[Closed] Wear a helmet FFS

ohh, and can people please look up definiitions for force, impulse, energy and momentum and how they are related.

A pisspot and a XC lid even if they did absorb the same ammount of energy, the XC lid will do more to prevent injuries as the acceleration will be lower (speed doesn't kill, its slowing down quickly that gets you).

Pisspots are fine for skateparks and the like where speeds are generaly low and they will prevent you knocking into things but they'r not realy intended to absorb the energy of impacts at speed (the thick plastic shell and minimal EPS should give you the clue).

This is not a spoon - but smooth shell and greater coverage with a pisspot. Any evidence for your assertions?

Also no helmet is designed for forces more than that which is created by a drop with a headform in the helmet from 4 feet. 12 mph with 7 kgs IIRC

A pisspot and a XC lid even if they did absorb the same ammount of energy, the XC lid will do more to prevent injuries as the acceleration will be lower

I think he is referring to the fact that the liner in the xc helmet is thicker so the deceleration happens over a longer distance. However I think it is bogus as the total volume of poly is the same as the pisspot has less holes in it. To many different factors to be certain about this at all IMO.

TJ, how would you change helmet design to overcome these deficiencies you keep banging on about? It's obvious that cycle helmets aren't perfect, but by changing one characteristic you adversely affect another.

Softer shell = more vulnerable to penetration
Harder shell = less impact absorption
Thinner liner = ditto
Thicker liner = heavier and more likely (by your reasoning) to cause rotational injuries
Fewer vents = more uncomfortable to wear
More vents = more likely to catch on stuff, higher liner density needed
No chinbar = facial injuries
Chinbar = makes you look like a goon
Lower friction coating = not really an issue for anyone except the anti-lid scaremongers.

So, do you have anything constructive to suggest?

Mr agreeable - I did exactly that earlier on the thread.

All helmets make you look like a goon BTW.

The low friction outer coating is of interest given that there is a proven risk of rotational injuries ( but unquantified) Some estimates give up to a 30% chance of rotational forces generated by helmets cuasing more injuries than the helmet prevented.

more extensive cover coming below the ears and onto the nape of the neck and possibly onto the cheekbones. Full face should have the chinbar in contact with the chin and should be made of polystyrene

Smooth outer shell without projections and with a low friction coating but no plastic shell.

Multiple sized shells - the better a shell fits the better it works. TRL state that the use of one size fits all shells with those adjustable bands is a contributory factor in poor performance due to the gap at the back of the head.

There is a chap out there looking at low friction coatings for helmets and snowboard helmets perform better in rotational testing than cycle ones - as do ice hockey helmets.

It is no coincidence that motorcycle helmet design has evolved to a smooth shell with a chinbar that sits next to the chin.

Testing standards should be tested with whole body dummys not just headforms, should involve rotational forces and should be generally more realistic

David Coulthard designed one attempt at redressing the faults

[i]All helmets make you look like a goon BTW[/i]

So that's why you don't like them.

I have written off 3 helmets. Won't ride without one. Just like I won't drive without a seatbelt. Or rockclimb without a rope. Or sea-kayak without a PVD.

If people don't want to wear one then that's their choice. Makes the gene pool that little bit more sensible.

Or rockclimb without a rope. Or sea-kayak without a PVD.

I rock climb with a helmet (falling rocks - ouchy) and I generally only sea kayak on low swell days. Water (generally) doesn't cause head injuries.

I generally only sea kayak on low swell days.

Oaky, from the other side of the "discussing" does anyone think they would suffer more significant injuries if they DID wear a helmet?

Well my helmet cut my nose off! 5 operations later and I look OK again. I wouldn't want anyone to go through what I went through, but I understand that what happened to me was a freak faceplant accident (actually more of the blame is in the design of the peak as it was this that sliced it off). I do wonder whether the helmet did help to save my skull as it was a bit squashed at the front but, guess I'll never know?

Do I wear a helmet now? Yes, I wear a helmet with a removable chin guard, although I'll never wear a peak as I think they are really badly designed (Hard plastic, sharp and clipped-on, make one from rubber and maybe).

