Helmet Advice

[DDEckerslyke]

This seems to be a largely US ng but I couldn't find a UK equivalent so here
goes:

Just got back on a bike after a few years. Never previously worn a helmet
but having three kids changed my perspective. Anyway in my price range - up
to GBP30 or so - there are a couple of alternatives on offer at the local
store Specialized Chamonix and Met MaxTrack II (I'm sure I could order
another if there is a standout model). One of the reasons I'm asking is that
five years ago 'Which', a consumer magazine in the UK, did a survey of bike
helmets and a majority were not suitable for their intended purpose, ie they
did not adequately protect your head. So what would you recommend as a
suitable helmet for someone commuting 4 or 5 miles a day to work and back on
city roads?

cheers

dd

[Rick]

DD,

I won't open the discussion of whether helmets are effective or not. There
are times when they may possibly be (just like there are times when the
small bible in the shirt pocket can stop a bullet), and there are times when
they certainly are not (probably those situations where adults are most
likely to experience).

That said, certified helmets are all essentially the same. If you must have
one, select one (if you can find it) that conforms to whatever standards
organization tests helmets in Europe. Helmets that lack labels from a
standards organization are useless (or worse). In the US, for example, most
helmets, possibly all that are certified, are ANSI certified. The last time
I looked at helmets, I could not find any that conformed to the more
stringent Snell standard. It would seem that once helmets were mandated in
most states, there was no longer any benefit in marketing a such a helmet.
Yet another example of style over substance.

Rick

"DDEckerslyke" > wrote in message
...
> This seems to be a largely US ng but I couldn't find a UK equivalent so
here
> goes:
>
> Just got back on a bike after a few years. Never previously worn a helmet
> but having three kids changed my perspective. Anyway in my price range -
up
> to GBP30 or so - there are a couple of alternatives on offer at the local
> store Specialized Chamonix and Met MaxTrack II (I'm sure I could order
> another if there is a standout model). One of the reasons I'm asking is
that
> five years ago 'Which', a consumer magazine in the UK, did a survey of
bike
> helmets and a majority were not suitable for their intended purpose, ie
they
> did not adequately protect your head. So what would you recommend as a
> suitable helmet for someone commuting 4 or 5 miles a day to work and back
on
> city roads?
>
> cheers
>
> dd
>
>

[Raptor]

DDEckerslyke wrote:
> This seems to be a largely US ng but I couldn't find a UK equivalent so here
> goes:
>
> Just got back on a bike after a few years. Never previously worn a helmet
> but having three kids changed my perspective. Anyway in my price range - up
> to GBP30 or so - there are a couple of alternatives on offer at the local
> store Specialized Chamonix and Met MaxTrack II (I'm sure I could order
> another if there is a standout model). One of the reasons I'm asking is that
> five years ago 'Which', a consumer magazine in the UK, did a survey of bike
> helmets and a majority were not suitable for their intended purpose, ie they
> did not adequately protect your head. So what would you recommend as a
> suitable helmet for someone commuting 4 or 5 miles a day to work and back on
> city roads?
>
> cheers
>
> dd

Make sure it's certified and fits your head. If there is more than one
helmet that meets those standards, go for the one with the best
ventillation.

--
--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall
"I'm not proud. We really haven't done everything we could to protect
our customers. Our products just aren't engineered for security."
--Microsoft VP in charge of Windows OS Development, Brian Valentine.

[Rick]

....stuff deleted

> AFAICS this seems to be an ongoing debate in this ng. Is there any one
place
> where I can see both sides of the argument? FWIW the one major crash I had
> where I was knocked unconscious a helmet would have made no difference but
> IIRC Chris Boardman crashed in the TdF one year and said his helmet saved
> him from a lot of damage.
>

DD,

Frankly, I haven't archived most of same, nor do I track the websites that
discuss the issue. Deja News will give you the stuff and links that were
posted on the topic. You can also search for information on the web,
particularly the Aussie study that was done a few years back.

> > That said, certified helmets are all essentially the same. If you must
> have
> > one, select one (if you can find it) that conforms to whatever standards
> > organization tests helmets in Europe.
>
> This was part of the problem in the survey I mentioned. The magazine
dropped
> helmets on to three different shaped anvils and analysed the results. Many
> of the helmets did next to nothing to absorb the impact despite the fact
> that all conformed to one or other of the two main standards. I wondered
if
> there were helmets that are known to be effective.

The Snell standard helmets were, IMO, most likely to provide some
protection. The essential problem with helmets is, according to the
anti-helmet crowd (I don't particularly align with either camp), is that the
helmet essentially enlarges the skull, adding rotational torque to any
impact. This torque on the neck/skull produces more severe injuries than a
direct impact (which the skull is designed to handle reasonably well).
Additionally, the type of impact helmets were designed to mitigate are
rarely encountered in cycling accidents. Most blows to the skull will be
oblique, not direct, hence the torque issue. Worse, most will exceed the
design specifications of the helmet in the first place leading to
catastrophic failure (hence the quote you cite above "Many of the helmets
did next to nothing to absorb the impact..."

