the way they are. That's fine, but don't believe that a mere styrofoam hat is going to protect you against anything beyond superficial injuries and minor bumps, and escpecially don't be sucked in by the 'it complies with the standard, therefore it must be adequate' without looking into what tests helmets must pass to attain standards approval.

The important thing here is to be aware of the limitations of the current design. That's all I'm advocating.


Originally posted by RacerX
Also, which companies market their helmets as needing to be replaced frequently from UV damage? Every helmet I have bought has stated that the helmet will last up to 10 years with no real deterioration but amount of sun exposure will vary that figure. I have never, ever heard of a helmet company saying otherwise.
You could be right, but this question does come up from time to time (it's even the subject of a current thread on these very fora) so it's coming from somewhere.

Pat...sorry to hear you had such a bad crash!

Hope you're on the mend and glad it wasn't any more serious.

Let us know how you are doing.

allister,

im asking this in a serious way, and i'm sincerely NOT trying to heckle you, or even argue with your basic stance here. i'm merely confused...

you typed:
"Consider this: which hurts more when applied to the head with equal force, a sharp object or a blunt object? Which is more likely to crack under a given stress, a thin object or a thick one? I don't know about you, but 'common sense' tells me the answer is the latter in both cases. "

did you maybe mean "the former in both cases"? i think that, in the case of low impact, i'd prefer the blunt object. and, i'd expect the thick object to outlast the thin one. perhaps you typed the wrong term. perhaps i'm bereft of common sense. but i am genuinely confused. is this a case of a typo? or do i need to think about this stuff even harder? =)

respectfully,
-rob

Originally posted by surreal
allister,

im asking this in a serious way, and i'm sincerely NOT trying to heckle you, or even argue with your basic stance here. i'm merely confused...

you typed:
"Consider this: which hurts more when applied to the head with equal force, a sharp object or a blunt object? Which is more likely to crack under a given stress, a thin object or a thick one? I don't know about you, but 'common sense' tells me the answer is the latter in both cases. "

did you maybe mean "the former in both cases"?
D'oh. I'll go back and edit that right now.

See? Common sense does work. You spotted the truth even though I typed to the contrary. :)

UH.............. My brain hurts!!!!!
I'm going to go and put my helmet on right now, this dicussion is making me feel dizzy, and light headed.:D

Well, I've fallen off bicycles when I was a kid dozens of times, scraping off several yards of skin - I had no helmet.

I've fallen off and lost all the skin off the side of my face and broken my arm - not even a headache.

Bicycle helmets are NOT designed for solitary falls, but relatively major accidents, such as where a car hits you from behind.
The car hits you at about 25km/h (after braking), forcing you forward at a fast rate straight into the ground.
Your head impacts the ground relatively close to vertical (compared to a solo fall), the styrofoam impacts and absorbs energy - preventing the brain from being sloshed around to much, and preventing skull creep, where the skull creeps back on the spinal column and the brain fluid crushes the brain.

BTW, a skull fracture can be good, since it allows cranial fluid out preventing brain damage from skull creep. An impact hard enough to fracture the skull will not be protected by bicycle helmets.
But this is a large impact, rare, and will usually result in spinal damage anyway.

A helmet will NOT protect the face, scalp, or hair style.

And to think racers in the Tour De France used to wear skull caps!!! :eek:

Rich

i had a accident where the screw in the front wheel hub broke.(The bike has a lever where you can easily unscrew the front wheel off) The fork nailed the ground and flipped me over at about 15-20mph. Head went straight to the ground on a rock, chipped teeth and loose teeth, and lower inner lip cuts from teeth.

Now i have a full face BMX helmet.

i don't want to have a injury that hurts that much anymore. And can you believe that, i lost 10lbs in one week just resting. Now i'm back up to where i was in weight again.

Where a helmet, you never now what'll happen.

FuJi