CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!

THE Helmet Thread

(895 posts)
  • Started 11 years ago by Wilmington's Cow
  • Latest reply from gembo

No tags yet.


  1. gembo
    Member

    I have fallen off in the snow at the same speed bump on backstreet towards murrayfield. First time really smacked my head off the kerb and would have had a nasty bruise in my forehead without helmet. Don't worry I till had a few whiskies after work. Second time I slid down the road in my left hip. I had no helmet padding on the hip bone and still a bit tender after many years but now matched by one on my right hip where I slipped on rubber wire last week. All three incidents I just got up and carried on. No whisky lat week, bit too summery.

    I am hopeful rust has changed his mind. I don't care from which position to which position. I changed my mind to a position of being opposed to compulsion through debate on here. However, until rust claimed she changed her mind I have only noticed deeper entrechment of opposing views whenever this is debated.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  2. Instography
    Member

    I quite like the way my son changes his mind from day to day. Some days he wears a helmet, some days he doesn't. I think it's important that he should have one available so I bought him a cool Danny MacAskill POC one so that there would no disincentive to wear it.

    Oddly, and I've never asked in case he thinks about it, he's more likely to wear a helmet playing on his skateboard than on his bike but as far as I know, he falls off his bike more than his skateboard. He never wears one on his scooter.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  3. rust
    Member

    From the thread about amir's off:

    "and a thread on the ERC forum which someone tried to troll into a h****t debate."

    This is the the thread: http://www.edinburghrc.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=15374.0

    Who's trolling? PaulD who states as fact the helmet was a benefit, or mitch who suggests damage to a helmet doesn't always relate to prevented injury, but essentially goes OT in the process?

    Or is any mention of helmets on cycling forum in relation to anything instantly trolling?

    Gembo, I haven't changed my mind. I'm still against helmet compulsion and helmets for most people in most situations. However, possibly I should wear one due to an inability not to go everywhere as quickly as possible.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  4. Instography
    Member

    When I read it I took PaulD's comment about the helmet as the conclusion he had drawn based on having been there and actually seen it. So I saw it as honest opinion rather than trolling. mitch then takes issue with it and while claiming not to want to start a debate links to cyclehelmets.org. He contributes nothing else to the discussion (not even any token interest in amir's wellbeing) so I saw his contribution as disingenuous, inappropriate and unnecessarily provocative.

    To his credit, PaulD simply clarifies what the damage to the helmet was - it had been ground down, which makes his initial assessment - that it had prevented more extensive damage to amir's head - seem reasonable.

    So I think it's mitch who seems to be trolling. It's not whether you mention helmets that is trolling, it's more how and why.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  5. SRD
    Moderator

    And perhaps also a question of where you post. A thread about someone's serious accident doesn't seem like the right place to have that debate.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  6. holisticglint
    Member

    @allebong - Yes - it all depends on the situation.

    Should you wear a helmet is not a binary decision and this is why compulsion would be bad.

    My general rule of thumb is if I'm riding head first at > 20mph (i.e. Commute on road bike, mountain biking etc) then helmet is probably a "good idea" - if I'm dawdling along on a sit up bike then not really much point putting one on.

    Interesting side effect of this approach is that I tend to wear a helmet when cycling in traffic and not when on when on cycle paths but *not* because I think a helmet will make any difference if I get run over.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  7. rust
    Member

    That's the angle I thought people were taking.

    My problem is that while mitch's approach comes across badly I worry about the effect of leaving a thread sitting there that states a helmet saved somebodies life when that might not be the case. Isn't that one of the ways we end up moving towards helmet compulsion?

    "A thread about someone's serious accident doesn't seem like the right place to have that debate."

    It seems an inevitable place to have it, surely? Certainly that thread is also discussing the risks of riding on ones own - not that amir was obviously, but it's come up as a safety consideration.

    PaulD wrote

    "having seen the state of the rider's helmet, I wouldn't need to ask how he is if he hadn't have been wearing one"

    And later clarifies

    "a quick glance at the helmet looked like he'd slid for a good distance on it as I think the hard shell had been ground away on one side"

    Posted 11 years ago #
  8. Instography
    Member

    I don't read it as saying that he would be dead rather he implies that there would have been more obvious and extensive injuries. Amir's head would have been scraping along the ground being worn away like the shell of his helmet.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  9. allebong
    Member

    I was thinking some more about this helmet issue while carving up Saughton Skatepark on the BMX the other night. Next time you're heading past take a look at the signs at the entrances - you will find that they strongly recommend you wear a helmet. You will find similar notices at skateparks and trail heads all across the land. So, here's a question to kick off another round of incessant arguing civil debate:

    Is this right?