Frankly, I am leaning toward the wear a good hat and shades attitude. It
keeps you warmer in winter and protects from the sun in summer.

Rick

[Frank Krygowski]

"DDEckerslyke" > wrote in message >...
>
> AFAICS this seems to be an ongoing debate in this ng. Is there any one place
> where I can see both sides of the argument?

I don't know of one place that is "neutral," if that's what you mean.
Think about it: most "neutral" people will lack the motivation to
publish on the issue. But this is normal for almost all contentious
issues. It simply means you must weigh the evidence provided by both
sides and decide which is more sensible.

I can attempt to summarize some of the major points of the helmet fans
and the non-fans, at risk of being called biased.

Helmet fans say "Any fall off a bike can kill you." Non-fans say
"Same for any fall off _anything_. But bike head injuries are less
than 1% of the US totals. Falls around the home are 40%, injuries
inside cars are 50%. Don't single out cyclists."

Helmet fans say "It's not just fatalities. Helmets prevent smaller
injuries too, and you certainly don't want even a minor injury."
Non-fans say "Minor injuries, like fatalities, occur in all sorts of
activities. Again, don't single out cycling."

Helmet fans say "But over 500,000 Americans visit emergency rooms each
year due to bike crashes." Non-fans say "Over 400,000 visit ERs due
to accidents involving their beds! Big numbers prove only that
America is a big place."

Helmet fans say "But helmets prevent up to 85% of head injuries."
Non-fans say "That 85% claim came from only one tiny,
poorly-constructed study. It's never stood up in any examination of
the effects of widespread helmet use. For example, no jurisdiction
has seen anything close to that benefit after imposing a mandatory
helmet law."

Helmet fans say "But many other studies predict some benefit, even if
not as great." Non-fans say "Case-control studies of small,
self-selected populations generally predict benefit. Large studies of
general populations (after imposition of helmet laws) find little or
no benefit, and they are more 'real world'."

Helmet fans say "Think of the public health cost of the injuries."
Non-fans say "Overpromoting or mandating helmets reduces cycling,
which causes more, not less, public health cost. Cycling has been
shown to have benefits far greater than its tiny risks."

Helmet fans say "I was saved from serious injury or death by my
helmet." Non-fans say "That's absolutely unprovable. People have
survived bike crashes of every type for a hundred years. Dented
styrofoam proves only that styrofoam can be dented."

Helmet fans say "If everyone wore a helmet every time they rode,
fatalities or head injuries would drop tremendously." Non-fans say
"Helmet use has greatly increased, yet there is no good evidence of
any corresponding reduction in head injuries - instead, head injuries
per rider seem to have actually increased."

Helmet fans say "It's such an easy thing to do." Non-fans say "It's
ineffective. It would be much better to put the energy into teaching
proper riding, and into enforcing existing traffic laws."

Helmet fans say "Promoting helmets can only help." Non-fans say "It's
more likely to scare people away from cycling, and that hurts."


Obviously, you can tell which side I'm on! But if you want a site
that disagrees with me, the most popular one is the Bicycle Helmet
Safety Institute (actually, a mostly one-man operation) at
http://www.bhsi.org

One site that disagrees with the BHSI is http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/
.... and be sure to click on the "Helmet FAQ" link at the left.

Another site, a new one (somewhat under construction) concentrates on
British data. http://www.cyclehelmets.org/

> > That said, certified helmets are all essentially the same. ...
>
> This was part of the problem in the survey I mentioned. The magazine dropped
> helmets on to three different shaped anvils and analysed the results. Many
> of the helmets did next to nothing to absorb the impact despite the fact
> that all conformed to one or other of the two main standards. I wondered if
> there were helmets that are known to be effective.

Present bike helmets offer only low levels of protection, and future
ones will doubless be little better. This is simple physics. To
increase protection from a straight-on impact, you'll need thicker
material, since it takes more distance to stop something (e.g. your
head) more gently.

But thicker material means more weight, less ventilation, and (most
seriously) more chance that the helmet will actually receive an
impact. (If a bare head misses collision by 1/2 inch, a helmet will
hit. Larger helmets will be hit harder and more frequently.
Furthermore, larger helmets offer more "lever arm" for tangential
impacts, and would thus be expected to increase the particularly
damaging rotational accelerations of the brain.

Incidentally, the pro-helmet American magazine Consumer Reports has
tested bike helmets several times. Although they do not give
numerical values for impact protection (nobody seems to tell the
American public how low the protection levels really are!) they've
given comparative, non-numerical bar graphs. In each test, the most
expensive helmets have been the _least_ protective!

When you think about it, that's logical. To get minimum weight and
maximum ventilation, you need to skim as close to the minimum impact
standard as possible. And this razor's edge design time costs money!

- Frank Krygowski

[Rick]

Frank,

Excellent summation, without the diatribes.

Rick

"Frank Krygowski" > wrote in message
m...
> "DDEckerslyke" > wrote in message
>...
> >
....long summary deleted

[Bill Z.]

(Frank Krygowski) writes:

> I can attempt to summarize some of the major points of the helmet fans
> and the non-fans, at risk of being called biased.
>
> Helmet fans say "Any fall off a bike can kill you." Non-fans say
> "Same for any fall off _anything_. But bike head injuries are less
> than 1% of the US totals. Falls around the home are 40%, injuries
> inside cars are 50%. Don't single out cyclists."
>
> Helmet fans say "It's not just fatalities. Helmets prevent smaller
> injuries too, and you certainly don't want even a minor injury."
> Non-fans say "Minor injuries, like fatalities, occur in all sorts of
> activities. Again, don't single out cycling."
<snip>

This is a typical polemic, misrepresenting one side of the dicussion
repeatedly. The anti-helmet group, which Frank is a charter member
of, has been putting up strawmen for years and this is just another
strawman. Go back and read the previously threads on the subject
to get the full story. It is really not necessary to have yearly
argument on this one more time.

Bill

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[Mitch Haley]

Trudi Marrapodi wrote:
>
> In article >,
> (Frank Krygowski) wrote:
>
> > Helmet fans say "Any fall off a bike can kill you."
>
> Not necessarily. I fell off mine but good today--but despite being badly
> scraped up, was nowhere near being killed. For one thing, I fell sideways,

Sounds like you know how to fall. (a skill worth more than any bike helmet, as
falling without bashing your head negates any need for the helmet)

I know of at least one young woman who died after a club ride. She rode into the
parking lot, and tipped over onto flat pavement. Hit headfirst and died. I don't
know if she was wearing a helmet.

Another example, somebody I knew:
Elderly couple (~80 yrs) on tandem. Dog took out front wheel. Fell over sideways,
stoker pretty much had her skull shattered, spent weeks in the hospital. Was
promoted as a "helmet saved a life" incident in the club we were in at the time.
The helmet was, IIRC, a Bell Tourlight. You simply can't find anything as effective
as that helmet marketed for road cycling today. I can't see where it did her any
noticeable good, a fall without it would have broken her skull, as did a fall with
it.
Mitch.

[Bill Z.]

Mitch Haley > writes:


> Another example, somebody I knew: Elderly couple (~80 yrs) on
> tandem. Dog took out front wheel. Fell over sideways, stoker pretty
> much had her skull shattered, spent weeks in the hospital. Was
> promoted as a "helmet saved a life" incident in the club we were in
> at the time. The helmet was, IIRC, a Bell Tourlight. You simply
> can't find anything as effective as that helmet marketed for road
> cycling today. I can't see where it did her any noticeable good, a
> fall without it would have broken her skull, as did a fall with it.

Since the injury was serious enough for her to spend weeks in the
hospital, it is believable that you wouldn't have to increase the
damage by very much for it to be fatal. So, the helmet could very
well have made a difference as to whether she survived, or at least
might have shortened her hospital stay. Just cutting a day off of her
stay in a hospital would probably more than pay for all the helmets
she would have bought over a lifetime.

Bill

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[marika]

(Frank Krygowski) wrote in message >...
> "DDEckerslyke" > wrote in message
>
> Helmet fans say "Any fall off a bike can kill you." Non-fans say
> "Same for any fall off _anything_. But bike head injuries are less
> than 1% of the US totals. Falls around the home are 40%, injuries
> inside cars are 50%. Don't single out cyclists."
>
> Helmet fans say "It's not just fatalities. Helmets prevent smaller
> injuries too, and you certainly don't want even a minor injury."
> Non-fans say "Minor injuries, like fatalities, occur in all sorts of
> activities. Again, don't single out cycling."
>
> Helmet fans say "But over 500,000 Americans visit emergency rooms each
> year due to bike crashes." Non-fans say "Over 400,000 visit ERs due
> to accidents involving their beds! Big numbers prove only that
> America is a big place."


There has been near my apt, a bicycle chained to a post for like a good
3 weeks. It is completely, entirely encased and swathed in duct tape.
Pedals, bars, wheels, seat, all of it. It has been sitting there
untouched for weeks and just now, it has started to get abuse - the
front wheel has been taken.

mk5000

'I'll replace them tomorrow and will place my results. I
replaced all the rams on this board and put in sockets. I wouldn't get
the video to come on I suppose if the ram was bad in any of these
sockets. Since the game play and video is the problem"--baraka

[Jeremy Parker]

Well, all helmets meet the same standards, and I don't think those
standards have changed since the "Which" article was written.

