|
Originally Posted by tcs
(Post 22647124)
I had an earnest LBS associate tell me if my helmet was over five years old, I had to replace it. I pointed out that the helmet I was holding had a build date of six months before and asked if she'd prorate the price. She blinked twice and said helmets age differently in the shop. ;)
|
I look at it this way. Having personally witnessing a bad crash and the aftermath of how the helmet saved the rider, I replace my helmet after about 5 years regardless. Having said that, and with the current pricing of helmets, that may get extended.
To me, my life is worth more than the cost of a new helmet, unless the helmet is over $300 bucks, then, well, I digress. I'd rather have peace of mind that my helmet will protect me than worry about it. No amount of diatribe or convincing will change my mind. That's just how I feel about helmets having seen first-hand what they can do. |
Originally Posted by terrymorse
(Post 22646673)
The conventional “wisdom” is a myth. Old bike helmets don’t lose their protection capability.
|
|
Originally Posted by terrymorse
(Post 22646673)
The conventional “wisdom” is a myth. Old bike helmets don’t lose their protection capability.
Originally Posted by bruce19
(Post 22647474)
Can you point me to a source of that info?
Age Does Not Affect the Material Properties of Expanded Polystyrene Liners in Field-Used Bicycle Helmets Based on these data, the impact attenuation properties of EPS foam in field-used bicycle helmets do not degrade with the age. |
Originally Posted by terrymorse
(Post 22647496)
This study is pretty good:
Age Does Not Affect the Material Properties of Expanded Polystyrene Liners in Field-Used Bicycle Helmets Based on these data, the impact attenuation properties of EPS foam in field-used bicycle helmets do not degrade with the age. |
Nuanced & rational discussion about helmets
I'll still wear mine, but it's a great discussion.
|
The one thing I find annoying about helmet rhetoric is whenever a cyclist crashes or collides with a motor vehicle. The response from unaffiliated parties is always the same: "It's a good thing they were wearing a helmet." It's spoken even when the cyclist didn't hit their head. Nobody says it's a good thing you car had airbags in a low-speed collision where the airbags didn't deploy.
|
|
Originally Posted by JW Fas
(Post 22683716)
The one thing I find annoying about helmet rhetoric is whenever a cyclist crashes or collides with a motor vehicle. The response from unaffiliated parties is always the same: "It's a good thing they were wearing a helmet." It's spoken even when the cyclist didn't hit their head. Nobody says it's a good thing you car had airbags in a low-speed collision where the airbags didn't deploy.
|
Every objection to the use of bike helmets applies to every other type of helmet. A helmet won't save a soldier from a direct hit from a tank shell or a construction worker from being crushed by a steel girder, so why should they bother to use helmets?
|
I started wearing mine 100% of the time about 3 years ago.. since then, it has saved my bacon twice. Now I won't even test a bike out without one.
It indeed won't save me from a car hit, but It sure works to iron out my clumsiness! |
Here's an interesting article about MIPS helmets. I don't have one, and now I don't feel bad about it.
|
Originally Posted by Trakhak
(Post 22684160)
Every objection to the use of bike helmets applies to every other type of helmet. A helmet won't save a soldier from a direct hit from a tank shell or a construction worker from being crushed by a steel girder, so why should they bother to use helmets?
|
Originally Posted by rydabent
(Post 22720191)
But what if the construction worker is only hit by a nut or bolt that has fallen a couple hundred feet. I bet he would be glad he had a steel helmet.
People often argue against the use of bike helmets by pointing out that a helmet won't save a rider who is hit head on by a car traveling 60 miles per hour. My point was that extreme examples can be used to argue against the use of any type of helmet---military, construction, etc. If only extreme circumstances are considered, then all helmets are arguably useless. By the way, I believe that most modern construction helmets are polyethylene, not steel. |
I worked with a guy that had a gold coloured construction helmet. He was awarded it by the company because his prior helmet saved his life.
|
Head first into a roadside marker
Saved my life? Guessing yes: Concussion, whiplash, broken neck, and shattered T3
My skull would have looked like the inside of the helmet (see photos). This was the result of a 15 MPH crash. |
The Cult of Bike Helmets
Interesting article from slate .com:
https://slate.com/technology/2023/01...d-to-wear.html They make the case that mandatory helmet laws for bicycles are counterproductive. Very interesting. |
I noticed a father and son riding Sunday. The child looked to be 7-9 years old. I was surprised that neither wore a helmet. I do think there is a helmet requirement here for children under 12.
For me, wearing a helmet is like using seatbelts. It is just something I naturally do. |
Their entire premise is ridiculous. If helmets make cycling seem too dangerous, then airbags in cars should make you want to walk. Their statistic about more cycling deaths don't take into account that more people are riding, and more drivers are distracted while driving.
|
one of my new year resolutions is to stop wearing a helmet. I am 64yoa and never started wearing a helmet until I started racing and was required to wear one. So it has been about 40 years of wearing one but this is the year I stop. Probably going to feel weird for a while. I will however wear a helmet when I am on a beer drinking ride...
https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...de58e6bafd.jpg |
Laws mandating bicycle helmets due to collisions with motorists instead of stricter traffic enforcement is like mandating flak jackets for students instead of...well, you know.
But I wear my helmet to mount my camera and head light. |
Putting the responsibility of safety solely on individual shoulders all but guarantees failure, said Kathleen Bachynski, an assistant professor of public health at Muhlenberg College, in Allentown, Pennsylvania, who has studied bike helmet and sports injuries. “It’s an enormous burden,” she said. Asking individuals to spend money on helmets, lights, and reflective gear without investing in better transit culture ignores the fact that the real danger to cyclists comes from behind the wheel, not from behind handlebars. “We can talk about bike helmets because it’s something we can blame for individual decision-making,” said Alison Bateman-House, an ethicist and medical historian at New York University who has studied mandatory helmet laws. In North Carolina, contributory negligence law prevents a someone from recovering any damages in an accident if their "negligence" is found to have contributed in any way to the incident or its outcome. This means that if a victim is only 1% "at fault" then they are prevented from making any recovery for their injuries. Not wearing a helmet, whether or not it was a significant factor, could be seen as "contributory". AFAIK, NC is one of the 2 states in the country that has not adopted a shared or comparative negligence law, so victims are sometimes out of luck. There is a bill before our General Assembly to change this, though. |
Merged new helmet thread into the existing Helmet Thread 2.
|
Originally Posted by Bald Paul
(Post 22771604)
Their entire premise is ridiculous. If helmets make cycling seem too dangerous, then airbags in cars should make you want to walk.
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:44 AM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.