well in my last fall I landed face first, the impact knocked my visor off the helmet but the only thing that got ripped open was my chin. laying there on the ground I knew that if I hadn't had a helmet on a lot more of my face would have met the road, and that would have ended my modeling career for good. heh.

Alright, I apologise for that. It seemed to me that you were arguing in favour of the current design. Am I correct in my reading that you think it is the best compromise though? I'm not convinced that is the case either.


Good points. I think the ideal design would prevent any penetration of things like kerbs or worse, but still allow the head to decelearte more moderately. A decent hard shell should do that.

I don't think the ventilation problem is insurmountable either. The only hiderance to a better helmet I can see is a lack of concerted effort.


I'm not sure of the benefit of the outer elastic layer - could you elaborate? I think the outer layer should be a smooth hard shell. One of the potential problems with the current design is it's tendency to 'dig in' on impact, possibly introducing harmful rotational forces to the neck. I'd prefer it to skid across the road surface.

It's true that a better helmet would cost more, but I'd be prepared to pay it, especially if it was reuseable. A $500 helmet that survives 5 or more crashes is better than a $100 one that survives none.


I'm well aware of local laws:

"256 Bicycle helmets
(1) The rider of a bicycle must wear an approved bicycle helmet securely
fitted and fastened on the rider’s head.
Maximum penalty—20 penalty units.
(2) The rider of a bicycle must not carry a passenger on the bicycle
unless the passenger is wearing an approved bicycle helmet securely fitted
and fastened on the passenger’s head.
Maximum penalty—20 penalty units.
(3) Subsection (2) does not apply to the rider of a 3-wheeled
4-wheeled bicycle who is carrying a paying passenger.
(4) A person is exempt from wearing a bicycle helmet if the person
carrying a current doctor’s certificate stating that, for a stated period—
(a) the person can not wear a bicycle helmet for medical reasons; or
(b) because of a physical characteristic of the person, it would
unreasonable to require the person to wear a bicycle helmet."

Which is not to say that it's policed very strenuously, but I try to be a good boy.

Well, that wasn't directed entirely at you. I just get frustrated that no-one ever seems to want to talk about the flaws in the design and how to improve it. Helmet wars always seem to tread the same old path, and it gets tiresome. I appreciate you actually bothering to engage in discussing this and hope to continue knocking ideas around. You come across as knowledgable on the subject and I value your input.

I've been dwelling for several years on the idea of actually making a helmet based on these ideas. I think the materials are available to make something close, if a bit heavy, and with a bit of development they could be improved to meet cyclists requirements for weight and ventilation. Maybe if we can come up with something I'll actually do it this year.

So to fire this up, here's what I've been considering:

It would constitute three layers, similar in concept to the current design.

Closest to the head would be the 'comfort' layer of an open cell foam. This would be applied in patches to allow for the movement of air around the scalp. It would be slightly thicker and perhaps a little stiffer foam than the piddly little patches velcroed to the inside of today's typical helmet.

Next would be the crushable layer where the real work is done. I'd look at using a closed cell foam (a product called Sorbothene is what I've been considering). Without doing any sort of testing or calculations, my suspicion is that this layer could be thinner than the layer of styrofoam currently employed and provide as much or more capacity to decelerate the skull.

Encase the whole thing in a couple of layers of Kevlar and there you have it in essence.

Other concerns can be addressed in the styling of it. I think adequate ventilation can be achieved with careful placing of vents to allow air in at the front, through carefully designed channels to circulate the air over the head, and out at the back. The ideal would be to achieve maximum airflow with the minimum amount of openings.

While we're at it, I'd like to see the coverage extended to include the back of the neck and possibly the ears, but allowing for the range of movement that occurs in normal cycling.

Discuss.

Allister, I think you need to reference motor racing with this. The simple (petulant) act of throwing a racing helmet on the ground will likely get it banned from further use by race stewards. Helmets involved in a race/rally accident automatically have their straps cut if a steward or race official gets to them first. You must be joking or trolling to say that you would expect a helmet, at any price, to survive 5 or more crashes.

I haven't seen a race or motor cycle helmet for a long time (I gave up motorcycles around 30 years ago and rally driving 20 years ago, although I was still in motor sport administration 10 years ago), but the principles for cycling helmets and helmets used in those sports are little different when it comes to controlled deceleration of the skull. They, too, have a cell-foam layer. The hard outer on motorcycle/racing helmets does play a role in terms of preventing penetration. But then again, maybe helmets should have been banned from motor sport when Ayrton Senna was killed by a component penetrating his helmet. Quite obviously they are ineffective

By the way, thicker pads (as offered with cheap bike helmets to help them "fit" better) apparently interfere with the controlled deceleration of the skull the helmets are supposed to aid. Thinner, apparently, is better.

I'm not advocating one way or the other on compulsory use. Like Allister, I am required by law to wear one when riding in public areas. I wouldn't consider riding otherwise law or not, such as in Europe last year. It's just a discussion about helmet design in this case.

Neither. Just wondering if it's possible. What is it about dropping a helmet that renders it unsafe? Is it something that can be designed out?