    Quite simply, is there a problem with recommending that for skateparks and mountain bike trails people really should be wearing helmets and possibly more protective gear?

    Consider your answer in light of what's been said in this thread and many others: Helmets may increase the chances of certain types of injury and may lead people to taking more risks. What does this have to do with commuting/road/utility cycling? Well if you're going to put the argument forward, as many have, that you shouldn't wear a helmet because they offer little to no protective value in a crash, then surely us mountain bikers and BMXers should just ditch the things and be safer for it? right?

    Now if you want to argue that the risks inherent in mtb are different that for commuting then I'm right behind you with that. If you want to argue that it doesn't matter what protection a helmet may or may not offer since the risks while commuting are so incredibly low then I won't dispute that either. What I will gladly dispute is this notion getting banded about that there's absolutely no protective value in a helmet whatsoever and that's the reason we shouldn't bother with them.

    I see no issues whatsoever with a person choosing not to wear a helmet while commuting but getting suited up in body armour and a full face/neck brace for weekend mountain biking. Different risks, different responses, as it should be. I do see an issue with anyone trying to maintain that helmets offer nothing in the way of protection in a crash but mtbers etc should be sticking with them.

    -------------

    Edit: Returning to the physics of helmets, I would advise anyone wanting to discuss it to take a quick look at the differences between kinetic energy, momentum, 'energy', force, work and power. All of which are used more or less interchangeably in these debates but they all have specific mathematical and physical meanings. Getting these terms confused or thinking that they're all basically equivalent is often the source of confusion and dispute. For example, a helmet can increase the total energy of an impact, while also reducing the force delivered to the head. There is no contradiction in that.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  10. Baldcyclist
    Member

    I'd have to argue that in a skate park, gaffa tape is a far more important form of protection than a helmet. I have frequented skate parks with, and without gaffa tape, and I can assure you, you DO NOT want to be without gaffa tape!

    Posted 11 years ago #
  11. rust
    Member

    "Now if you want to argue that the risks inherent in mtb are different that for commuting then I'm right behind you with that."

    Yes.

    " that there's absolutely no protective value in a helmet whatsoever"

    I don't believe this is the argument being made - it's certainly not the one I am trying to make. What I disagree with is the holding up of a damaged helmet after a crash and claiming it means the helmet prevented a serious or fatal head injury.

    There's an interesting point there as well regarding downhill mtbing where full face and neck braces are worn. It implies that normal helmets don't provide enough protection in certain situations - which makes sense. But it would be interesting if there were statistics regarding injuries before and after mandatory full face helmets, or neck braces, at downhill races.

    It would also be interesting to see the difference in standards between normal helmets and full face ones.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  12. allebong
    Member

    @rust: I wasn't singling you out with my post, but I have seen plenty of comments in these types of discussions along the lines of 'what's a silly plastic hat going to do in a crash anyway'? Well it's got to do something otherwise they wouldn't be seen in mtb and other sports.

    True again what you say about crash examples but I've seen the reverse applied, someone survives a nasty spill without a helmet and it's declared as proof that you don't need one after all. This came up around here very recently, I'll see if I can find it. Edit: http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=10634 very interesting. If he'd had a helmet on and anybody tried to argue that might have saved him they'd be shot down in flames and given the standard 'that doesn't prove anything' routine we've seen enough times. But since he survived it without a helmet that's apparently proof enough to argue against them. I don't have an axe to grind either way regarding that thread, I'm noting it as an example.

    On neck braces, it is interesting as they've really exploded in popularity in the past couple of years. 5 years back I can't remember ever seeing one even on the really insane courses. Nowadays more people than not seem to have them, to the point where on the rougher courses it's difficult to find someone without one. The things are pretty expensive for what appears to be a bunch of random foam and plastic bits strapped together. I'm assuming there's a good reason for that.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  13. neddie
    Member

    a helmet can increase the total energy of an impact

    The only significant form of energy involved in a collision is kinetic energy. Energy cannot be created or destroyed*, only converted from one form to another (*ignoring nuclear physics for now).

    So unless the helmet caught fire on impact (chemical reaction), or was compressed so hard that a nuclear fusion reaction started, the total energy of the impact would not increase.

