closetbiker

There's another thread in Advocacy and Safety that is asking a similar thing. It's a topic that's often discussed. Your take in asking how often people do it is interesting because what people should/could do and what they end up doing are often 2 different things.

From the information I've dug up, I think there's lots of perfectly good, non-biodegradable helmets filling up our landfills and lots of cash in the pockets of helmets manafactures that could've been used for bike safety courses to avoid the crashes in the first place.

I thought I had an old helmet at 11 years old untill I was emailing Randy Swart (of the BHSI), and he said he is wearing one that was made in 1992. (I just checked my email and he said, "I am not concerned about the EPS deteriorating...There are millions of riders out there using older helmets and we have not seen any evidence of a problem with the older ones. And I don't think anything on the market outperforms the older helmets in impact protection or coverage, since the designers are just designing to the standard.")

As far as helmet legislation goes, I think it may be past its time. Ontario recently rejected it (for the second time), Manatoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, Quebec and Newfoundland turned it down for adults. Europe is trying to get some laws passed, but it looks to be not going well (as in, more support against than for and usage rates range from 0% in some countries to up to 20% in the UK, Spain and Sweden), Asia, Africa and South America don't have it. The States have a patchwork but the majority of areas have none (and I think the national rate of usage is somewhere around 33%). Australia has the only, national law and a high usage rate. There is a fair bit to be learned and a lot has been written about it. BC and the Maritime provinces have laws and high rates of usage too.

khuon

I've never replaced my helmet due to just daily wear and tear. That said, I go maybe 18 months or so on a helmet and have to replace it because of crashes. I crash often but then again I use my helmet for MTBing as well as RBing.

free_pizza

i replaced my Specialized Enduro Helmet after one season because it was pretty darn Fugly, so i bought a Giro Xen, havent had a crash where i've hit my head on it yet, so i wont be replacing it any time soon.

CdCf

I wear a MET Sfero, black.


Never crashed with it yet, and I handle it very carefully both when it's on and off my head. That, and the fact that it sees little sun, means that I won't replace it in a long time.

pakole

I say that I replace it every 4 or 5 years.

closetbiker

I find the argument on spending more money on a helmet (or helmets) to be "safer' is similar to a friend at work who validates his choice in buying a large SUV to being "safer"

He didn't make the connection when I pointed out that with the difference in fuel costs alone with a smaller vehicle, could pay for a yearly safe drivers course that would be more effective in the goal of being "safer"

It takes all kinds of people to make the world go 'round.

khuon

The accepted argument for the higher priced helmets is that they're generally more comfortable as they tend to incorporate more adjustment features and have better cooling than the cheaper models although exceptions to this can always be found.

closetbiker

Well fit is important and if it fits better, that's good, but there are helmets that fit well even if they are older. The vents and designs of some of the newer helmets can actually be less effective in protection than some of the older, more smooth designs that were mentioned as superior by the BHSI.

I still think the cash spent on a new helmet every couple of years would be far more effective, from a safety point of view, on a good cycling safety course.

I think someone who wants to spend an extra hundred or two hundred dollars on one or two new, fancy or extra helmets is someones own perogative of course, it's just that I don't think they'll be any safer because of it.

zowie

I note that the folks who came up with the idea to replace helmets every two years even if there's no evident wear are the people who sell the helmets.

Reminds me of when the instruction "lather, rinse" changed to "lather, rinse, repeat."

stapfam

Yea about right- 4 helmets in 3 years

closetbiker

Especially when the design standards have not changed since (I think it was) '84 and at first (for several years) there was no recomended replacement interval, then it was every 7 years, then it was every 5 years, and now it's every 3 years.

If they do need to be replaced, why are the design standards the same as when there was no replacement recomondations? My guess would be partly due to legal issues, but also a bigger part is the same reason people buy SUV's in large numbers, if people want to buy them, for whatever reason, would it not be a good idea to go along and provide them with that? They are after all, in the business of making a profit and no one should begrudge them for doing that. It still doesn't mean that it doesn't make the greatest amount of sense to buy something that you really don't need, but as we all know, that happens all the time.

bandaidman

i replace after any crash where i bump my head (twice in 30 years)

now i change when they get too smelly ...usually every 18 months ...especially if there is a neat one on sale at my lbs

if i see any structural problems at all i toss them immediately...i have tossed out a half dozen kids helmets the last 2 years becuase of that

CdCf

My helmet cost (the equivalent of) US$50. It's realtively light, quite cool and very comfortable. I sometimes forget it's up there...

