It's got nothing to do with type of riding..see: http://www.cyclingnews.com/editions/first-edition-cycling-news-thursday-february-4-2010

He'll be crying himself to sleep tonight… on his huge pillow! 🙂

Can't remember where I read this, but it might be relevant.
The human body has evolved to travel by foot. Walking, loping and running. The body is well evolved for absorbing impacts and stresses from these evolution 'design' speeds and falls. The body has not adapted to absorb or concentrate for falls at mechanically enhanced or speeds.

Whilst injuries do occur from walking and running these are generally minor injuries, sprains, twists and breaks. Bike and other higher velocity mechanical injuries tend to involve more intense minor injuries (road rash, rather than a grazed knee / elbow), more breakages and head injuries as a result of rapid deceleration from speed (rather than speed its-self). It's the same reason why motorcyclist wear leathers, drivers [should] wear seat belts and racing drives now employ HANS devices.

OK, a little bit removed from the OPs question, but it basically comes down to the same thing. It's just an order of magnitude. Personally, I choose to wear a helmet whenever our riding. Roads and kerb stones are much harder than skulls, and I choose to give mine the best chance it can get, on the unlikely event of an incident.

Nicely put argument for helmets in activities that we are not evolved for.

Like cycling.
Driving a car.
Crossing a road and risking being hit by a car. etc.

the more i think about it, the more it seems like a good idea to wear a helmet fell running……..rock tastic 😯

I've always liked the evolution argument and it informs my decision on when to wear a helmet.

My normal commute to work is almost all on bike paths separated from traffic and I ride a big, heavy cargo bike. So, I don't tend to go that fast; generally no faster than a run. So, no helmet.

Exactly the same route, but on my MTB on which I tend to go faster and hop off kerbs and the like – helmet.

This week, I've been doing the same commute, but ice means I've been on the road with traffic. So, helmet.

Mountain biking or longer roads rides bring tiredness and uneven surfaces into play. So, helmet.

Mr A

It's like Sputnik, large and round but pointy in places….. 🙂

The above-mentioned evolution argument IS one of the more well reasoned cases for, but the average vented polystyrene XC helmet offers little or no protection above those forces.
As I've said on previous threads, if head protection is more important than a kind of 'moral support', you should be wearing something that has, at least, the integrity of a construction hat or horseriding hat. Preferably something even better.

Agreed on the helmet design. Something like these would be better: http://www.urgebike.com/accueil_gb.html (look the Endur-o-matic)

Spamf, do you class your riding style as freeride by any chance?

I would class my riding style as "Mincing-Lite"

the more i think about it, the more it seems like a good idea to wear a helmet fell running……..rock tastic

Watch it though, the falls are likely to be people losing their footing and falling forward, perhaps putting arms out and breaking a wrist or something (should they wear other body armour?), or their feet sliding out from under them and landing on their arse.

Compare that to on a bike, where you're more likely to land on your head as a first point of contact, or where a sudden deceleration occurs from hitting a tree or sommat, which isn't going to happen running as you can 'dodge' obstacles more effectively. I think it's pretty clear why it makes more sense for riding than running.

It is indeed clear that it makes more sense. But most people's attitude to helmets with cycling (certainly on here) seems to be if there is any risk then you'd be mad not to wear a helmet. Reduced though the risks are for fell running, the risks are surely still there?

I think there is rather more "helmet being part of the uniform" for mtb than we admit, or see.

It's compulsory for any competition under BC/UCI rules, and has been the case on MTBs since the start I believe, whilst the governing body for fell running clearly doesn't see an issue.

If that's relevant!

It's compulsory for any competition under BC/UCI rules, and has been the case on MTBs since the start I believe

Is that for safety reasons or because Giro, Met, Bell et al are pretty big sponsors of the sport?

Not that the governing body would issue rules on what can and can't be worn because of sponsorship issues *cough*DH*cough*skinsuits*cough*

Probably is relevant – the degree of risk for cycling being higher, so in risk assessment terms making helmet compulsory makes sense.

What doesn't make sense is some people's idea of risk assessment – to say that any risk at all however small warrants a certain response makes no sense. Since it is still theoretically possible to sustain a fatal head injury even with a helmet the logical extension would be that you were left with no choice but to avoid cycling completely.

To relate it back to the OP, it is assessment of risk that is important, not existence of risk with no regard for the frequency or potential severity. In those terms quite a lot of cycling could quite sensibly be done without a helmet.

You just can't predict when you'll need your lid. I've needed mine just once in the years and years I've been riding and racing.
Ten years ago massive off, no broken bones but I went a good few metres and I could feel the helmet cushioning the blows as I slid into the kerb and over the pavement.
The lid was worn away in some places and had a crack through it but my head was saved, but I have scars from my ankles to my shoulders from that.
God bless lids.
And remember XC riders will often be out in the wild and won't know what's around the next corner unlike a downhiller or jumper'ist.

And aren't most fell running injuries to do with limbs?

oldgit, not saying you have to, but did you read the foregoing? Yes fell running injuries mostly limbs, far fewer head – but some head risk injury still exists, therefore if you employ the "any risk at all warrants a helmet" logic they should wear a helmet.

