Road cycling....
- Thread starter londonbairn
- Start date
Associate
- Joined
- 21 Jul 2007
- Posts
- 763
- Location
- Cheshire
Nice one.
im not a fan of wearing cycle helmets. if i was worried for my safety enough to want to wear a helmet id want to wear elbow, knee and shin pads, a gum sheild, ankle boots and some nice thick gloves. where do you stop
ive fell of any amount of times since i was young and the only thing that has hit the ground is my knee's, ankles, elbows and shoulders. i even crashed and clipped a sandstone wall doing 40mph down a hill and damaged most things (inc a finger nail) but not my head
ive fell of any amount of times since i was young and the only thing that has hit the ground is my knee's, ankles, elbows and shoulders. i even crashed and clipped a sandstone wall doing 40mph down a hill and damaged most things (inc a finger nail) but not my head
Yes, but if you get hit on the head you might not be walking or talking ever again. As someone who works in neurology inpatients and cycles you just never want to take the risk and endup with a wrecked life from a small mistake.
It should go without saying that the link SDK posted is a specifically anti-helmet one, so the studies they quote are unsurprisingly ones which don't support a pro-helmet argument.
Don't take this as me being pro-helmet, I wear one but I don't think the statistics are compelling either way. Reportage of cycling injuries is obviously terrible, and there's so many hygeine factors that most studies are meaningless.
For instance- the number of mtb injuries increases, even though protective gear gets better and helmet wear is the rule. Why? Well, the birth of the modern helmet- 1990- more or less coincides with the birth of the modern mass production mountain bike, so at the same time as the gear got better, the bikes became capable of more daftness. Cycling trends and road trends also change, so you can't distinguish any one factor.
The biggest problem is that if a piece of protective gear prevents an injury, then it's not a statistic. You just can't statistically prove that helmets are making any difference, because nobody collates "I had a crash and I think my helmet helped" stats.
There's another factor, which is that an injury doesn't have to be permanent or crippling to be worth avoiding. If you suffer a minor injury on a day's riding, that ruins your day, and can lead to time off the bike as well. In fact, given the relative rarity of major injury for cyclists, this minor injury prevention could have a bigger impact for most riders. I always wear pads (mainly because I'm osteoperotic, brittle bones) but it means that I'm far more likely to just dust myself off and carry on.
Yup. For me, most of the time I'd sooner ride without a helmet than without my knee pads. Brains are well protected with a solid bone, and well located in a crash. Knees are delicate, load bearing and fundamentally fragile, and they're the bit you land on most. You're more likely to sustain a crippling leg injury in a single-vehicle cycle crash than a crippling brain injury. You're not especially likely to suffer either though. Course, a crippling brain injury is far worse news than a crippling leg injury, so I try and avoid both
Not at all- they're rated to absorb at least that (and some do exceed it- though it seems that many on the market actually don't meet the CE standards), but it doesn't mean that the second you exceed this force they become worthless- they still absorb the same amount of force, so the amount transmitted is still reduced.
It's also worth mentioning that only 1 in 7 hospitalising cycle crashes involves a third party- the huge majority are rider error, so the popular argument abiut vehicular impacts isn't really all that valid
Oh. Lastly, my helmet gives me a convenient place to mount my light
Don't take this as me being pro-helmet, I wear one but I don't think the statistics are compelling either way. Reportage of cycling injuries is obviously terrible, and there's so many hygeine factors that most studies are meaningless.
For instance- the number of mtb injuries increases, even though protective gear gets better and helmet wear is the rule. Why? Well, the birth of the modern helmet- 1990- more or less coincides with the birth of the modern mass production mountain bike, so at the same time as the gear got better, the bikes became capable of more daftness. Cycling trends and road trends also change, so you can't distinguish any one factor.
The biggest problem is that if a piece of protective gear prevents an injury, then it's not a statistic. You just can't statistically prove that helmets are making any difference, because nobody collates "I had a crash and I think my helmet helped" stats.
There's another factor, which is that an injury doesn't have to be permanent or crippling to be worth avoiding. If you suffer a minor injury on a day's riding, that ruins your day, and can lead to time off the bike as well. In fact, given the relative rarity of major injury for cyclists, this minor injury prevention could have a bigger impact for most riders. I always wear pads (mainly because I'm osteoperotic, brittle bones) but it means that I'm far more likely to just dust myself off and carry on.
Yup. For me, most of the time I'd sooner ride without a helmet than without my knee pads. Brains are well protected with a solid bone, and well located in a crash. Knees are delicate, load bearing and fundamentally fragile, and they're the bit you land on most. You're more likely to sustain a crippling leg injury in a single-vehicle cycle crash than a crippling brain injury. You're not especially likely to suffer either though. Course, a crippling brain injury is far worse news than a crippling leg injury, so I try and avoid both
Not at all- they're rated to absorb at least that (and some do exceed it- though it seems that many on the market actually don't meet the CE standards), but it doesn't mean that the second you exceed this force they become worthless- they still absorb the same amount of force, so the amount transmitted is still reduced.
It's also worth mentioning that only 1 in 7 hospitalising cycle crashes involves a third party- the huge majority are rider error, so the popular argument abiut vehicular impacts isn't really all that valid
Oh. Lastly, my helmet gives me a convenient place to mount my light
Last edited:
But, in any case, for most road cyclists the first step towards avoiding injury should be learning how to ride. Probably the second should be adequately maintaining their bike. Third for many would be planning a better route with less traffic impact.
I vividly recall crashing into a concrete fence post at 22mph as a kid and I'd hate to think what state I'd be in today if I hadn't have been wearing a helmet- it put a lengthy crack straight down the middle of it.