    PS. Some other physics terms of interest: stress, contact stress

    Posted 11 years ago #
  14. allebong
    Member

    I should've said that the total kinetic energy involved in the impact is greater with a helmet compared to a bare head due to the additional mass of the helmet, this assuming both are heading for an impact at the same velocity, which would be the case for a straightforward fall at least. The actual kinetic energy added by the helmet is always going to be very much smaller than that already possessed by the head though. Interestingly, the head smacking into the inside of the helmet is exactly equivalent to a head smacking off solid concrete as far as dissipating kinetic energy goes. So, from your heads point of view, the helmet doesn't change anything about the energy or momentum of the impact. What the helmet does by hopefully crumpling/crushing is increase the time required to bring the head to rest and therefore directly reduce the force imparted on the head.

    So, yes, strictly speaking the energy and momentum of the impact you actually care about, ie your head against something, is not changed by the presence or absence of helmet. What is changed is the force and acceleration - those being what will really cause the damage.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  15. Instography
    Member

    Since all the scientific study of helmet wearing seems to be pretty inconclusive we really only have our own assessment of risks and benefits to think about. Amir's accident has been instructive because it's a scenario that I hadn't previously considered in terms of helmet-wearing. I'm pretty comfortable that on my routine commuting and occasional outings the range of roads and paths and terrain are such that I'm happy to be without a helmet. I don't skate or mountain bike or BMX but if I did I would certainly wear a helmet. I generally don't do fast road riding but if I did, after Amir's incident, I'd probably give serious consideration to wearing one even though I'd sweat like a pig.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  16. Instography
    Member

    If the helmet is fitted properly your head doesn't smack into it. The outside of the helmet smacks the concrete and your head pushes against the foam, collapsing it.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  17. allebong
    Member

    Sloppy wording on my part there ;) Indeed a helmet should not have a notable gap between itself and the head, but you'll find that even with a well adjusted helmet there is some play back and forth, ie you can forcefully push the helmet a tiny bit closer to the head than it would be just resting there, especially if there's foam pads inside. In an impact the helmet stops first begins to stop first, the head keeps going and then the head hits the inside of the helmet a very short time later. So now there's two collisions going on. The important bit being the helmet is hitting the hard concrete and your head is hitting the relatively soft foam.

    Physics is fun! In moderation.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  18. Instography
    Member

    That sounds like a much better outcome than "the head smacking into the inside of the helmet is exactly equivalent to a head smacking off solid concrete" because that sounds like you might has well hit solid concrete as squishy foam.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  19. allebong
    Member

    I choose my words carefully:

    "the head smacking into the inside of the helmet is exactly equivalent to a head smacking off solid concrete as far as dissipating kinetic energy goes"

    Key phrase there ;)

    It's quite interesting to analyse something like a collision as it gives an insight into some nice bits of physics. If you're head is, with respect to the ground, going and some velocity v in meters per second and has a mass m in kilograms, then the kinetic energy it has is found simply by:

    k.e=1/2*m*v^2

    which is burned permanently into my brain as 'half mass times velocity squared'. If you want to bring your head and helmet to a stop you obviously need to bring that velocity and hence kinetic energy down to zero. As noted earlier, with very few specific exceptions, you cannot just get rid of energy, it has to go somewhere. We care that it goes into say compressing a helmet rather than right into your skull, but the point is your head has a certain amount of k.e and it has to be gotten rid of one way or another. Having a helmet on doesn't change that fact.

    So, you cannot change the k.e needing to be moved in an impact, but what you can change is how it's done. It's a bit simpler to consider momentum, which is very simply mass times velocity, or the derivative of kinetic energy (or k.e is the integral of momentum...hooray maths!). So here's another extremely useful equation that gives a whole bunch of explanations to everyday phenomena:

    Force = change of momentum/time of deceleration = (mass*velocity)/time of deceleration

    This is good old Newtons second law written in a certain form that works for us. Just as you're moving head has a certain k.e that we need to bring down to zero so too does the momentum need to brought to zero. Now, for k.e we're powerless to do anything about it, but in this equation what we do have control over is the time of deceleration, or what you might call 'impact time'. If you're head smacks of hard concrete, then it stops almost instantly, in other words the bottom of the force equation is very small, which makes the force exerted on your head very big which equals a concussion, basically. But lets say we have some nice soft padding for your head to hit between it and the concrete. This will increase the impact time/time for deceleration and will by the magic of mathematics reduce the force exerted on your poor head. This also explains why suspension forks on a bike softens landing from a jump say, or why jumping onto a bed doesn't hurt as much as jumping onto concrete, or a million other things.