Which is an interesting way to look sideways at our own helmet policy. If we went slowly on easy tracks, for example, would be get the head injury risk down to the level of competitive fell running?

Interesting point from the OP. For me it depends on the type of riding – RSF style wandering around the scenery then no helmet. Wheels off the ground – helmet.

There is very little logic in all this. Cycle helmets are distinctly flawed in testing and design. There is no good evidence of them reducing head injuries.

Different sports of similar head injury risk wear different helmets or none in some cases. Often there seems no rhyme or reason behind this.

Mtbers mainly wear helmets as a part of the uniform with no great consideration behind why. Head injury risks are low, helmets are not tested in MTB type crashes

Which is an interesting way to look sideways at our own helmet policy. If we went slowly on easy tracks, for example, would be get the head injury risk down to the level of competitive fell running?

What if we compare the relative dangers of pootling along with no helmet and downhilling in full body armour? I know which I think is safer.

Sorry read the OP ages ago.
But to a degree yes we could. The thing with biking and XC in particular are all the unknown factors that you probably don't get in something like fell running, bearing in mind we'll often incorporate a bit of road so you have to think of…..
Motorists, the stick man, a low hanging branch that wasn't there yesterday!, bike failure, less predictable changes in the terrain including ice and diesel. As I said earlier if your not in a play area, or a trail centre you just don't know what's round the corner.
And although fell running has it's own dangers they are more obvious to the runner

TandemJeremy

Yay, he's ok!

Why do XC riders wear helmets?

Branches – rare is the ride that I don't hear doik sound as my helmet hits a tree branch

Branches – rare is the ride that I don't hear doik sound as my helmet hits a tree branch

I bet you'd be more careful with no helmet…

Yay, he's ok!

Nice to see normal service is resumed, I admit.
WooHoo for TJ! 😉

Branches. We get that a lot, if you can finish a ride after rain or snow without banging your head you've done well. No open fells in these parts.

There is another reason though….The STWers haircut of NO CHOICE

Tempting fate, but…

I've never had a crash on a bike where I've needed a helmet but I have had a branch stick into a vent on the helmet and stop me dead in my tracks.

I bet you'd be more careful with no helmet…

OTOH I might not, I'll let the plastic/polystyrene take care of the branches as I take care not to pilot my steed 😉 into a tree

Because we are all **** gay!

and your a super tough, ninja freeriding downhillin guru.

OTOH I might not, I'll let the plastic/polystyrene take care of the branches as I take care not to pilot my steed into a tree

I did that once. But I'd forgotten that I wasn't wearing a helmet 🙂

Cycle helmets are distinctly flawed in testing and design.

Leaving aside my own anecdotes of the times I have dented helmets and thought how much it would have hurt if I wasn't wearing one, what's wrong with the way helmets are designed and tested ?

There is no good evidence of them reducing head injuries.

How could such evidence be gathered without subjecting live humans to identical simulated crashes with and without a helmet ?

Have you ever seen other STWers with no lid on 😯 it's like riding with the 'Hoods' appriciation society.

Is that for safety reasons or because Giro, Met, Bell et al are pretty big sponsors of the sport?

Only became compulsory on the road (more publicity) after some reasonably high profile deaths from head injuries, most notably Andrei Kivilev in the Paris-Nice. So it seems extremely unlikely it was to do with sponsorship revenue.

I've been knocked unconscious twice (once on a tree, once on a car) and head/face planted many times while not wearing a helmet.
Still, I only wear one if I think I'm going somewhere where I may need it, otherwise I wear a hat.
Why? I don't like it. If I could find a nice comfortable, good looking helmet I would wear it all the time, but I have a weird shaped napper and usually helmets just perch on top of it.
I had a Giro Rift and got rid of it because of this. I bought a Met Predatore because it is big, but still don't like it. I fancy something the style of Giro Hex, but I'm reluctant to get on for this reason. I actually fancy a pisspot type helmet, although I only ride XC / Trail.
Any advice on good helmet styles??????????????

Only became compulsory on the road (more publicity) after some reasonably high profile deaths from head injuries, most notably Andrei Kivilev in the Paris-Nice. So it seems extremely unlikely it was to do with sponsorship revenue.

But that was a change. Road riding and change don't really go hand in hand…

If it was about money, they'd have gone for it.

MilitantGraham – Member

Cycle helmets are distinctly flawed in testing and design.

Leaving aside my own anecdotes of the times I have dented helmets and thought how much it would have hurt if I wasn't wearing one, what's wrong with the way helmets are designed and tested ?

They are designed to meet the tests which basically is dropping the helmet onto various shaped objects from 5 ft.

Independent research shows that all helmets can create and exacerbate rotation forces which cause serious injury and cycle helmets are worse for this than other designs of sports helmet. However no testing is done as part of the standard testing to look into this.

There are other arguments about helmet testing standards as well – I suggest you have a look at the actual tests if you are interested

Of course, a branch might fall just as I pass beneath but the chances of that are infinitesimal.

Not quite! Top 20' of a tree fell on me whilst at Llandegla. Over the bars, cut chin and eyebrow. Helmet completely split down the front. Was a bit dazed!!

Helmets are cool! 😉
Paul