If you're riding around town or on light trails then you can do without one I'm sure, but I never leave home without a lid if I'm getting serious. It's not like a light, snug model intrudes on the wearer.
I hacve had my face bounce straight off the ground after hitting the deck.
I bounced back so far I landed back onto my knees after falling flat.
My face would have been cracked open like a coconut!
There are tons of arguments against helmets - however in small-scale low-speed possibly even user-error topplings - they are a good defence against small impacts and nasty abrasions. The peak and general bulk of the thing keeps your face/ears a little further from the tarmac.
If you're an incredibly confident cyclist and think that you'll never hit a greasy patch of diesel/oil, never find yourself unable to clip out of worn SPD cleats, never have a light brush with a car OR if you do suffer any mishap, if you can be quick enough to make sure you land in such a way that your head is kept safely off the ground.... by all means don't wear a lid
Or if you like to chance it with the laws of averages, fine
I only started wearing one on the commute when I started cycling daily to my old job about 2 miles from home straight through the city centre at rush hour. I figured the law of averages said that I might well have an accident whoever's fault it'd be, and it'd best be prepared.
Now the ride is ~8 miles twice daily maybe about 3-4 times a week, and the helmet stays. I don't think I /need/ it per se but mishaps happen.
If you're an incredibly confident cyclist and think that you'll never hit a greasy patch of diesel/oil, never find yourself unable to clip out of worn SPD cleats, never have a light brush with a car OR if you do suffer any mishap, if you can be quick enough to make sure you land in such a way that your head is kept safely off the ground.... by all means don't wear a lid
Or if you like to chance it with the laws of averages, fine
I only started wearing one on the commute when I started cycling daily to my old job about 2 miles from home straight through the city centre at rush hour. I figured the law of averages said that I might well have an accident whoever's fault it'd be, and it'd best be prepared.
Now the ride is ~8 miles twice daily maybe about 3-4 times a week, and the helmet stays. I don't think I /need/ it per se but mishaps happen.
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 2,503
- Location
- Oop North
Your talking about nettles aren't you... really nasty !! sting for so much longer than I remember then when I was a kid!
![[DOD]Asprilla](/styles/overclockers/avatars/8.png){kind=avatar}
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 14,033
- Location
- Surrey, by the river
Spud failures are the main reason I wear mine.
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 2,503
- Location
- Oop North
...
Or if you like to chance it with the laws of averages, fine
....
Thing is, the data quoted by SDK, seems to indicate that "the law of averages" isn't on the side of the helmet wearers.
The site linked, isn't anti-helmet, it just a collection of peer reviewed facts about stats on helmet wearing and cycling, though I think it probably concentrates mainly on road use.
This discussion started by rafster saying
Those numbers try to explain why.
Right? So the car that hits you sending you 20ft in the air at that point with a boken leg, arm and a few ribs, not life threatening................until you hit the tarmac at 40mph and at 20ft when your head meets the road.
Dont be a bloody muppet.
Have to say I always find this argument interesting, if you don't want to wear a helmet then don't, but please don't try to say they are useless or will make an accident worse. I assume everyone who says I don't need one as I always land on xxxx body part instead that you also don't bother buying any kind of insurance...as why bother it won't happen to you?
Any padding will help to stop injury, even if you just wear a beanie, it will to an extent help if you hit your head.
Any padding will help to stop injury, even if you just wear a beanie, it will to an extent help if you hit your head.
Right? So the car that hits you sending you 20ft in the air at that point with a boken leg, arm and a few ribs, not life threatening................until you hit the tarmac at 40mph and at 20ft when your head meets the road.
Dont be a bloody muppet.
You really think a plastic helmet is going to save a serious head injury from 20ft, 40mph onto a road surface.
Perhaps think a little before you post... Kermit
Damn right - doc leaves these days are rubbish
A Full Face helmet I assume - Now were talking decent protection.
Not many roadies wear them though
Last edited:
You really think a plastic helmet is going to save a serious head injury from 20ft, 40mph onto a road surface.
Perhaps think a little before you post... Kermit
The plastic will do nothing. The compression layer will reduce the affect of the impact by the equivalent of 12mph. This could be enough to reduce the damage significantly.
Of course, you don't actually hit the road head on at 40mph in a 40mph crash, so the speed of the accident is a red herring in this example. If you get knocked off your bike at 40mph you hit the ground with the exact same vertical force as you do if you get knocked off at 0mph.
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 2,503
- Location
- Oop North
There are way too many variables to work out impacts. if at some point you or something is doing 40mph and hits something else there's going to be a lot of scuffing as well as possible head impact. If was a simple case of calculating forces and trauma, it would have already been done, and we would have decided this argument long ago. You can though look at statisitcal analysis of injuries actually caused and the amount of accidents per mile and look at those figures... but I give up.
As before, I wear a helmet, but don't think it will save my life in an accident... It might just keep me from getting a scuffed face. (children though should always wear a helmet becuse they are much more likely to smack their big squashy heads)
Yep, should have been clearer there, I was oversimplifying just to give a clear demonstration of why speed isn't always that relevant. I've crashed a motorbike at 90mph, but the impact when I hit the ground was less than when I fell over drunk in the street last week 
Obviously no amount of gear is any use if you hit a wall at 90mph but hitting the ground is totally different.
Obviously no amount of gear is any use if you hit a wall at 90mph but hitting the ground is totally different.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 2,667
- Location
- In a wheelie bin
I always wear my helmet, with it being light weight and only taking a few seconds to put on its hardly worth the risk in not wearing it. Also I only ride the bike when wearing all my other gear too like base layers, shirts, shorts, gloves and shoes, it seems strange not to put the helmet on too.