Chuffnuts, I wear a racing cap under a peakless helmet. I assumed this was because I was a ponce, but I now realise it has important safety benefits. 🙂

[i]more extensive cover coming below the ears and onto the nape of the neck and possibly onto the cheekbones.[/i]

Yes, because why would you need to be able to hear or have peripheral vision while out cycling? Perhaps I ought to just stick my head in a coal scuttle. It sounds a lot like what you're suggesting.

[i]Full face should have the chinbar in contact with the chin and should be made of polystyrene[/i]

That would be brilliant if you wanted to talk or breathe while wearing one. And of course, helmet fit would be even easier for manufacturers to get right if they had to account for different sizes of chin bar too.

[i]Smooth outer shell without projections and with a low friction coating but no plastic shell.[/i]

If you're getting rid of projections you need to get rid of vents too, as according to that Cyclehelmets.org website any vents in your lid will interface with the nearest kerbstone or rock and snap your neck like a dry twig.

[i]Multiple sized shells - the better a shell fits the better it works. TRL state that the use of one size fits all shells with those adjustable bands is a contributory factor in poor performance due to the gap at the back of the head.[/i]

Believe it or not, most helmets are already available in different sizes.

[i]There is a chap out there looking at low friction coatings for helmets and snowboard helmets perform better in rotational testing than cycle ones - as do ice hockey helmets.[/i]

Again, if you're considering low friction coatings you'd better get rid of any ventilation too. And that strap that holds it on, if it caught on something you could be in real trouble.

[i]It is no coincidence that motorcycle helmet design has evolved to a smooth shell with a chinbar that sits next to the chin.[/i]

So basically every time you go riding you should wear a motorcycle helmet? Thanks for clearing that up for me.

[i]Testing standards should be tested with whole body dummys not just headforms, should involve rotational forces and should be generally more realistic[/i]

Yes, because helmets should protect your entire body. In every conceivable accident. Anything less and you might as well cut out the middleman and squash your head in a vice.

Interesting comment chuffnuts - I'm suddenly feeling so glad I don't use a peak, given a similar faceplant (which only resulted in one operation and 2 nights in hospital due to ground interaction). Given similar squashed damage to the front of my helmet, and experience of other accidents I reckon the helmet helped a bit, but not a lot.

TJ - Snell B90A impact tests

[b][i]E4.3 Test Impacts

Each sample will be subjected to no more than four test impacts. Test impact sites shall be on or above the test line. Rivets, vents and any other helmet feature within this region shall be valid test sites. Similarly, no allowance shall be made for the cut of the helmet either between the fore and rear planes or at the rear centerline; no matter how closely the edge of the helmet encroaches on the test line. However, if a test impact is centered closer than 120 mm to any previous test impact site on that sample, that impact shall be declared invalid.

There is no restriction regarding test anvil selection except that each anvil shall be used at least once for each helmet sample tested. The impact energies for each test impact are as follows:

a. For each impact against the flat anvil, the impact energy shall be 100 J for all testing regardless of headform size or weight. Given an ideal frictionless mechanical test facility, this impact energy represents a 2.2+ meter drop of a 5 kg headform and supporting assembly.

b. For each impact against the hemispherical anvil, the impact energy shall be 65 J for all testing regardless of headform size or weight. Given an ideal frictionless mechanical test facility, this impact energy represents a 1.3+ meter drop of a 5 kg headform and supporting assembly.

c. For each impact against the kerbstone anvil, the impact energy shall be 58 J for all testing regardless of headform size or weight. Given an ideal frictionless mechanical test facility, this impact energy represents a 1.2 meter drop of a 5 kg headform and supporting assembly.

d. If the impact energy for any test impact exceeds the energy specified by more than 3%, that impact shall be declared invalid. [/i][/b]

Believe it or not, most helmets are already available in different sizes.

So basically every time you go riding you should wear a motorcycle helmet?

helmet which is one of the best, that is now in bits,

Nasty.
I never ride with my knob out.

