Please wear a helmet on the mountains!

iregk

Right folks rather serious post for a change. This is a plea here.

As a regular cyclist up around the dublin and wicklow mountains I've seen many a rider come off, myself included. In particular more than any other place up around Ballinascorney golf course just past Tallaght. It is a particular black spot for anyone coming down the hill due to its very steep gradient and sudden narrowing of the road.

Last night I had the misfortune to be on my way home to Blessington only to be met with two cyclists who had hit each other on the ground covered in blood. One was in an extremely bad way and thankfully I was able to offer some sort of first aid to him (was a lifeguard in my youth) but even still.

Now neither of these guys had a helmet between them. So folks if your going to cycle on the mountains can you please for your own sake and safety wear a helmet. Don't end up lying on the pavement waiting for someone to call you an ambulance. They cost only €30 in most shops and could be the difference between getting back up and waking up somewhere else!

Thanks
Graham.

Ghost Rider

Awful story, but thanks for posting it. I believe everyone should wear a helmet on the roads in and around the city too.

iregk wrote:

Right folks rather serious post for a change. This is a plea here.

As a regular cyclist up around the dublin and wicklow mountains I've seen many a rider come off, myself included. In particular more than any other place up around Ballinascorney golf course just past Tallaght. It is a particular black spot for anyone coming down the hill due to its very steep gradient and sudden narrowing of the road.

Last night I had the misfortune to be on my way home to Blessington only to be met with two cyclists who had hit each other on the ground covered in blood. One was in an extremely bad way and thankfully I was able to offer some sort of first aid to him (was a lifeguard in my youth) but even still.

Now neither of these guys had a helmet between them. So folks if your going to cycle on the mountains can you please for your own sake and safety wear a helmet. Don't end up lying on the pavement waiting for someone to call you an ambulance. They cost only €30 in most shops and could be the difference between getting back up and waking up somewhere else!

Thanks
Graham.

rubadub

Ghost Rider wrote:

I believe everyone should wear a helmet on the roads in and around the city too.

Put a lid back on that can of worms

I think everyone would recommend wearing a helmet when mountainbiking though, I would also wear knee and elbow pads, I find it odd that people do not, even people who would "never leave the house" without a helmet, and think people who do are crazy.

crashoveroid

This will be as always a big debate im cycling for a good while now and some people hate to wear helmets others dont leave home with out one. Even myself on occasion i dont wear a helmet trainning. I say people should it can make a big difference

Ghost Rider

Yeah, fair enough. It's too nice a day for that rigmarole.

Anyway, I just wanted to offer my support for the OP's sentiment.

rubadub wrote:

Put a lid back on that can of worms

Membrane

iregk wrote:

As a regular cyclist up around the dublin and wicklow mountains I've seen many a rider come off, myself included. In particular more than any other place up around Ballinascorney golf course just past Tallaght. It is a particular black spot for anyone coming down the hill due to its very steep gradient and sudden narrowing of the road.

Last night I had the misfortune to be on my way home to Blessington only to be met with two cyclists who had hit each other on the ground covered in blood. One was in an extremely bad way and thankfully I was able to offer some sort of first aid to him (was a lifeguard in my youth) but even still.

Ouch, any idea what happened and where exactly? I ride there regularly myself, but I'm having trouble imagening how you can hit another cyclist resulting in serious injury, unless a rider descending doesn't manage to hold the bend to the left and crashes into a cyclist climbing in the other direction on the opposite edge of the road (you'll have to lose it big time to do that though).

Now neither of these guys had a helmet between them.

Were they bleeding from the head? And why do you believe that a flimsy bit of styrofoam would have made any difference?

So folks if your going to cycle on the mountains can you please for your own sake and safety wear a helmet.

No thanks, I know better than to believe in the illusion of safety helmets are widely believed to offer.

Don't end up lying on the pavement waiting for someone to call you an ambulance.

Do helmets phone ambulances now? Or are you suggesting that helmets would have prevented the accident?

iregk

Nice membrane very nice. You can always guarantee someone to throw out smart comments.

I arrived straight after it happened so I didn't actually see it occour although I'm told the guy on the way down coming around to the left ran wide and hit the guy on the climb.

Yes they were both bleeding from the head.

Why do I think a flimsy bit of styrofoam could make a difference? Because millions of €'s have been spent researching this and has shown to be effective. Ok its not a 100% guarantee that you'll live but it may just be enough.