How about if those pads were aiding in the controlled decelleration? Thicker pads in styrofoam helmets would result into the head smacking into the inner surface of the rather stiff and unforgiving styrofoam. I'm thinking more along the lines of two stages of decelleration. The inner layer would be stiffer than that used currently, but not so stiff as to be uncomfortable. Actually, closed cell foam isn't all that harsh to the touch - it may even be better just to have a single thicker layer of that.

Oops, I didn't mean it in that order. Ideally you'd want a hard outer layer combined with a crumpling layer underneath and then something like a viscoelastic foam. It's actually something new that I haven't seen before. The foam is kind of like a thick foam that resists rapid deformation with greater pressure. Kinda like if traditional foams were a spring, this thing would be a damper. So when you hit something, the hard shell prevents penetration and distributes the load through the crumpling layer, which absorbs energy while the viscoelastic layer allows your head to decelerate on it's end.

OTOH, I don't expect myself to get into THAT many accidents in my lifetime. And such a helmet at $500 would offer the amount of weight and ventilation that a $40 helmet would offer. For that price, I'd stick with a $40 helmet.

So basically you're designing a helmet with a bit more "crash comfort" that still destructively dissipates energy, meaning it will self destruct on impact like other helmets except this will "look" like it self destructs in a better way than just cracking.

Most helmets already provide protection in that matter since the mass sticks out beyond the ears and back of the head. Anyway you put it, I still dont think you're gonna find any type of material that will provide crash protection up to the point where, the impact forces inflicted at the neck take over in something that weighs as little as the current helmets on the market.

If you want inspiration, look into motorcycle and motorsport racing helmets. Only keep in mind that they're designed for different crash kinematics and geometries.

No I would not have died. Like would have ended up with a mashed head or possible broken nose and possibly a broken jaw (regardless of a possible skull fracture). If I had run headlong into a moving train...yep all the naysayers are correct, I would be dead, helmet rederred useless. However hopefuly only the tree will be in my way.

Scraped the jaw piece up to the upper face plate and ripped off the visor.

I guess I have one tale about a helmet that probably did me more harm than good. On a night ride about 3 weeks ago, I snagged a branch in one of my vents. Pulled me right off the bike and on my keister. Hurt like hell. But my head was okay. My wife informs me that my posterior Delicti is still showing some slight bruising. It hurt deep.

I wrecked again tonight, slammed my head into the ground pretty hard...glad I had my helmet on...AGAIN

For most numerous fallacies, the winner is............ False Dilemma
For most fallacious arguments in one post:...............ChrisL.

As stated in my first post in this thread I wear a helmet- and I do condone their use. However, I cannot condone fallacious arguments, which is 99% of what is posted here. The use of bad logic to support our cause weakens that cause (unless our cause is illogical in the first place then it doesn't matter). I am sick of the pro-helmet side using poor arguments. The closest anyone has come to a real argument is to say what helmets are designed to do- but then failed to offer any assertion (until a later post) that helmets actually meet their design requirements.

Trevor

Its the internet, suck it up, proof is in the pudding and the opinion. If we had to prove everything like in a debate class a) the internet would suck and b) the internet would be incredibly dry (as in humourless). Opinions and experiences are what things far more interesting on the net then a study done by various biased companies. If you don't find a persons experience a good enough argument...well, unfortunately you are in the wrong place (the internet in general)

If you can't condone it, don't read it. A lot of what you are getting annoyed at is people opinions (actually almost all of it)...I think hockey sucks...want me to prove it?...I can't, because I really believe it, and the reasons why are mine alone (and a few other TO fans butthats beside the point).

Anyways, enjoy. I don't personally care about people wear their helmets. I am not pro or otherwise. I just know in my side of the sport it saves lives regardless of what other peoples opinions are.

that's how i feel. If you want to be a bone head and fly down a hill at 30mph and run into a tree w/o any protection, more power to you....me, I'll take my helmet

Can anyone show me that cyclists hit their heads more than anyone else?

Why do we wear helmets on bikes when so many more hit their heads when they are not on their bikes?

Are head injuries to others any less severe that they need not take precautions and wear helmets?

If one puts on a seat belt in a car, why do they not strap on a helmet as well?

No. And I don't care to.
See, it's like this, people will present you with the facts, it's your life, you make the judgement if you want to risk not wearing a helmet. Then your life is in your hands, as it should be. I will not mother you. I will not live your life for you.

Why do I use a helmet? Because the price of failure is too great.
I can break my arm and be ok.
I can break my leg and be ok.
I can break my lungs and be ok.
I can break my ass and be ok.
I can break my shoulder and be ok.
If I break either my groin or head, I will probably not be ok.

Which is why I wear a helmet but not knee/elbow/or wrist pads.
I have an airbag, so I don't wear a helmet in the car but I do wear seatbelts.
If I'm gonna be racing, I want a helmet, fire suit, and full roll cage but I won't drive to work that way.

ah, so even if you hit your head in a car with airbags and seatbelts just as much as when you ride a bike, you don't choose to wear a helmet in a car even if the price of failure is great. Curious. Doesn't make sense to me.