Fibber

Makes me realize that I should probably treat myself to a new helmet. Newer designs simply look like they 'breath' better.

"Albany" made a good initial assessment about helmets and bike quality. My other observation (living midway between Albany and NYC) is that country people mostly wear helmets, yet I see way too many cyclist on New York City streets (Manhattan) without them.

Personally, I feel naked without a helmet on. Yet I did not always feel this way. In my early 20's, I could occasionally be found riding on a motorcycle in the suburbs of Dallas without one. And while I am all for personal freedoms, and don't like govt. intrusion into my personal actions, you have to consider the total effect on everyones healthcare costs when someone crashes hard without wearing a helmet. In the end, we all pay for the indiscretions of a few as head injuries tend to be very very expensive to fix.

I once advocated to a biker friend that it would be fine with me if our state did not have motorcycle helmet laws if either A) there was a payout limit for accidents in which the lack of a helmet was a factor in hospital costs, or B) non helmet riders declared themselves and paid higher premiums. Needless to say, I didn't get a positive response from him on either suggestion!

closetbiker

Yeah...... those guys on bikes...they're a drain on society.

(sorry, couldn't resist an addition with an edit - In a study for the British Medical Association, Mayer Hillman found that the health benefits of regular cycling, in terms of life years gained, far outweighed the actuarial loss of life from road accidents. Put a different way: Hillman demonstrated the risk of not cycling.)

cyclezealot

Question for Ken. Ultraviolet effects plastic. By this do we mean the plastic hard shell or the styrofoam interior. What really protects us is the styorfoam, is it not? If so deteoration of which material is crucial to the helmets effectiveness.

closetbiker

What protects us is the EPS foam. EPS is a long-lived material little affected by normal environmental factors.

vudoo

I wonder if there is a high correlation between how often people replace helmets and how often they get an oil change for their car, assuming they own a vehicle? Personally, I switch out helmets every 5-6 years.

closetbiker

Or how about people who buy multiple groups of shoes or dozens of shirts or scads of CDs?

Eggplant Jeff

I'll probably replace my helmet a little after it's 1-year anniversiary. Just because I bought a cheap helmet and now that I know I'm really into biking I'd like one that breathes better.

Since they all are tested to the same spec, my impression is that the advantage of higher price has nothing to to with safety, just comfort and ventilation. It's really easy to design a hemisphere of 2" think foam with a chin strap. It takes someone who actually knows what they're doing to design a helmet that's 75% open space but still protects your head in a crash.

Regarding the UV degredation stuff, my impression was the hard shell on the helmet is merely to protect the foam from normal wear-and-tear and has nothing to do with protecting your noggin. So if it is cracked or worn through or excessively soft, it might need replacement, but if it's just degraded from the sun yet still keeps the foam from getting abraded when you sit it on the ground, who cares?

greenbreezer

I agree that if one chooses not to wear a helmet, then that person needs to be fully responsible in his/her medical costs should that person be involved in a head injury. It amazes me how people will spend so much money on jerseys, compenents, etc. but helmets are almost an afterthought. Ever since my friends dubbed me "the crash-test dummy" for literally wrecking two helmets in less than a year, I've always put helmets at a high priority. Since I use the same helmet for my daily commute as well as mountain biking, I replace it about once a year.

As for higher-priced helmets, my understanding is that all helmets that are legally sold by an authorized helmet manufacturer must pass a minimum government-sanctioned safety standard. The higher-priced helmets do offer the lighter weight and cool air vents which are the main selling features, but they also go above and beyond the minimum safety standard. But of course, your crash my vary.

closetbiker

Yeah...... those guys on bikes...they're a drain on society.

In a study for the British Medical Association, Mayer Hillman found that the health benefits of regular cycling, in terms of life years gained, far outweighed the actuarial loss of life from road accidents. Put a different way: Hillman demonstrated the risk of not cycling.

There's a good case that cyclists not only aren't a drain on society, but should be, in fact, paid to use the roads (https://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/advocacy/pay.htm). There has also been discussions here about commuter cyclists getting tax breaks (https://www.bikeforums.net/showthread...ycle+commuters).

There's no need to have to pay any more than we should to ride our great bikes that not only help us, but everybody else both on the road, and off.