[url= http://www.lcc.org.uk/index.asp?PageID=1294 ]High court helmet ruling[/url] Perhaps not of interest to those who do wear helmets... but would for those of you who would rather not wear a helmet are you prepared to run risk of reduced compensation if you were unlucky enough to have an accident?

We already discussed that one a couple of times. My take on it is still that as the words of the judge had no affect on the settlement, and hence were not appealable, it in no way sets a precedent. If you read that article you linked to you'll note that no cyclists has ever had compensation reduced due to not wearing a helmet.

[i]If you want something that's going to give you real protection [/i]

So bike helmets only offer "fake" protection then? Isn't that just as misleading and emotive as all the "helmets saved my life" stories that have been rubbished on here?

For what it's worth, I agree completely with you about compulsory helmets being a Bad Thing. And about the effect of that court judgement.

But I'm seeing so many people out on my local trails (which are pretty knobbly in places) with no lid, and probably a slew of home-spun justifications for not wearing one, that I don't think systematically rubbishing them for off-road use is a worthwhile exercise at all.

So bike helmets only offer "fake" protection then?

I don't think systematically rubbishing them for off-road use is a worthwhile exercise at all.

So far we've had:

No-one's life has ever been saved by a helmet.
Every time someone posts this, they are a delusional liar.
Helmet tests are not worth the paper they're written on.
Helmets are tested up to 12 mph which is nothing like enough for most rad dood cyclists.
Helmet manufacturers are engaged in a conspiracy to punt crap to mountain bikers.
Helmets without hard shells are useless.
Helmets with hard shells are useless.
Trying to get a helmet that fits you is a waste of time.
Wearing a helmet automatically makes you convinced you are Evil Knievel.
If you fall off wearing a helmet, you'll end up in a wheelchair.
If you fall off without a helmet, you'll do a little forward roll and spring back up to your feet.

And so forth... The casual observer might view this as casting some serious doubts on their effectiveness, no?

The casual observer might view this as casting some serious doubts on their effectiveness, no?

fwiw, I never used to wear a helmet. Mainly due to never really riding on tarmac and because they do look a bit daft. I then managed to headbut a tree whilst riding alone in the middle of nowhere. A stupid mistake that frickin hurt but luckily didnt do any permanent damage. Despite thinking "it will never happen to me" it did, totally my mistake, I simply took a bend too fast and couldnt avoid the tree so I now always wear a helmet because I believe it will reduce the chance of serious head injury the next time I crash.

MrAgreeable - well reasoned and backed up debate. I do not recognise any of those things you quote as being said by me but for entertainment I shall go thru your critique of my thoughts on helmet design. Note only my thoughts on it gleaned from much reading around the subject. Have you anything actual to back up your assertions or arte you just venting your rage because I dared to question your sacred cow?

My original post in plain, your comments in italics, mine in bold

more extensive cover coming below the ears and onto the nape of the neck and possibly onto the cheekbones.

[i]Yes, because why would you need to be able to hear or have peripheral vision while out cycling? Perhaps I ought to just stick my head in a coal scuttle. It sounds a lot like what you're suggesting.[/i]

[b]Well motorcycle helmets don't affect peripheral vision nor do ski helmets and they don't interfere with hearing. easy enough to put a hole in the side by your ear anyway[/b]

Full face should have the chinbar in contact with the chin and should be made of polystyrene

[i]That would be brilliant if you wanted to talk or breathe while wearing one. And of course, helmet fit would be even easier for manufacturers to get right if they had to account for different sizes of chin bar too.[/i]

[b]Again no problem with motorcycle helmets interfering with breathing (even for racing motorcyclists who do breathe hard and the manufacturers of them seem to be able to size properly. Also did you know that even when gasping your lungs out you are effectively breathing thru a hole about an inch wide. Perfectly possible to design a chinbar that was in contact with the chin and did not interfere with breathing.[/b]

Smooth outer shell without projections and with a low friction coating but no plastic shell.

