[Closed] Helmet on road?

I'm 46 does that make me a young or old roadie?

borderline, do you wear a racing cap?

When I had a major off road accident in 2010, my head hit a [b]gravel [/b] trail and my helmet was split in half by the impact.

I consider it sheer luncacy then not to wear one on the road.

Wear one when riding vigorously(road or mtb), not when pootling, so far so good.

I do have a friend though that makes her whole family dress up with hi viz and crappy helmets badly fitted for trip down the local cycle path.

The kids hate cycling and cant wait to get saxo's.

There's another argument that seems to be missing so far: what about the old "helmets make cycling look like a dangerous sport that you need special equipment for rather than a normal form of transport and the stats in Australia showed that when helmets were made compulsory levels of cycling decreased, and the more people who cycle the safer all cyclists are (since other road users expect to encounter them, critical mass and all that) so everyone should not wear helmets to encourage more people to cycle making all cyclists safer" one?

aren't there manufacturers now claiming that they have designed the vents so well that you get more airflow to the scalp than on a naked head?

Check it out (that's not me!)
[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

I don't understand why people get so het up about it, live and let live

edlong - good point but some punctuation would have been nice, I'm out of breath now reading that!

and the more people who cycle the safer all cyclists are (since other road users expect to encounter them, critical mass and all that) so everyone should not wear helmets to encourage more people to cycle making all cyclists safer" one?

Interesting point when applied to big towns and cities. So in times when cycling isn't safe, should we take the long term view and not wear helmets, take the hit, lose a few more cyclists a year.

Would imagine that would probably have a greater impact in the minds of the public than the shift in perception caused by seeing cyclists not wearing helmets.

muppetWrangler - Member

I'm 46 does that make me a young or old roadie?

borderline, do you wear a racing cap?

Yes, racing cap and I have a carradice bag on the commuter - suspect I know the answer to the question now 😀

Presumably all those saying it is a "no brainer" and that not wearing one is "darwinism" are also wearing head-to-toe high-viz and proper neck/spine armour?

Exactly. There comes a point where the risk is low enough to justify not using available safety equipment. IMO the risk of *me* crashing at high speed on the road is low enough to justify not wearing a helmet, as long as I use other mitigating strategies (eg riding completely within myself and not pushing it on descents). Other people will use different criteria and thresholds of risk, which is obviously up to them. It's a situation where there is no right or wrong.

[quote=tonyd ]I don't understand why people get so het up about it, live and let live

This for me, same with RLJ'ing. We all make our choices.
Except that only one of these actions is illegal.

So in times when cycling isn't safe, should we take the long term view and not wear helmets, take the hit, lose a few more cyclists a year.

Except cycling IS safe.

Really. It is.

The fatality levels per mile are roughly the same as walking and I don't see many pedestrians wearing helmets.

I've no idea if mine's ever saved my life but I'm pretty sure it's saved me from some fairly unpleasant cuts and grazing when landing head first on a gravelly, cobbled street before. I find mine very comfortable in general although the pads have just disintegrated on the forehead which is annoying.

Helmet helps cover my ugly mug. Especially when its got a peak! Reason enough.

Interesting that the 'old roadies', who will have ridden rather more miles than most seem to have survived.

Lol.. hilariously poor thinking. The ones that die don't get old, do they? 90% of people who started cycling without a helmet in 1950 could have been killed, you'd still see old people cycling without them...

I slid on some ice, fell on to a grass verge and hit my head on the ground with not a great deal of force. My helmet still split along the side, so I'm just not convinced they do very much at all in a more serious impact.

They're designed to break to absorb the crash energy. The fact it split means it DID do its job perfectly.

To the OP - I'd think riding on the road would be more likely to need a helmet. Lots of traffic waiting to knock you off or chuck you over its bonnet, and lots of hard tarmac and bodywork all over the place, much of which is ramming around at 50mph or more.

The fatality levels per mile are roughly the same as walking and I don't see many pedestrians wearing helmets

Good grief, we're not doing very well today are we? If the stats are the same PER MILE then cyclists are far more at risk of fatality since we ride a lot more miles than people walk, generally.