What does make sense is that if there isn't any info that cycling is more head injury prone than when we walk or drive maybe we can accept cycling as a safe as anything else and stop worring so much that we have to protect ourselves against phantom risks.

That's because my experience differs from yours. I ride in the city a lot, I'm more likely to get wacked off my bike on my head than be hit hard enough for the entire car to dent into my head and kill me. If I'm out on the open road, at 100mph, no helmet would help since your neck wouldn't be able to take the force anyway. Unless you happen to have an unhumanely strong neck.

So basically, at 40mph, if something were to wham into my car, my body would displace enough and be cushioned enough by side curtain and dash airbags that I personally don't worry about it. At 100mph, it will take an act of god to save my neck if my head were fully encased in concrete. If I'm on a motorcycle, at 40mph and I hit my head, I'd probably die.

Why are you trying to make decisions through me? Live your life as you see fit. I'll wear a helmet, you can ride without one if you want to. If we both live to 90, we'll sit down and have a beer.

I've NEVER EVER had a single scratch on my head in a car. I've NEVER EVER hurt my head walking. I've NEVER EVER had anything happen to my head in any physical activity.
However, in the past year, I've endo'ed twice on my head. So based on "my" experiences, my choice to wear a helmet "before it's too late" have saved my life twice this year alone. Since you've never had that happen, can you care to explain how this is a "phantom risk" to me? I know it's a phantom risk to you so you don't have to worry about it. See the difference here? I'm not as lucky as other people out there, so I have to wear a helmet like a dork and tough it out. Make sense?

I have a good news for you Allister. BMX riders, skateboarders make spills many time during a contest and they keep using the same helmet over and over. And it costs only $40.-(suggested retail price) or less. They probably make more use of their helmets during the practice and contest than entire 20 days of Tour de France.

Yeah a lot of skate and bmx helmets are designed to be bashed around. But they also weight a lot more and don't vent nearly half as well. But it's a good investment for a kid who's going to get into low speed crashes a lot.

Well, it's been over a year since I've pranged, but my experience is similar. I do hit my head on things occasionally off the bike - minor impacts. However, I've cracked several helmets over the years in hits that have had my full weight behind them. So yes, head hitting is more likely whilst riding than, say, surfing the internet. I have no idea if it 'saved my life' (I doubt it), but it definitely saved some hurt. All my crashes have been relatively slow speed though - I don't think I'd like to test it out in a more extreme collision.

All things considered, I think that the benefits outweigh the risks, even allowing for my concerns about the adequacy of the design.

I was thinking that the material would be able to compress, and then expand again without the need to detroy itself. Surely such a material isn't out of the realms of possibility. The only part that may suffer damage would be the shell. I figure something like Kevlar could take a pretty severe blow without cracking, but even if it did, my intent would be to make it repairable.

Ok, maybe this is all pie in the sky, but it makes for an interesting discussion.


Don't they use some kind of styrofoam core too?

The Snell Foundation created a very tough certification program for bike helmets. They developed sophisticated tests to measure exactly how well helmets protect the brain from deceleration forces. The Snell certificate required testing of prototypes, and then actual production models. Snell would then go to stores, and buy random samples and test those as well.

Snell charged manufacturers a hefty fee to recover the costs of their extensive testing program. After the CPSC stickers became "standard", most manufacturers in the USA dropped out of the Snell testing program. The manufacturers figured (correctly) that a typical LBS and typical helmet buyer would assume that the CPSC sticker means the helmet meets a high standard for protection against brain injuries.

I wish some Bill Gates kind of guy would give the Snell Foundation enough money to test all of the "best selling" helmets. I'm kinda suspecting that there are some helmets with CPSC stickers that would not pass the Snell tests - but it would cost big bucks to find out.

Since I sell helmets in my shop, I have always been somewhat confused by the various testing stamps I see on the helmets. SNELL, CPSC, etc. I understand that these are private testing labs that are paid to test helmets. I would assume that the cheapest testers get the largest volume of business. But at the same time, this makes me suspicious in regards to who has the most rigorous testing protocol. Does anyone know the breakdown of who tests the most strigently to who has the minimum testing procedures? And why was SNELL all of a sudden taken out of the picture? Cost or as one helmet rep contended, they didn't do a rigorous enough test to satisfy his company. Just curious.

Nothing personal here. I'm asking for any research that shows cycling results in more head injuries than other activities. You've replied that you don't have any and don't care. I'm curious as to why. If you don't know of any elevated risk but want to wear a helmet I thought that was curious as I find the phantom risk of head injury on bicycles is more fearsom as the equal risk of head injury elsewhere.

I'm not saying you aren't entitled to your feelings or views or making judgements on them. I would like to see some substatiated findings that riding a bike makes you more likely to hit your head than other activities. Until I find this, I find all the stories of head injuries on bicycles no different as all the other stories of the same happening to others, resulting in assesments to my overall risk and if it's worth it to make some adjustments to lower the risks, or if the risks are low enough to not let it concern me too much.

If there is no elevated risk, there is no need to elevate my concern or take elevated measures to avoid a head injury.