[i]If you're getting rid of projections you need to get rid of vents too, as according to that Cyclehelmets.org website any vents in your lid will interface with the nearest kerbstone or rock and snap your neck like a dry twig.[/i]

[b]Not what is said on that site nor by me. Venting is essential for comfort but I am absolutely sure that good design intended to minimise projections could be done. Anyway I am more concerned with the projecting parts than the vents. So yes a completely smooth outer shell is impractical but a smoother one is not[/b]

Multiple sized shells - the better a shell fits the better it works. TRL state that the use of one size fits all shells with those adjustable bands is a contributory factor in poor performance due to the gap at the back of the head.

[i]Believe it or not, most helmets are already available in different sizes.[/i]

[b]Yes - one or two come in two sizes. Cheap motorcycle helmets usualy have 3 - 5, good ones up to 7. When it is well proven by the TRL (one of the biggest safety nanny outfits in the world) that this is one of the shortcomings in cycle helmet design then it seems reasonable to want more shell sizes. A gap at the back of the helmet reduces its effectivness greatly. Proven fact.[/b]

There is a chap out there looking at low friction coatings for helmets and snowboard helmets perform better in rotational testing than cycle ones - as do ice hockey helmets.

[i]Again, if you're considering low friction coatings you'd better get rid of any ventilation too. And that strap that holds it on, if it caught on something you could be in real trouble.[/i]

[b]Just piffle and twaddle from you there. [/b]

It is no coincidence that motorcycle helmet design has evolved to a smooth shell with a chinbar that sits next to the chin.

[i]So basically every time you go riding you should wear a motorcycle helmet? Thanks for clearing that up for me.[/i]

[b] - no - the point is that motorcycle helmet design has evolved in this direction from scientific evidence. I would like cycle helmet design to do so as well[/b]

Testing standards should be tested with whole body dummys not just headforms, should involve rotational forces and should be generally more realistic

[i]Yes, because helmets should protect your entire body. In every conceivable accident. Anything less and you might as well cut out the middleman and squash your head in a vice. [/i]

[b]Testing as described above in the snell test uses a 5 kg weight in the helmet dropped from 4 feet. That really replicates accidents does it not?. One of the extra tests that researchers have done is using full dummies fired over the bars of a bike to land on its head. This raised all sorts of questions. Surely more realistic testing can only be good? [/b]

Perfectly possible to design a chinbar that was in contact with the chin and did not interfere with breathing.

I beg to differ. I have been using a switchblade for years (basically 4 until the helmet cracked), and I found that the chin bar did interfere with my breathing climbing without the helmet/chinguard felt 'fresher' than with the chinguard. I am not the only one who though that on, all riding friends did too.

I don't know where this "two sizes" thing comes from. Small, medium and large anyone? You can get some in more than that, and of course there's variation in sizes between manufacturers too - you can either stamp your foot about not getting the exact one you want, or you can buy a very similar thing fom another manufacturer.

And helmets with a gap in the back? What about the type of lids that most manufacturers are putting out these days - your Xens, Hexes, Fluxes and the like? Have you actually bought a helmet recently? It seems that, like a lot of the studies you cite, you're basing your arguments on an Etto bucket lid with a day-glo Lycra cover.

As for all this bobbins about chinbars, ear holes and the like, a product such as you describe already exists. It's called a full face helmet, and while they might be safer, I can't see them catching on for most riding.

Re: peaks - I had a head-on with car in December. My peak snapped & was embedded in the cars windscreen. Helmet itself appeared ok, but got it replaced.

Surely the idea of the polyST liner is to deform like the front of a car - deformation takes energy in the form of the kinetic energy from the riders head when moving - the polyST deforms or cracks and thus dissipates the energy and also over a wider area esp if one hits their head over a small area i.e. a rock. The hard shell protects the softer polyST inside and helps dissipate the energy. Is this too simple?