As for the last comment grow up and don't be so smart. If you don't want to wear one fine. Hopefully we wont see your name in the newspaper one day!

Membrane

iregk wrote:

Why do I think a flimsy bit of styrofoam could make a difference? Because millions of €'s have been spent researching this and has shown to be effective.

Got any references to back that up?

Did you know that there was a motion tabled at the most recent UK brain surgeon convention that called for their stance supporting cycle helmets to be revoked because the body of evidence of more recent scientific research did not support that there was any safety benefit? (in fact there is empirical data that suggests that the reverse is actually the case)

Hermy

Do me a favour Membrane and put a bicycle helmet on your head and ram your head against the nearest concrete wall and then take the helmet off and ram your head against the same wall again and report your findings to the Boards.

seamus

Membrane wrote:

Ouch, any idea what happened and where exactly? I ride there regularly myself, but I'm having trouble imagening how you can hit another cyclist resulting in serious injury, unless a rider descending doesn't manage to hold the bend to the left and crashes into a cyclist climbing in the other direction on the opposite edge of the road (you'll have to lose it big time to do that though).

They could easily have been cycling beside eachother, and one guy lost control. That road is also notoriously slippery and has a tendancy to have gravel on the corners, so one guy could very easily have wiped and struck the other guy, or landed on the ground in front of the other guy.

Were they bleeding from the head? And why do you believe that a flimsy bit of styrofoam would have made any difference?

Well, after coming off myself in the city at just over 22mph and striking my head on the ground, the damage to my helmet and the subsequent headache gave me reason to believe that the "flimsy bit of styrofoam" did actually make a difference.

I have seen plenty of helmets destroyed by severe crashes in my time, with the wearer suffering little more than sore limbs and a headache. You can't argue that a cracked skull is better than a cracked helment.

While I'm not disagreeing that there is an illusion of invincibility bestowed on some people when they don a helmet, their usefulness in high-speed or irregular crashes can't be underestimated. Attempting to claim that they're dangerous is a blatant attempt at misinformation.

Did you know that there was a motion tabled at the most recent UK brain surgeon convention that called for their stance supporting cycle helmets to be revoked because the body of evidence of more recent scientific research did not support that there was any safety benefit? (in fact there is empirical data that suggests that the reverse is actually the case)

Have you got a reference to back that up?

Lemming

Membrane, it's easy to point out the flaws in other people's solutions. So lets here your solution .... put your money were your mouth is/

Membrane

seamus wrote:

I have seen plenty of helmets destroyed by severe crashes in my time, with the wearer suffering little more than sore limbs and a headache. You can't argue that a cracked skull is better than a cracked helment.

The strength of the human skull is a huge magnitude greater than that of a cycle helmet. Ergo a cracked helmet does not mean that serious damage to the skull would have ensued had the helmet not been worn.

Have you got a reference to back that up?

As posted before: http://www.cyclehelmets.org

Note that consulting the above resource requires that you don't have any preconceived notions about the effects of cycle helmet wearing.

Membrane

Lemming wrote:

Membrane, it's easy to point out the flaws in other people's solutions. So lets here your solution .... put your money were your mouth is/

Making a real contribution to your safety on the road requires learning about many different variables, the vast majority are of the active variety, few of them of the passive variety (such as cycle helmets). I believe there is an UK publication called "Cyclecraft" that has a good reputation. Afaik this is it: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Cyclecraft-Complete-Enjoyable-Cycling-Children/dp/0117037400/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/203-6857351-3944733?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1185876858&sr=1-1

Ghost Rider

For many people, the question is as simple as this "What do I have to lose by wearing a helmet?" If you can show how the answer "nothing" is false, then I see no need for your argument on this thread. Nobody is making a case for about mandatory helmets here.

Membrane wrote:

Making a real contribution to your safety on the road requires learning about many different variables, the vast majority are of the active variety, few of them of the passive variety (such as cycle helmets). I believe there is an UK publication called "Cyclecraft" that has a good reputation. Afaik this is it: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Cyclecraft-Complete-Enjoyable-Cycling-Children/dp/0117037400/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/203-6857351-3944733?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1185876858&sr=1-1

ruprect

Ghost Rider wrote:

If you can show how the answer "nothing" is false, then I see no need for your argument on this thread. .

Well there was a study showing cars will overtake you allowing less room if you wear a helmet. Other find it an interference/distraction, possibly due to a poor fit, they might have to keep pushing it up or something.

