I've been wondering the same thing as a 99% urban road-using cyclist. The sporty looking designs that are so common for cyclists seem a little out of place and not all that protective anyway. I've been looking at the stuff BMX bikers and skaters wear with some curiosity.

I honestly would rather just not wear a helmet, but the occasional close call with an aggressive driver makes me question that plan. I don't know how a good helmet is going to make a crash worse (if it really is I'd love to see links--or maybe private message it to me so we don't derail Groucho's thread).

What I really want to wear in the summer is a straw or mesh Panama or cowboy hat. 100 degrees is too hot to strap a piece of insulation to my head. But people look at you like you're committing ritual suicide in public.

haha, and I just don't want to be that guy who gets hit and ends up in one of those news article where at the end it says "And the cyclist was not wearing a helment".

Why not? Is conformation to illogical notions of public health more important than your safety?

Yes, that is definitely what we are saying.

POC is the only company I know doing different stuff. Next helmet will most likely be a Trabec or Receptor. The Receptor Backcountry MIPS gets you a lot of features not found in many others. MIPS system for mitigating injury due to oblique forces. EPP instead of EPS for multi-crash-ability. Specfic petetration-protective barrier. Not unique, but excellent coverage with either the Receptor or Trabec models.

The hairnet was not really a helmet. That is why it got the name hairnet.

PS - I know guys that wore hairnets for skydiving and motorcycle riding for the sole purpose of avoiding wearing a real helmet.

Wade through the earlier pages of the helmet thread.

Worker falls from office chair laughing while posting to popular bike forums internet site.

Sources say he wasn't wearing a seat belt or helment.

More on this as the story develops.

While motorcycle helmets also used said 'styrofoam', they have a much harder plastic shell. But they all have a point, at which, the inertia/force in a crash will go beyond the capability of said helmet.

No helmet will keep a closed-head injury from happening. Because, The brain will still be traveling 'at speed'. But a helmet will lessen impact to the skull. Unless again, the crash is beyond the capability of the helmet.

This is what I was thinking of in my first post:

http://www.bikeradar.com/news/articl...y-tests-35999/

My experience with the current kind of cycling helmet commonly used is that it works pretty well for the kind of low-impact crashes that I feel confident I would survive. In particular, I broke a Styrofoam helmet on a truck running light with no injury. If I had a hard shell helmet, it may have actually transferred more energy to my head. I have also had experience falling on my head with and without a helmet. I am a little conflicted about that. I am pretty sure I had a minor concussion when I hit my head wearing a helmet. OTOH, when I hit my head without a helmet and required almost 30 stitches to put it back together, I was kept in the hospital overnight on brain injury watch.

Hopefully I didn't just take this into helmet thread territory

I wanted to chime in. I ended up buying a Brentwood Bern and think it has been a really worthwhile investment. It seems to have more coverage than my older more traditional helmet and meets the standard requirements of a bike helmet. I feel like if I took a spill in it the back of my head may fare better than previously. Also, because Bern offers a wider variety of sizes, I was able to get the perfect fit so that also helps a lot with good protection.

I have mentioned before probably the best helmet I ever owned was a Bell Tourlite that had a lexan shell approx 1/16th of an inch thick. Since lexan is incredablely tough, it offered the most protection of any helmet I know of. I would pay good money for one if Bell would start making them again.

About football helmets and the press about them-------------remember two 280 pound foot ball players running 15 mph at one another creates huge forces. Since energy goes up with the square of the speed, it would be like a cyclist being hit by a car doing at least 30 mph. Most of us that believe in using helmets know that any helmet is of very little use at those speeds if hit by a car. However even a spill at 30mph by a cyclist on their own, a good helmet will offer some protection from injury.

To the comment below, I added the bold and underlining:


Helmet shells don't absorb impact...they resist it, and enable slide, I suppose to help counter torsional forces during impact. It's the foam part of the helmet that's designed to absorb impact. I've got an old Bell VI Pro helmet designed to loosely resemble early hairnet head protectors, still hanging around. Maybe the same general era as your Tourlite, because it also has the 1/16th" shell. It's harder shell, compared to the thinner more responsive shells that helmets of today have, may allow a helmet to slide along an impacted surface easier than do thin shells. Helmet designers like Bell probably make comparative tests for this. I suppose how important superior slide ability is, depends on the surface impacted. Shock absorption may be the more important objective.