I think this will always be one epic debate. Personally, I'll always wear one. I wear pricey ones (Bell Sweeps do it for me at the moment) and in my MTBing life I've had two very, very big crashes where my head has take the entire impact (not slid but fully hit the ground) at speed. Without exageration, both crashes would have either killed me or left me brain damaged without the helmet. Both of them, split the helmets (not shattered so maybe there is a benefit to the more expensive ones) and I walked away with nothing more than ringing in my ears.

The anti-helmet crew can quote stats all day long but I've walked away twice now from epic crashes where a Helmet has done it's job.

bummer, my long winded maths laden explanation of why piss pots differ from XC lids and arent very effective on the trails didnt post 🙁

basicly,

*pisspot padding is thin therefore less distance to absorb energy, so a greater force is transmitted.

* to absorb energy the EPS must deform, in simple terms x ammount of energy will deform y volume of solid (in this case assuming no ability to store energy)

* combine the above 2 and hopefully its obvious that a piss pot must spread the force over a large area to dissipate the energy through the EPS.

As a result I'd considder pisspots to work in the same way as shin/knee armour, it spreads the impact rather than absorbing it. Hence they probably fare better in lots of smaller impacts on comcreet/rails etc and wont be much use in lowering the forces involved with a rider burrying themselves in a rock garden head first at speed.

Testing as described above in the snell test uses a 5 kg weight in the helmet dropped from 4 feet. That really replicates accidents does it not?

That is the standards certification testing, is it not? What testing do manufacturers do in their R&D? Does anyone know the [i]design[/i] specs of Giro etc?

Still find it hard to believe how people think that smacking your head on rocks is better without anything to cushion the impact.

I cant believe people still argue about the benefits of wearing a lid?!?!

Any one who has fallen off hard and really smacked their head will tell you that they do work.

If you have never fallen off hard because "you are too good a rider" your not riding hard enough.

The looking like a nob argument does not wash anymore either, face it you are a middle aged man riding a push bike (you may even be sporting lycra) in most peoples eyes you look a bit of a nob, adding the helmet is not going to drop your points in the style stakes.

Feel free to choose. But dont come running to me when your head looks like one of those cream eggs on the telly at the mo.

Walks away shaking head and mumbling to himself..........

Without exageration

I can't believe people still don't bother to read the thread properly and comprehend what it is people are actually arguing about.

I cant believe people have got time to sit and read 5 pages of posts over a non argument.

My post is refering to the original posters comments and the subsequent sh!t stirring re helmets from the usual suspects.

Im guessing then this turned into an argument about semantics and pedantry (if those are even words). Im off for a ride (with a helmet on)

To the OP, hope your mate is ok and gets well soon.

Juan - just because in that helmet you found breathing difficult does not mean its impossible to design one where the chinbar comes close to the face . touches youir chin and still allows you to breathe..

Can I apologise for the hijacking of this thread that I am probably responsible for, thank those who debated seriously and blow a huge raspberry to those who rely on insults.

"I generally only sea kayak on low swell days."

Presumably you consider the odds are very low of hitting your head on something more solid on such days and it's more pleasant not to wear one?

Todays tame fall. Coming down the ultra small bank (top of pix) 🙁 ... wheel dug in and over I went. The bike pivoted over and crashed into my back, just missing bonce:-(

Whilst lying there I thought of TJ and took a snap over shoulder.

This happened to me before but that time it smashed my helmet to bits with the cassette.

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

My camelbak took most of the impact... and they should also be compulsory 😉

Helmet wearing is up to you, but if you don't you'll be considered a dick by most.

200? Get well soon Dennis.

I wear a helmet, because i want to.

TJ you do blame people not reading your post correctly but you do the same with mine. I am not the only one who had problem breathing with the switchblade everyone I know who tried one said it's fresher and not as restrictive to breath without one.

Juan - I know that. I read your post and understood it. However the logic is that just because that helmet did not work for you (or others) it does not mean there is not a solution.

Also no helmet is designed for forces more than that which is created by a drop with a headform in the helmet from 4 feet. 12 mph with 7 kgs IIRC

TJ - much of what you say makes sense. I know I risk compensate (not just helmets). I don't just wear a helmet to save my life though. I wear one to stop me getting a sore head in a more minor crash. However I think part of the point of the thread was to say (in your language) - review your risk assessment - don't assume you are most likely to have a bad accident on the most dangerous bit of trail - its when complacency kicks in.

you guys just dont [i]get[/i] thread drift round here, do you?