Lol.. hilariously poor thinking. The ones that die don't get old, do they? 90% of people who started cycling without a helmet in 1950 could have been killed, you'd still see old people cycling without them...

It's no worse than those who use an anecdote of "a helmet saved my life one time" as a reason for wearing one and a lot better than

Lots of traffic waiting to knock you off or chuck you over its bonnet, and lots of hard tarmac and bodywork all over the place, much of which is ramming around at 50mph or more.

because if you think a cycling helmet is going to protect you from the consequences of being hit by a vehicle doing 50 mph you are sadly mistaken.

and the more people who cycle the safer all cyclists are (since other road users expect to encounter them, critical mass and all that)

Even if true it has no impact on the efficacy of the helmet I wear in a crash

The fatality levels per mile are roughly the same as walking and I don't see many pedestrians wearing helmets.

Its not the best stat to use but yes cycling is generally safe

They're designed to break to absorb the crash energy. The fact it split means it DID do its job perfectly.

Yes, I agree. Helmets are designed to offer limited protection in low speed accidents, which is what it did in my case.

That's not really an overwhelming case for wearing one, though is it?

That's not really an overwhelming case for wearing one, though is it?

So whats your overwhelmeing case for not wearing one?

but not as light and well ventilated as no helmet.

Not as light, sure, but aren't there manufacturers now claiming that they have designed the vents so well that you get more airflow to the scalp than on a naked head? I may have dreamed that?

yea i remember that too, they also said that the newer faired/semi-TT helmets were almost as good as the normal helmets of a few years ago too.

So whats your overwhelmeing case for not wearing one?

They're designed to offer all the protection they can. They DO offer limited protection. Your wording seems to imply that they are designed to offer less protection than they could.

Anyway - yes, to me it is a good case for wearing one. It's not about the speed of the crash, it's about the speed your head hits things with. And any protection is better than none imo.

Would you wear knee or elbow pads on say, an Alpine holiday? Would it save your life if you fell off a cliff or hit a tree at speed? No. But it can help save that valuable skin on your extremities. My brain is more valuable than my elbow and shin skin, to me at least.

I always wear a helmet unless testing the bike up and down the local BW. Really can't see the sense in not wearing one on trails or on t' road.

because if you think a cycling helmet is going to protect you from the consequences of being hit by a vehicle doing 50 mph you are sadly mistaken.

This is another of the things I've considered. As much as people think it's common sense, is an inch thick bit of polystyrene really going to make much difference in the grand scheme of things? Seems to me if you're worrying this much about getting hit by a vehicle at speed then you should give up and do something else. Of course if a helmet is there as a psychological safety-net then fair enough, but you shouldn't be under any illusion about its actual usefulness in this situation.

is an inch thick bit of polystyrene really going to make much difference in the grand scheme of things?

Yes.

Aye and if you worry about falling when climbing you should either give up or free climb

Liking your logic

In fact if you wear any form of PPE you should just stop

Helmets - not for real men as we dont need a useless psychological safety-net as we laugh in the face of danger

Make your case but save this style of language please - it will end up as an argument even if we try really hard not to

So whats your overwhelmeing case for not wearing one?

I've already said that I do wear one.

Would you wear knee or elbow pads on say, an Alpine holiday? Would it save your life if you fell off a cliff or hit a tree at speed? No. But it can help save that valuable skin on your extremities. My brain is more valuable than my elbow and shin skin, to me at least.

Hmm, not convinced that a thin layer of polystyrene is going to offer much brain protection. I can see it saving you a trip to A&E for stitches though.

Yes.

In the example of being hit by a vehicle at high speed which was what I was talking about? I don't know BTW, just asking the question, but it seems unlikely to me.

*Sighs*

Where's TJ when you [s]don't[/s]need him... 😉

We can debate forever whether or not helmets are a genuine improvement or not (I personally would always wear one but that is my choice). However that's not what the question was - why is there a difference between road and mtb riders? Generally the latter wear helmets, why the former less so (yes, aware that a fair few do, but I see a good number who don't)? What's the difference? A road surface can still do a lot of damage in an accident, so why the different approach?

Good grief, we're not doing very well today are we? If the stats are the same PER MILE then cyclists are far more at risk of fatality since we ride a lot more miles than people walk, generally.

That is how transport risk is generally measured though, no?

Hence why you get the "flying is the safest form of transport" stuff when in reality plane crashes are obviously more likely to be fatal than car crashes.

It does beg the question: [b]how far would you have to [i]walk[/i] before it would be a "no brainer" to wear a helmet?[/b]

I was off out on the road bike last week and got all the way out of the door without my helmet when I thought what if my son spots me coming back wihout it and I went back inside and got it. Oh how life has changed in the last few years. Would the helmet evangelists not ride if the arrived by car to a trail and realised they'd forgotton their helmet. Hasnt happend to me for a while but I would still go and ride.

What's the difference? A road surface can still do a lot of damage in an accident, so why the different approach?

I don't fall off on the road nor do I bang my head on branches I tend to do this off road though

why is there a difference between road and mtb riders? Generally the latter wear helmets, why the former less so (yes, aware that a fair few do, but I see a good number who don't)? What's the difference? A road surface can still do a lot of damage in an accident, so why the different approach?

I propose three reasons:

1. Historical. MTBing is a relatively new sport which emerged just as helmet wearing was becoming commonplace. Road riding has a much longer tradition and any older riders would've grown up not wearing a helmet.

2. Usefulness of helmets. They are designed to offer protection in low speed accidents. So striking your head on low branches etc, which happens off road.

3. Risk. You're more likely to fall off mtbing.

However that's not what the question was - why is there a difference between road and mtb riders? Generally the latter wear helmets, why the former less so (yes, aware that a fair few do, but I see a good number who don't)? What's the difference?

Answering for myself, although I'm now always helmeted, I used to wear helmets off road, but not on road. I think when I set off on a mountain bike, although I'm not exactly planning on falling off, I'm doing an activity where falling off, or at least headbutting a tree branch on the way under, are quite likely occurrences. On road, I'm pretty much planning on getting from my departure point to my destination "rubber side down" each and every time. As I ride more off-road, I tackle trickier terrain which I wouldn't do if I wasn't prepared to go OTB. If I thought a particular road was likely to result in me coming off, I wouldn't ride it.

EDIT: Plus the speed of the likely off - to be frank, I expect most of my MTBing falls to be at the sort of speeds where a helmet will help. On road, I'm not necessarily expecting that the layer of polystyrene will do much if I go under a cement truck...

Aye and if you worry about falling when climbing you should either give up or free climb

Funny you should say that cos I was going to use a climbing analogy. Ever climbed before? In some circumstances climbing without a rope (soloing) can be much safer than using one. Also climbers use many other strategies to compensate risk other than simply having a rope tied to them, such as knowledge of the crag/route/area, an accurate assessment of their own ability, climbing well within their own limits etc. Would it surprise you to know that many climbers (and not just the elite) solo routes on a routine basis? Is it any different to riding a bike without a helmet?

I highsided on a roundabout after some spirited cornering (translation - showing off). Not very fast but from quite a height. Big bang, saw double and groggy for 15s. Giro wrecked.

Would definately have been out cold without lid.

how far would you have to walk before it would be a "no brainer" to wear a helmet?

I guess the risk of falling would need to be higher and the damage risk from that fall much higher tbh

On the bike i will be going much faster and have a larger force impact if I fall. I assume if i was to start falling every day I would get a head injury from cycling faster than from walking as cycling is more dangerous [ as it is faster] than walking

Would it surprise you to know that many climbers (and not just the elite) solo routes on a routine basis?

I've read of a couple of famous elite climbers who died soloing ridiculously simple routes.

Anyway. When I fall off off-road I tend to to make a managed landing, so I tend not to hit my head. If I get taken out by a car there's likely to be far less control, so the chance of my flailing head hitting something hard seem fairly significant.

Anyway, if you always wear one it ceases to become an issue. I wear trousers, I wear shorts, I wear a top, I wear gloves, a camelbak, shoes and a helmet. It's just what I do. Can't remember the last time I thought 'I wish I didn't have my helmet on'.

Would it surprise you to know that many climbers (and not just the elite) solo routes on a routine basis?