I would imagine when mountain biking that the benefits it provides outweigh any distraction it causes.

Car bumpers and helmets are designed to crumple which helps absorb a lot of the force of impact, go to the butchers and get a pigs head. Now drop a brick 1 or 2 ft onto the helmet and then on the pigs head. The skull is very strong.

I would compare mountain biking to rally driving or off road buggy driving. I would wear helments in that case. After reading studies I would sooner wear a helmet in a car on the road than on a bike, as I believe it would offer more protection.

Morgan

ruprect wrote:

go to the butchers and get a pigs head. Now drop a brick 1 or 2 ft onto the helmet and then on the pigs head. The skull is very strong.

Should I put the helmet on the pigs head before trying this?

Ghost Rider

Yes, but don't forget to take your own head out of the helmet before you try and put the pig's one in.

Morgan wrote:

Should I put the helmet on the pigs head before trying this?

iregk

Or should we be using a pigs head as a helmet?

Ghost Rider

Worth a try. And maybe silk purses could be made from any leftover ears...?

iregk wrote:

Or should we be using a pigs head as a helmet?

Membrane

Ghost Rider wrote:

For many people, the question is as simple as this "What do I have to lose by wearing a helmet?"

I argue that people should (at least first) spend their money and time on something that will actually significantly improve their safety on the road (like reading said book). Then without prejudice read the case for and against helmets on cyclehelmets.org.

dalk

Helmets are good for preventing lacerations (like in the OP's example). Anything more than that is expecting a bit much from the standard that the majority of helmets are built to...

milod

Hermy made a good point earlier about headbutting a wall with and without a helmet and Membrane as usual defies any reason in regard to the helmet argument. But the simple fact is this: helmets reduce injuries! lacerations, fractures, blood loss etc may not kill you but will thoroughly ruin your day out!

The choice is with each and every cyclist but I'm getting sick of hearing arguments that simply defy pure logic with abstract statistics. I and many friends have saved ourselves the bother of a visit to A&E by wearing a helmet. Others I know have not been so lucky, including a chap I worked with in London who was hit by half a brick falling from a scaffold. And though Membrane may be right in that his skull didn't cave in, he still suffered headaches for a year after.

So doubters please try a few head v. wall experiments with and without a helmet before completely dismissing their value...

Hermy

I mentioned this somewhere else before but I'll mention again that I have no doubt that Chris Boardman does not regret the fact that he was wearing a helmet when he crashed between Enniscorthy and Cork in 1998.
If you don't want to wear a helmet that's your choice but don't try to convince me that I would be better off without one.

Ghost Rider

My sentiments too.

Hermy wrote:

If you don't want to wear a helmet that's your choice but don't try to convince me that I would be better off without one.

dalk

Hermy wrote:

If you don't want to wear a helmet that's your choice but don't try to convince me that I would be better off without one.

I doubt any reasonable person would suggest that wearing a helmet is a bad idea. I completely agree with the statement:

Milod wrote:

helmets reduce injuries!

This is off topic but what i do object to is the tendency by some to overstate helmet efficacy and the concurrent gross exaggeration of cyclings risks. (Obviously some cycling persuits are more dangerous than others).

If you believe that a cycling helmet will protect you from the sort of head injury that will kill you, i would suggest you read the standard to which the helmet complies which would suggest otherwise. And if you think that cycling is so dangerous that you are crazy to not wear a helmet, i would look at the stats that suggest that for distance traveled, cycling is only a little bit more dangerous than being a pedestrian.

And as for the anecdotal "i'd be dead if it wasn't for my helmet" arguments, it would only be evidence if we perfectly recreated your accident, minus a helmet, and you died. Any volunteers to prove their point?

Don't believe the hype!

mcgratheoin

Membrane wrote:

As posted before: http://www.cyclehelmets.org

Note that consulting the above resource requires that you don't have any preconceived notions about the effects of cycle helmet wearing.

You mean that site requires that you don't have preconceived notions that differ from the site's authors?
Wear one / don't wear one as you see fit, but that site is far from an unbiased scientific examination of the facts.

dalk

mcgratheoin wrote:

You mean that site requires that you don't have preconceived notions that differ from the site's authors?

Has it occurred to you that maybe your "preconceived notions" may not be very accurate or even correct?

mcgratheoin wrote:

Wear one / don't wear one as you see fit, but that site is far from an unbiased scientific examination of the facts.

And so because it doesn't agree with your (presumably infallible) "preconceived notions" its biased?

Personally i thought the websites quoting and linking to lots of different studies and papers is fair. Lots of information there to be able to make your own mind up with...

el tel

My motivation for wearing a helmet is not to save me from being killed in an accident but rather to prevent me from sustaining head injuries. Surely this is what the OP was getting at? I can't fault the OP for his concern for his fellow cyclists.

Stereophonic

Membrane

You'll know all about it if you ever crash! Touch wood I don't but not too sure about you.

Membrane

Stereophonic wrote:

Membrane

You'll know all about it if you ever crash!

Been there, done that (at considerable speed), head was fine (minor scrapes) despite going over the bars and landing on the asphalt, couldn't say the same about the rest of my body.

Not that a single incident such as that demonstrates anything, but many participants in this thread seem to reject scientific research.

Raam

why do they make the roadie pros wear helmets in competitions?

rubadub

Hermy wrote:

Do me a favour Membrane and put a bicycle helmet on your head and ram your head against the nearest concrete wall and then take the helmet off and ram your head against the same wall again and report your findings to the Boards.

You might be saying that in jest but it actually brings up a valid point. Ever see a kid get a new hurley helmet, shin guards, or "groin cup"? Some will stick it on, give their mate a hurl and ask them to give them a belt in the head/leg/crotch!

Similarly some people will feel they are more protected with helmets and do more dangerous manoeuvres on the road or MTB trail.

If you fall and hit your head of course you are likely to sustain less injury if wearing a helmet. I dont think anybody doubts that. But there are numerous reasons, theoretical and some data in proper studies to show why wearing a helmet might not reduce overall injuries. i.e. it can make you more susceptible to injury. So while you might sustain 20% less injury when falling with the helmet, figures might show that you are more likely to fall while wearing the helmet and therefore overall you could be better off without it.

I think it is follow the leader and the apparent logic. It was very rare to see people with helmets 20 years ago. If people start wearing them in cars will it suddenly be popular? A cycle style helmet is supposed to offer more protection in a car than on a bike (more than a seatbelt too), so why do no motorists wear them? they are not a different species so why are they so many cyclists who would not dream of cycling without a helmet, yet get in a car with only a seat belt for security.

Raam

rubadub wrote:

A cycle style helmet is supposed to offer more protection in a car than on a bike (more than a seatbelt too), so why do no motorists wear them? they are not a different species so why are they so many cyclists who would not dream of cycling without a helmet, yet get in a car with only a seat belt for security.

I would guess because a car has other safety features available which a bike does not: seat-belts, airbags, roll cage.

Cyclists don't have those luxuries, therefore many people take the only extra bit of precaution* that they can...i.e. wearing a helmet which _might_ save you. Just the same as the seatbelt, air bags, roll cage _might_ save you

* the first bit being that you try your best to avoid falling off in the first place

Membrane

King Raam wrote:

why do they make the roadie pros wear helmets in competitions?

I don't know the history of the mandatory helmet rule within UCI.

I suspect that it came about as a result of an accident with a rider receiving serious head injuries. The easy answer is "helmets must be made compulsary". Much in the same way that there is a call to employ more Gardai in response to an increase in crime. It is the easy answer that avoids having to deal with the complexities of the matter. Those who propose such simplistic measures are rewarded by the public, many of whom will only accept simplistic answers and will refuse to look at the complexities.

rubadub

King Raam wrote:

I would guess because a car has other safety features available which a bike does not: seat-belts, airbags, roll cage.

Cyclists don't have those luxuries, therefore many people take the only extra bit of precaution* that they can...i.e. wearing a helmet which _might_ save you. Just the same as the seatbelt, air bags, roll cage _might_ save you

* the first bit being that you try your best to avoid falling off in the first place

That is exactly one of the problems, perceived safety, and perceived dangers. I think it was in one of the many other threads but there was a link about wearing helmets in cars, saying that even with all the airbags/seatbelts/cages, that wearing the helmet would offer more protection to people in a car than on a bike. Dunno if this was a per mile safety statistic.

Some people put false hope in seatbelt security, just like some seem to in cycling helmets, with the way some ads are now young lads might think they are grand speeding as long as the belt is on.

People get overzealous about others who do not wear helmets for whatever reasons, some would say they are crazy not to wear them, yet if you look at some stats, people could just as easy say you are crazy to wear one, but you do not hear that. Many have sound educated reasoning in their choice not to wear and do not resort to blunt opinions on those that do.