TandemJeremy. you keep on mentioning that you can't prove that helmets save lives, but can you prove that they don't? I wouldn't like to be the one to test that theory. In light of the situation and the fact that someone is lying in hospital with a serious head injury i find your arguments slightly disrespectful to the author of the original post, not to mention the person lying in hospital. Also, being a scientist myself i am cringing right now at your rather linear, logic based approach to such a sensitive topic. being able to say the helmet was unlikely to have done him any good because you can't prove that it did is a futile argument and completely out of place in this thread. Most of the good scientists i know - the REALLY intelligent ones are the people who not only have good logic and reasoning but also common sense, tact and humility to compliment it.

Good point bomberman. I have apologised to the OP at least once on this thread and am happy to do so again.

Sorry to hear that your friend suffered such bad injuries

TJ remarks are rather odd, have'nt read them all as he just keeps spouting on a load of twaddle he has read on the internet and based on reports some 10 - 15 years old. As TJ has not had a major full head impact at speed wearing a helmet he has absolutely no right to even air his opinion on the matter. I have at around 25 miles at hour head first almost straight on, then my shoulder into hard flinty ground... Head survived helmet didnt, collarbone didnt... TJ do yourself a big favour and get off here and comment only when you have experienced it....

As TJ has not had a major full head impact at speed wearing a helmet he has absolutely no right to even air his opinion on the matter.

I've likely missed a few posts on the subject so apologies if i'm repeating anything.

Whilst I agree that wether or not to wear a helmet is a personal choice made by adults who are aware of the potential risks involved in riding bikes, I do feel that the choice to not wear a helmet could be considered a selfish one.

Whilst people are responsible for their own wellbeing, should that decision to not wear a helmet unfortunately be the wrong one, is it fair to subject your riding buddy's to having to deal the same situation that the OP was faced with? (although likely worse as fortunately he was wearing a helmet)

/2p

Testing as described above in the snell test uses a 5 kg weight in the helmet dropped from 4 feet. That really replicates accidents does it not?

TJ - you keep conveniently quoting the 4 feet test & seemingly ignoring the fact they they also need to pass a 2.2m [~7'2"] drop test for Snell certification

seemingly ignoring the fact they they also need to pass a 2.2m [~7'2"] drop test for Snell certification

I dunno aracer, certainly anyone that wears a Specialized

I'm just pointing out that TJ keep saying they only test to 4ft etc. & at the same time referring to Snell

I dunno aracer, certainly anyone that wears a Specialized

TJ-

Some estimates give up to a 30% chance of rotational forces generated by helmets cuasing more injuries than the helmet prevented.

Aracer, do you really believe that a Specialized lid, and one from another manufacturer with near identical construction, coverage and retention are going to significantly differ in the level of protection they provide?

If the manufacturers came up with a more stringent specification, say, being able to protect in an impact of over 20mph, and guard against rotational injuries too, it would certainly have a knock-on effect on how practical they are to wear, and how much they cost to produce. If you're willing to splash £400, you can get yourself a really good full face helmet and a Leatt neck brace, but is that a practical combination for most riders?

Aracer, do you really believe that a Specialized lid, and one from another manufacturer with near identical construction, coverage and retention are going to significantly differ in the level of protection they provide?

No, a full face helmet and neck brace isn't practical for most riders. Even though my biggest crash was one in which a full face helmet would have saved me from a lot of pain I still don't wear one (and that was riding down a gently downhill, smooth straight fireroad, so choosing to wear such a helmet just for the gnarly stuff wouldn't necessarily help!) 🙄 You've hit the nub of my whole point there - helmets just don't provide as much protection as people think they do - for that you'd need something far more substantial than the current lumps of polystyrene, more like a motorbike helmet. As you've identified, that is too heavy, uncomfortable, hot and expensive for most people riding a bicycle, hence the best compromise is what we have. Yes it helps, and I won't ride off-road without one, but it only helps to a limited extent.