    This is what I meant about being careful with terms, a phrase like 'a helmet doesn't reduce the energy of an impact' seems like nonsense, but it's quite true.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  20. Instography
    Member

    Sure, I get the physics (it was proof by induction I was bad at) but just as you need to be precise with phrases, you need to be careful how you use them and think about how even precise phrases will be interpreted. It's probably true to say something like, 'this bottle of beer I'm drinking contains as much energy as the Hiroshima bomb' but that doesn't make my beer the same as Little Boy. Saying that your head hits the helmet with the same energy as it would hit solid concrete is as potentially misleading as it is technically correct. But that last post is a really neat explanation of it. Makes helmets sound sensible even to someone who doesn't own one.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  21. allebong
    Member

    "Saying that your head hits the helmet with the same energy as it would hit solid concrete is as potentially misleading as it is technically correct"

    Absolutely true, and I wouldn't immediately jump into a debate saying such things as I know the physics and mathematics can lead to much more confusion that they solve. Still I've sat on the sidelines of many a helmet debate and watched the various factions sling physics terms about without really understanding what they're saying, and it gets very frustrating seeing so many misconceptions clouding the debate.

    A fun exercise if you're ever bored: Going by the famous E=mc^2, work out how many Hiroshimas of energy equivalence is sitting in your body right now. Then be thankful there doesn't appear to be a way of liberating it.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  22. Instography
    Member

    Aye but there's much amusement to be had watching people chasing their own and each other's tails.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  23. stiltskin
    Member

    I did history at uni........ Ask me about witchcraft in the 17th century why dontcha?

    Posted 11 years ago #
  24. Two Tired
    Member

    Then be thankful there doesn't appear to be a way of liberating it.

    Not any way that you would be alive at the end of anyway :-)

    What I love about this thread, aside from the drama, is that I have actually learned something about helmets that I had not thought of before. That is their lack of ability to protect against, or even maybe worsen, rotational injuries. I put a link higher up to a motorcycle helmet company who have developed a helmet with a 'skin' on it to help combat this - when hit with a glancing blow the skin splits just like the normal skin on your head would, which reduces the rotation the blow would have induced. I think this is all kinds of awesome and as soon as they are marketing skin covered bike helmets I shall be purchasing one. Instead of just going "ew!" which might have been my reaction had I not read this thread.

    As for the physics of it all nice explanation allebong. Yes terms such as force and energy are not inter-changeable but you can use both to get the point across here. Looking at things from the helmet wearer's frame of reference it is just as correct to say that the helmet reduces the force felt by the head as it is to say that the helmet absorbs some of the energy. And in this sense, the helmet has reduced the energy of impact to the head. The energy or the whole collision has not been reduced but that having to be absorbed by the head has.

    I did history at uni........ Ask me about witchcraft in the 17th century why dontcha?

    What's your opinion on this stiltskin? :-D

    http://www.wickedwitchseries.com/wicked-witch-bike-ride/

    Posted 11 years ago #
  25. Roibeard
    Member

    Typical CCE. Can't even keep a (potential) flamewar on topic...

    <grin>

    Robert

    Posted 11 years ago #
  26. allebong
    Member

    I think all the flaming requirements are being seen to by that podium girls thread. I was tempted to join in but it's 4 pages and not getting any cooler in there.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  27. crowriver
    Member

    Grauniad looking for some more web traffic, it seems:

    There's no ethical case for mandatory cycle helmets

    Helmets do not provide sufficient protection to warrant the claim that they are highly effective – and the right to cycle bare-headed is by no means trivial

    Posted by Carwyn Hooper
    Tuesday 9 July 2013 15.50 BST

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/bike-blog/2013/jul/09/bike-blog-cycling-road-safety

    Posted 11 years ago #
  28. Nelly
    Member

    Many many people cycling sans helmet in the last few days. I suspect entirely weather related rather than Pro Choice.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  29. Instography
    Member

    Can't imagine wearing a helmet in these temperatures. I'd have foresworn a cap if it wouldn't have meant scorching my baldy bits.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  30. wee folding bike
    Member

    I was swimming wearing a Tilley in an put door pool on Monday.. The day before I did the "soak your Tilley and put it back on" trick which cooled me down nicely.

    Posted 11 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin