Helmets - the definitive thread.. Mod Note - Please read Opening Post

cletus wrote: »

Most people who work around rotational machinery will not wear gloves, as the glove can be caught and pulled into the machine, potentially causing much greater injury to the person. Everything from lathes, to angle grinders to pillar drills.

Loose clothing and things like the pull ties on a hoodie are also no-nos

I read somewhere that the fashion for Veronica Lake hairstyles among women in factories in WWII was a problem.

Bit off topic, sorry!

BoardsMember

tomasrojo wrote: »

TraumaDoc had the example of a kid who suffered a dislocation of neck vertebrae when he fell over backwards doing a wheelie, with the helmet, which stuck out quite a bit, acting as a lever.

On the balance of evidence, apart from playground strangulations, I don't think they substantially raise your chances of serious injury, but the net benefits also seem to be too modest to capture at the population level.

Therein lies one of the problems. We dont know what potential catastrophic head injuries he might have sustained had he not been wearing a helment. Or he might have experienced no head injuries. We just don't know. I know that I am prepared to "risk" my safety and the safety of my wife and kids by asking them to wear helmets around town when on the bike.

It's a bit like the facemask and face shield in work for short close contacts. It's meant as clinical PPE is, for a just in case scenario. There is still a rake of people who as soon as they don them think, sub 1m for a few hours is fine even if it's not necessary. PPE should always be the last line of mitigation in any risk reduction strategy, yet it's the go to for so many. I'm not saying it should or should not be used, simply that in reducing risk, there's a far longer list of things to get through before you get to it. Once there, if still there, fire away but just make sure it does what you think it does.

I wear a helmet most of the time nowadays, but that doesn't mean I am pro helmet, nor am I anti helmet.

rubadub

tomasrojo wrote: »

he fell over backwards doing a wheelie...

I don't think they substantially raise your chances of serious injury,.

I think they can significantly increase the chances of people doing things that can cause a serious injury since they put too much faith in them. Like would the kid have been doing extreme wheelies without one.

BoardsMember wrote: »

Therein lies one of the problems. We dont know what potential catastrophic head injuries he might have sustained had he not been wearing a helment. Or he might have experienced no head injuries. We just don't know. I know that I am prepared to "risk" my safety and the safety of my wife and kids by asking them to wear helmets around town when on the bike.

According to the OP it was a catastrophic injury attributable directly to the wearing of the helmet. Same with playground strangulations, but that's more to do with wearing them in inappropriate scenarios. You see signs in playgrounds now warning against wearing them in the playground.

Nobody is telling you or your family not to wear them outside that scenario.

rubadub wrote: »

I think they can significantly increase the chances of people doing things that can cause a serious injury since they put too much faith in them. Like would the kid have been doing extreme wheelies without one.

Yeah, I meant at the population level. Those sort of injuries tend to disappear in very large datasets, since the largest number of people use them for straightforward road cycling.

Though in NL you can see a strong association between helmet wearing and hospital admission, since wearing is so associated with sports cycling.

Seth Brundle

BoardsMember wrote: »

I know that I am prepared to "risk" my safety and the safety of my wife and kids by asking them to wear helmets around town when on the bike.

Bear in mind that it has been shown in various studies that helmet use is likely to lead to drivers giving you and your family less space

https://www.bicycling.com/news/amp25358099/drivers-give-helmet-cyclists-less-room/

BoardsMember wrote: »

Thanks, yes, I understood the scenario, I just don't buy it at all. Trying to make out that wearing a helmet is potentially more dangerous than wearing one is familiar fare here. I was just observing that I thought this was particularly ludicrous, amongst some pretty stiff competition.

And that was not my point, my point seems to be lost. In this one scenario, if everything else remained the same, it was potentially more dangerous. Heavier mass, would have made contact etc. It's quite possible the blow might have been so minor it made no difference whatsoever even if he had made contact but you would have people claiming the helmet saved his life.

Truth is, he didn't get a head injury, so in this random singular example, a safety helmet at best would have had the same outcome or he would have ridden faster, feeling safer and never hit the van or he would have been less aero dynamic and he would have went behind.

Like I have repeatedly said, neither pro or anti helmet, I wear one most of the time myself. I just don't like not wearing one being used to scapegoat people in an accident where it isn't relevant.

tomasrojo wrote: »

I read somewhere that the fashion for Veronica Lake hairstyles among women in factories in WWII was a problem.

Bit off topic, sorry!

my dad nearly died in a paper shredder accident when his tie got caught.

(nearly)

I chanced upon this thread and found it fascinating.

DELETED
For the record as someone who has cycled for over 40 years for school and work commutes as well as having done years of competitive road racing and afterwards quite a bit of mountain biking and has been saved from certain critical head injury one more than one occasion, I find all of the incredibly obtuse comments along the lines of:

"If I was wearing a helmet while looking for mayonnaise in my awkwardly located kitchen corner press then obviously I'm going to bump my head more and then one day very possibly knock a glass pepper jar too - which could then shatter and spray shards of pepper-laden glass in my eyes and then in my blinded, agitated state I could stagger onto the pathway outside my house and push a baby and then the baby could roll into the roadway causing a truck to hit a bus and level a school and *hand-wringing* sob, helmets are sooo bad and you don't even realise...Sob."

This thread is running with the same nonsense since 2013 - I sincerely hope nobody has decided against wearing a helmet because of some of the nonsensical views within it and if so then they honestly don't have much brain power to be protecting in the first place.

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Bear in mind that it has been shown in various studies that helmet use is likely to lead to drivers giving you and your family less space

to shoehorn another comparison in, back in the early days of this pox, when most shop assistants were wearing latex gloves, i was happier to be served by people *not* wearing them. because many of them thought gloves were a magic shield and wouldn't think to change them in the same way they'd wash their hands on a regular basis.

Mango Joe wrote: »

some of those who are passionate about not wearing helmets

not sure if there are many people here you could describe as such?

Mango Joe wrote: »

having done years of competitive road racing and afterwards quite a bit of mountain biking

both contexts in which i'd be fairly certain *absolutely no one* here has promoted the idea of not wearing a helmet for.

[Deleted User]

Mango Joe wrote: »

I chanced upon this thread and found it fascinating.

DELETED

For the record as someone who has cycled for over 40 years for school and work commutes as well as having done years of competitive road racing and afterwards quite a bit of mountain biking and has been saved from certain critical head injury one more than one occasion, I find all of the incredibly obtuse comments along the lines of:

"If I was wearing a helmet while looking for mayonnaise in my awkwardly located kitchen corner press then obviously I'm going to bump my head more and then one day very possibly knock a glass pepper jar too - which could then shatter and spray shards of pepper-laden glass in my eyes and then in my blinded, agitated state I could stagger onto the pathway outside my house and push a baby and then the baby could roll into the roadway causing a truck to hit a bus and level a school and *hand-wringing* sob, helmets are sooo bad and you don't even realise...Sob."

This thread is running with the same nonsense since 2013 - I sincerely hope nobody has decided against wearing a helmet because of some of the nonsensical views within it and if so then they honestly don't have much brain power to be protecting in the first place.

You seem to be confused on the different between
1) not wearing a helmet
2) not wanting mandatory helmet laws.

Macy0161

I pretty much always wear a helmet, unless back in the days I was in the city centre hopping on Dublin bikes.

It doesn't mean I'm not 100% opposed to making the mandatory. Or 100% opposed to all the "helmet saved my life" bs. Or will not call out the bs that they're somehow protection against the significant minority of idiots driving vehicles.

magicbastarder wrote: »

not sure if there are many people here you could describe as such?

both contexts in which i'd be fairly certain *absolutely no one* here has promoted the idea of not wearing a helmet for.