On your broader point i guess if i always rode within my limits then i would be less likely to wear one
I have ridden locally without one as mate forgot his and would not ride without it so the others there took turns in lending him theirs for descents - I got San Marino /Belmont as was deffo slower than normal but was still some way from mincing

It is just something i do like wearing a seat belt it may make little difference. some or none but it is generally prudent to wear one and is not really that much hassle or annoying.

Will it save my life, Unlikely but it has already reduced the severity of my injuries

Not a climber but lived with them in Wales so some knowledge

This thread has a TJ shaped hole 🙁 ...

Needless to say, it's personal choice, and yes helmets are of diminishing benefits above about ~12Mph, So thinking that it will save you from a car doing upwards of 40Mph is probably a bit wishful, it may mitigate, it may have no benefit, it could actually lead to worse injuries (depending on which studies you choose to believe / discount) it's an open ended debate and of course all depends on what sort of life threatening accidents you are planning on having...

of course it doesn't have to be a high speed incident that kills your noggin to bits. You are probably more likely to have some sort of accident on the road at lower speeds when approaching / leaving junctions or roundabouts as these tend to be the places where traffic comes together and road furniture and signage creates exciting new opportunities to distract drivers and injure cyclists.

The other point is what are you going to bash your head on in the woods Vs out on the "open" road? are lampposts, kerbs and corner railings somehow more forgiving than trees and rocks?

There is of course the [I]"popular perception"[/I] aspect to consider:
Should your head get mashed in by a car in an RTA, and you chose not to wear a helmet, various groups, journalists, police, insurers, judges even, now seem prone to equating helmetlessness with an increased weighting of proportionate blame on the cyclist.

If we follow this popular mob logic, lacking a helmet is apparently indicative of a cyclists lack of personal safety awareness or generally unsafe behavior (regardless of the detail of their actions), and means that half pissed tweenager in his Mums Saxo is by default 30% less to blame for you becoming a quadraplegic somehow.

As has already been said it's personal choice, but it's worth thinking beyond the simple considerations like ventilation before you make the choice.

I speak as someone who survived a moderately serious off without a helmet in an urban environment, a foot this way or that as I went OTB and a very bad concussion / memory loss would have been caved in skull style, brain death. Having had my karmic get out of jail free card already, I now err on the side of caution and wear a helmet whenever I ride a bike of any sort in any environment...

But if you went for a ride with me, and didn't wear a helmet I'd not pass any sort of comment, it's individual choice and not really any of my business...

the damage risk from that fall much higher..
.. larger force impact if I fall..
cycling is more dangerous [ as it is faster] than walking

Okay Junkyard, so following that logic why [i]don't[/i] you wear a helmet in the car?

The speed is magnitudes faster than walking or cycling, the impacts are far greater still, and many times more car occupants die from head injuries than cyclists.

I've read of a couple of famous elite climbers who died soloing ridiculously simple routes.

Yes, sadly it happens. Whilst you can compensate for risk, you can't eliminate it. Climbers understand this, which is why you don't see climbers criticising other climbers for soloing or climbing dangerous routes, in the same way you see cyclists slagging other cyclists for not wearing helmets.

ransos - Member

Helmets are designed to offer limited protection in low speed accidents

I'll pick on you as you keep repeating the same line which is completely false.

Helmets are designed to protect your head at the likely speed your bonce will hit the floor if you take a tumble.
It doesn't matter if you are doing 4mph or 40mph, your head will fall from the same height and hit the floor at the same vertical speed, which helmets are designed to protect against.
Trotting out the same old BS that helmets are only designed to help in 10/12mph accidents and that if you ride faster than that they are totally ineffectual is either proof that the anti-helmet lot (who love to mention this) are deliberately lying or proof that they haven't really thought it through.
I hope it is the latter.

To clarify my position, I rarely wear a helmet and am against compulsory helmet use, but would rather people were able to make an informed choice without all this BS.

why don't you wear a helmet in the car?

Because i pay road tax obviously

And so begins stage two 😉

For the same reasons I always give though it is not an argument without merits

As its deja vu all over again I bow out

my logic for wearing one is....

if i hit my head forcefully with a hammer without a helmet, i would get a lump come up on my head, lose a few thousand cells and probably get a cut... and would have a headache...

if i did the same with a helmet on, i'm sure non of the above would happen, maybe a headache at a push.