I would wear one when I think it offers protection, I will not wear one when I think it will make me more prone to injury- for whatever reason.

Many of the reasons people do not wear them commuting do not apply when mountainbiking or in professional road racing.

Are there any people who do not wear a helmet commuting who do not think it is worthwhile on a MTB or professional road race?

cyclopath2001

King Raam wrote:

why do they make the roadie pros wear helmets in competitions?

1 - Pressure from insurers.

2 - In racing, the risk of minor collisions resulting in falls low speed is more than than normal & helmets are primarily designed to protect the rider in this kind of accident.

3- Sponsorship opportunities from the helmet manufacturers.

kincsem

I crashed last year. I went over the bars and landed on my helmet, splitting it. My reaction was not "I don't need a helmet, it didn't prevent a crash". My reaction was to buy a hew Giro Pneumo from Chainreaction that evening.

kincsem

Membrane,
That site links introduction of compulsory helmet laws with a decrease in the number of cyclists. That looks like a false assumption. I would think that an increase in affluence results in more people buying cars, and a consequent decrease in cycling. Also the increase in four-wheel vehicles dropping children off at schools has wiped out the traditional travel to school on a bicycle. Making helmets compulsory does not cause people to give up cycling.

Membrane

kincsem wrote:

Membrane,
That site links introduction of compulsory helmet laws with a decrease in the number of cyclists. That looks like a false assumption. I would think that an increase in affluence results in more people buying cars, and a consequent decrease in cycling. Also the increase in four-wheel vehicles dropping children off at schools has wiped out the traditional travel to school on a bicycle. Making helmets compulsory does not cause people to give up cycling.

Please provide a reference from the site.

For example the study about the Australian capital territory does not support that conclusion since the decrease was measured in subsequent years (1991 vs 1992) (http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html?1112), that makes it highly unlikely that the noted huge decrease in cycling was caused by things like affluence. You have to look at all the research before drawing conclusions.

sleepyholland

Membrane wrote:

Please provide a reference from the site.

You have to look at all the research before drawing conclusions.

I don't think that site contains all the research.

Civilian_Target

Kincsem: I think you're wrong on that one, compulsory cycle helmets is definitely a detriment to cycle. Most people don't wear a helmet when commuting, since I can't carry my violin and wear a helmet, there are days when I cycle without a helmet too. I still would rather cycle without a helmet than take the tube: I feel the benefits of cycling outweigh the minimal increase in risk of cycling without a helmet.

Don't get me wrong, I advocate the use of helmets, I've split one open too, but my experience has been that they are only a last line of defence from certain factors that are beyond your control. I think they're better protecting you in an accident that involves no vehicles (eg. sudden loss of traction while cornering).

rubadub

kincsem wrote:

I crashed last year. I went over the bars and landed on my helmet, splitting it. My reaction was not "I don't need a helmet, it didn't prevent a crash".

I dont think anybody was ever saying a helmet would prevent a crash. On the contrary, the non-helmet wearers who bothered to read through the studies might have made up their own minds that the helmet could mean they are more likely to be in a crash in the first place.

When I first heard of the studies it surprised me, but when you think about it logically for a while it does make sense that there are negative sides to wearing a helmet.

I have no helmet and was considering getting one until I read the studies and drew my own conclusions. If I had previously bought one and then I would probably still be wearng it!, my subconcious telling me I didnt waste my money. For that reason I think helmet wearers cannot give as impartial an opinion as a complete noncyclist could. Off the cuff most people would say wearing one is safer. It is not till studies show up strange but totally plausible findings, (like long haired girls being given more space by cars overtaking.

If I was offered a helmet free I would take it, but would not wear it commuting, would save it incase I went MTB'ing, where I feel the benefits outweigh any of the negatives.

That site links introduction of compulsory helmet laws with a decrease in the number of cyclists. That looks like a false assumption.

I didnt think it was an assumption, thought figures backed it. It makes perfect sense to me. If airbags were made compulsory on ALL cars, and old bangers had to be retrofitted then I would expect many people to just scrap them, the cost of the airbag might be more than the car. Same with bikes, the guy who spins down to the shop on a knackered bike will probably just walk instead for his exercise, rather than fork out for a helmet.

ednwireland

just one thing i have had 2 accidents on the road (that didnt just involve gravel rash) one with a helmet one without similar unexpected traction loss ended up hitting my head on the road with the helmet i ended up with a stiff neck and a crack half way up an old bell helmet ( i rode home). without helmet i ended up with a fractured eye socket 5 stitches above my eye and a stiff neck 6 hours in casualty and sinuses that still don't work properly when i get a cold 20 years later. so from those 2 personal incidents i don't get on my bikes without a helmet got a giro exodus don't even know its there.
my 2c

t5pwr

I have never had a crash without my helmet.
I have had some with and I could show you the helmets with the cracks and dents where I was glad I was wearing one. I cycled away without any stiffness or pain. I'm sure that without I would have had to have some stitches.

I will say though that when I have elbow and knee pads on with a helmet I will ride down the hills faster as they do give you some more confidence. Based on the grooves dug into those pads also I am very glad that I have them and I'm pretty sure that I will be wearing them in the future also

But each to their own...

rubadub

t5pwr wrote:

I will say though that when I have elbow and knee pads on with a helmet I will ride down the hills faster as they do give you some more confidence.

At last I hear of somebody who wears elbow and knee pads!! and admitting to the increased confidence effect it has.

Plenty of posters telling of their destroyed helmets and how they would never leave the house without one. But not one of the helmet wearers has said "after the crash I went out and got some body armour/knee pads".

I do wear protection on the bike, I would never wear shorts, and usually wear a long sleeve top. Next on my list is gloves, then it would be elbow guards, then knee guards, and then it would be a helmet. I have had a few tumbles and that is the order I personally would choose.

My best protection is common sense, people on threads here talk of the bike going from under them when turning, if I approach a tight bend I slow down accordingly, presuming I might come off, I am commuting not racing.

t5pwr wrote:

I have never had a crash without my helmet.

And over your entire life what % of your time in the saddle has been with a helmet?

Ghost Rider

They might if they kept their brain behind their kneecaps or elbows...;)

rubadub wrote:

Plenty of posters telling of their destroyed helmets and how they would never leave the house without one. But not one of the helmet wearers has said "after the crash I went out and got some body armour/knee pads".

Civilian_Target

rubadub wrote:

if I approach a tight bend I slow down accordingly, presuming I might come off, I am commuting not racing.

Woose

Raam

rubadub wrote:

I am commuting not racing.

come on now....be honest, it's a race

The_B_Man

im only new to cycling! havent had a bike since i was 12 or so! but got one on Friday (Gaint Rock).

I've started commuting the few miles to work and back. I usually take the back roads and residential routes to avoid the traffic, but still, I have no helmet. From reading this thread, it seems them Giros are highly recommended? They seem a bit too steep a price for me though, so is there any decent cheaper ones? like 30 quid?

As regards the debate thats going on here, speed seems to be the issue. As a commuter/non-racer, if i went over the handlebars, I wouldnt expect to crack my skull. However, if i was going a lot faster, and downhill then I would. So it really depends on personal preference, as well as where/how you cycle.

I can admit though, that if i did fall, i'd rather be wearing a helmet than not....hence my question above!

ThOnda

Membrane: It is only your choice and opinion. Have you been to Holand? Do you think that people don't cycle there anymore because they have to wear helmets? :-)
Personaly, having helmet, gloves and glasses is essential. Nothing of it makes me feel that I am better biker. Even knee pads don't make me be more stupid/aggresive/foolish. I feel safer and protected a littlebit.
I have had a lot of falls on my bikes and I am very pleased, that I needed helmet only once. And I thank to all my friends who explained me how good is helmet, that I had one. It was flat fall to the pavement, head first.
Helmets are designed to take main amout of energy by changing their inner structure. And it helps to deccelerate speed of your scull coming to the ground. And it reducess stress of your brain which is freely floating in your scull. Well, if you have a brain to protect. If not, don't wear a helmet. Even for commuting. I am so worried everytime I see cyclist without helmet on such narrow roads...

The_B_Man: Giro is good, but all producers (good producers) have products of very good quality. More important is how the helmet fits on your head. The best thing is to go to shop, choose design and colour and test all helmets within your criteria whoever is the producer.

cyclopath2001

ThOnda wrote:

Have you been to Holand? Do you think that people don't cycle there anymore because they have to wear helmets? :-)

Helmet wearing is not compulsory in Holland and few people wear them. The Dutch government rather sensibly, concentrates on preventing accidents.