Eh...May I please respectfully ask.....Wouldn't partially quoting someone to remove the context of their originally stated point of view so as to promote one's own point of view not be considered bad form?

no more than a comment than 'this thread is running the same nonsense since 2013', now that you ask. or misrepresenting the arguments being made here.

magicbastarder wrote: »

no more than a comment than 'this thread is running the same nonsense since 2013', now that you ask. or misrepresenting the arguments being made here.

Not what I asked.

Good standard.....Enjoy.

Macy0161 wrote: »

It doesn't mean I'm not 100% opposed to making the mandatory. Or 100% opposed to all the "helmet saved my life" bs. Or will not call out the bs that they're somehow protection against the significant minority of idiots driving vehicles.

took a split second to parse that double negative!

MOD VOICE: Lets make one thing clear really quickly before getting back to the discussion, looking for posters posts on other forums as if to make a point is bad form and frowned upon, cut it out, everyone. Lets stick to the delightful rehash of points we have had for several years, I for one, like many new and regular posters look forward to having our views and points wildly misinterpreted or misunderstood, yours sincerely, an almost daily helmet wearer.

magicbastarder wrote: »

i have a MIPS helmet. i'm not sure how it makes a difference in a multiple impact, but it does seem to have an inner shell which can take some of the rotational 'jerk' out of an impact i think.

duh.
there was me thinking MIPS stood for 'multiple impact protection system'. it stands for 'multi-directional impact protection system' which as above, should theoretically take the worst impact out of a rotational twist in a fall.

MojoMaker

Mango Joe wrote: »

For the record as someone who has cycled for over 40 years for school and work commutes as well as having done years of competitive road racing and afterwards quite a bit of mountain biking...

Yet here you are, posting in the cycling forum for (virtually) the first time :rolleyes:

buffalo

magicbastarder wrote: »

my dad nearly died in a paper shredder accident when his tie got caught.

(nearly)

Did his helmet save his life?

MojoMaker wrote: »

Yet here you are, posting in the cycling forum for (virtually) the first time :rolleyes:

Let's look at the last three posts shall we?

1. Starts with the word "Duh".
2. Ends with a sarcastic emoji.
3. Shredder usage conflated with helmet-wearing.

Maybe I've been too full of self-doubt, anxiety and apprehension to post in the wonderous cycling forum with all of its bright and brilliant minds.

* Token Duh :rolleyes: added to fit in......

Mango Joe wrote: »

1. Starts with the word "Duh".
2. Ends with a sarcastic emoji.
3. Shredder usage conflated with helmet-wearing.

look, we're the cycling forum, not the support forum for people who don't understand humour; you're obviously in the wrong place. you're welcome to read the thread and engage with what is being discussed, but if you're just here to critique posting styles, you won't find much of a welcome.

Bit shorter than reading the entire megathread, David Spiegelhalter and Ben Goldacre's editorial in the BMJ covers a lot of the usual territory, and is available here:
https://www.badscience.net/2013/12/bicycle-helmets-and-the-law-a-perfect-teaching-case-for-epidemiology/

buffalo wrote: »

Did his helmet save his life?

i don't know if shredders operate fast enough to cause whiplash?

dinneenp

Hi,

My helmet is 20+ years old, feel like I should replace it. Use is for recreational road cycling. Any recommendations, I was going to say keep it under €50 but as it's something that'll last for years, I'm happy to pay up to €100 if it makes a difference. From reading, ones that have MIPS are safer, so I presume better to get one with?

Currently browsing through Cycle Superstore, who have a large selection and here at ones with MIPS. Too many choices almost!
Thanks,
Pa.

Stark

MIPS is a good thing to have in a helmet if you're looking for something to narrow the choice. Offers protection from rotational head injuries, not just direct impact.

dinneenp

Stark wrote: »

MIPS is a good thing to have in a helmet if you're looking for something to narrow the choice. Offers protection from rotational head injuries, not just direct impact.

Tbh I have no idea, just read that's MIPS is safer. I could easily get bogged down with analysis paralysis...