Involved in a collision with a motor vehicle traveling at least 30 mph, or any speed, it's very possible that some part of the cyclists' body besides their head will be the first impacted. Meaning that in a collision of 30mph or more, the helmet the cyclist is wearing, assuming they're wearing one, will not necessarily be impacted with the force of a motor traveling at 30mph behind it. If the cyclists head impacts a surface in such a collision, the impact may be secondary at a reduced rate of speed to the initial impact, falling within the specs the helmet design was tested for.

If you fall or are knocked off your bike and your head hits a sharp object that penetrates a foam helmet, you could be killed. A hard shell helmet like the Tourlite might prevent that.

I've fallen many many times while riding, but have never fallen off my bike, like it was standing there waiting for me as I was getting back up off the ground. The bike goes with me and we fall together, as a unit, until and if forcefully separated. Quite a few times remember being on the ground still clipped in and holding onto the bars (especially back in the day of clips, cleats and straps). It's kinda like you don't fall off ice skates or roller skates, or fall off skis, but you can fall off a horse.

as someone who was knocked unconscious for a few seconds in a SLOW SPEED bike accident, I will wear a helmet. Buddy and I were not paying attention (he was 15 I was 14 I believe) and my front wheel rode up on his and at about 5-8mph we both flipped over our front bars (in an instant, there was no way to stop). We both recalled not remembering anything till a guy was running over asking if we were ok. We said yes, even though neither of us had a clue what happened for a few moments. I am willing to bet if we had helmets, we would not have blacked out, even if it was only a few short moments. We DID both have ball caps on, which prevented any cuts/scrapes.

Fast forward 16 years, I now wear a helmet. I didn't till about 7 years ago when i bought my first road bike. I then decided it was time to wear one. I find the current helmets (I wear a Specialized multi-use type) very nice to wear even on HOT days, the vents draw air across my thinning hair and keep my head cooler ;)

Yes your typical roadie helmet does not offer much for protection. But I believe its better than nothing, and CHEAP insurance.

I also respect everyone's opinions. Its your head! Do as you want :)

In some ways, on some roads, it might make sense for a cyclist to dress like a competitive downhill racer with full face helmet, body, leg, and arm protectors, etc. I have seen more that one person here in Taiwan that rides a hybrid bike for transportation or slow recreation every day with a full face helmet. I don't think I'd do that, but more power to them. I totally agree that riding responsibly/well educated can go a long way in reducing one's petential for being invilved in a collision, fall, etc. where the head may strike the ground. I also think that saying helmets are completely useless is dumb. If helmets have ever helped someone avoid head injury, then they are, of course, not useless.

when you hit pavement at speed (e.g. 20+ mph) its likely that you will be separated (bikes skid better than people). in fact, some of my worst injuries (e.g. drive train cutting into leg) occurred when there was insufficient room (or too many bodies) for this separation to occur. that smooth plastic coating on helmets is an important safety feature designed to allow your head (and body) to skid.


your bindings are too tight.

PS: watching crits is a good way to dispel the belief that hitting pavement is incredibly dangerous (or that helmets are useless).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NcC5Kxb5ZSU

http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=301221

"If only I had worn a bicycle helmet."

A thicker, harder helmet shell probably could do a superior job of resisting sharp penetrating objects impacted in a collision. If sharp objects were something helmet test engineers thought people that ride generally needed to have protection against in a collision, maybe they'd test helmets for this, and so encourage bike helmet manufacturers to design helmets to resist that type of impact. The following link leads to a page with pictures of a test rig engineers use to test helmets, also showing the test objects or 'anvils' helmets are dropped onto: http://www.helmets.org/testing.htm

"...The hazard or curbstone anvil is rounded like the edge of a curb...", is about the sharpest object the CPSC in these pictures, appears to test for.

There is a wood...ok, cardboard, helmet on the market that is claimed to be 3 times safer then what is currently available to slap on our heads; see: http://www.gizmag.com/kranium-cardbo...ailable/25788/ I've read reviews on this helmet and the testing of it was superior to anything ever tested before.

Aside from that, Specialized's (I think) the entire line passes the more stringent Snell testing and is the only helmet manufacture sold in America that does except for one model in the Limar brand of helmets.

When reports start to come in, I'll be very interested in reading about how the Kranium carboard bike helmet performs in daily use...not particularly crashes per se, but in the way of details of day to day use, on long and short rides, in all sorts of conditions. How comfortable it is...hot/cold. How it holds up to heat and moisture. Styling means something to me, and in that department, this helmet could use some help.

Good answers, thanks!