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

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.

I wish I still had my helmet manual so I could quote some of the stuff in it that I found comical.

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.'

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.

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.

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

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.

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!!!

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