All the name calling of people for not wearing one isn't understanding the risk properly - the difference in risk between riding a bike off road with a helmet and not riding a bike off road at all is far higher than the difference in risk between wearing a helmet or not, so we're all actually stupid whether or not we wear a helmet.

been otb 3 times landing squarely on my head at high speed once from 2m high north shore stuff all 3 times onto hard rocky ground
each time the helmet was trashed

i was left a bit dazed but absolutely convinced that if the helmets hadnt been there it would have been my skull that was split not my lid

ive also had 2 crashes once on some jumps, once riding down some steps with no lid that left me concussed and with large lump on my head

ive also taken to wearing knee pads a lot more as my knees can no longer take the abuse they used to get

helmets are always worth wearing anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool with a slightly higher chance of getting brain damage/ dying than me ; )

Aracer, it's funny you mention venting, light weight etc. - those features are actually a big selling point of some Snell certified helmets.

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

Just as a lot of the "never ride without a lid" people are being irrational, so is TJ when he says that helmets with vents, certain types of shells, no chinbar or ones that split in an accident are dangerous or useless, or when you describe a helmet as a "lump of polystyrene". Comments like "the helmet split - therefore it failed", "99% of helmets I see are fitted incorrectly" and "a badly fitted helmet will hang you or snap your neck" (all TJ statements from this and previous threads) are even more biased and useless than "one saved my life".

I say this to those that question the usefulness of a helmet.....

If you don't think you need a helmet, do a test for us.
Run into the corner of a concrete pillar head first. First with a helmet on and then do it again without a helmet.
I am pretty sure that you won't have the guts to try it without a helmet.

Nuff said.

or when you describe a helmet as a "lump of polystyrene".

Sure those Specialized ones manage to combine all attributes - doesn't mean it's easy for other manufacturers (and unfortunately I couldn't get a good fit with one which would have rather compromised it).

Chase - somebody already suggested something similar earlier in the thread. It's just as worthless a post, and completely missing the point in much the same way theirs was, but without the benefit of (at least for this thread) originality. But then the fact you're repeating it suggests you haven't read much if any of the thread...

I can't be arsed to read the whole thread, but I've read the first page and I can see how it's going to pan out: Same old same old.

I don't always wear a lid for short pootles to the shops and the like, and I'd defend anyone's personal choice not to, but you've plainly got to be some sort of retard to do any sort of distance, or any sort of 'performance riding' without one.
I've had 3 BIG crashes on push bikes, all on the road, which have resulted in my hitting the ground/immoveable object head first, all at around 15-20+ mph. And I can tell you for a cast iron fact that the 3 destroyed lids that resulted saved me from injury, maybe very serious injury.
They were 3 differnt impacts - One flat to the face but the brow of the lid took the punishment, one to the right temple area, and one virtually on top of the helmet, (I flew like a javelin!) just slightly to the front right.

Aracer. I read it up to about 8pm yesterday. Got home today and skipped to last page. Sorry if I missed it. Lets face it, nothing startlingly new will have been added.
I still think it is a valid point regardless. The fact is, you are more likely to hurt your head if you aren't wearing a helmet but nobody in their right mind will go out to prove it.

Let's look at it another way. A lot of this thread has actually been about the integrity of the helmet following an impact. I will put another spin on it.
I fall off, helmetless, and hit my head. I need a quick check up at A&E and a few stitches - how much has that just cost the NHS?
I fall off, with a helmet on and again, hit my head. I go home and take a couple of paracetamols. Cost 25p and possibly a new helmet?
I know the option I would prefer.

Can't be bothered reading all the posts, but from what I've read I'll ask this:

All this talk by TJ about rotational injuries, seeing as a lot of people on here have had quite a few nasty crashes whilst wearing a helmet, has anybody actually suffered a rotational injury in a crash? and if so, could you be certain the helmet caused it???