The Which article noted a tendency for helmets that meet the European
std not to meet the American standard, and vice versa, but some did meet
both.

The best rule is NOT to get a "good one". What makes a helmet "good" is
usually being lighter and cooler than a cheap helmet. This is achieved
by using as little styrofoam as possible, so an expensive helmet is
probably even less protective than a cheap helmet, even though both meet
the same stds.

There is some question about whether it really is necessary to replace a
helmet every x years as some people recommend. In practice the
styrofoam is unlikely to degrade from UV radiation. However, one
current theory about why helmets are so ineffective in practice is that
they are not kept tightly enough in position. It might be, so the
theory goes, that putting on and taking off a helmet over and over again
gradually compresses the material inside, thus making the helmet loose.

The same theory emphasizes that the chin strap MUST be kept tight. If
you can open your mouth to talk, the strap is probably too loose.

Adding a helmet to your head makes it larger and heavier than normal,
thus upsetting your reflexes that move your head out of the way of
impacts. Thus you will hit your head more with a helmet than you would
without. This doesn't matter though, because of that very helmet. Don't
assume, though, that in the impacts you are now having the helmet is
saving your life.

Jeremy Parker

[Trudi Marrapodi]

In article >, Mitch Haley > wrote:

> Trudi Marrapodi wrote:
> >
> > In article >,
> > (Frank Krygowski) wrote:
> >
> > > Helmet fans say "Any fall off a bike can kill you."
> >
> > Not necessarily. I fell off mine but good today--but despite being badly
> > scraped up, was nowhere near being killed. For one thing, I fell sideways,
>
> Sounds like you know how to fall. (a skill worth more than any bike helmet, as
> falling without bashing your head negates any need for the helmet)

Well, I don't realy recall having time to think about how to fall, but
maybe something about how I positioned myself instictively when I fell
made a difference. I did learn "how to fall" when skating, and what you
learn about that is that a) going limp is the best way to resist injury
and b) it is better to fall on your butt, if at all possible, than to fall
on anything else. In this case, I couldn't fall on my butt, and I did
instictively put my hands out and that could have resulted in bad things
for my arms and wrists, but in the end all I got was some light hand
abrasions, and as a result my head was nowhere near any sort of impact.

> I know of at least one young woman who died after a club ride. She rode
into the
> parking lot, and tipped over onto flat pavement. Hit headfirst and died.
I don't
> know if she was wearing a helmet.

How awful. Maybe she didn't have time to react at all when she went down.

> Another example, somebody I knew:
> Elderly couple (~80 yrs) on tandem. Dog took out front wheel. Fell over
sideways,
> stoker pretty much had her skull shattered, spent weeks in the hospital. Was
> promoted as a "helmet saved a life" incident in the club we were in at
the time.
> The helmet was, IIRC, a Bell Tourlight. You simply can't find anything
as effective
> as that helmet marketed for road cycling today. I can't see where it did
her any
> noticeable good, a fall without it would have broken her skull, as did a
fall with
> it.
> Mitch.

This stuff is frightening. I guess I was luckier than I thought.
--
Trudi
"Closed Due to Blackout. Pray for the Chocolate!"
--sign in Cleveland store, 8/14/03
____
Say NO to secret judging and corruption in skating --
support SkateFAIR!
http://www.skatefair.org

[Trudi Marrapodi]

In article t>, "Rick"
> wrote:

> ...stuff deleted
>
> > It was not fun. My chain had come off the spokes and I had to put it back
> > on (did I have wipes handy for the grease? No). And I was scraped up and
> > bruised unpleasantly, although fortunately nothing bled.
>
> Must be that time of year (i.e. hard riding in summer means tune-ups in
> fall).

Not to mention which, my bike is frankly rather cheap. I've been told that
unless I invest in a pricier bike, this will probably happen quite a bit.

> I threw a chain yesterday as well. I've learned to remount them using
> the toe of my shoe. I have some godawfully ugly shoes, but clean handlebar
> tape (grin).

Can you teach the technique? There must be an art to it. I'd love to know;
chain grease has to be one of THE toughest things to get off hands (not to
mention what it does to your handlebars).

> Fortunately for me, I was sitting at the time, not standing on
> the pegs and came off with only the routine calf bruise. I've let the
> maintenance lag a little too long, for once.
>
> Sounds like a long sit in a hot tub will help a lot Trudy. Mend quickly.
>
> Rick

Thanks. I plan to give it a try. Right leg looks like hell today!
--
Trudi
"Closed Due to Blackout. Pray for the Chocolate!"
--sign in Cleveland store, 8/14/03
____
Say NO to secret judging and corruption in skating --
support SkateFAIR!
http://www.skatefair.org

[Rick]

....stuff deleted
>
> Can you teach the technique? There must be an art to it. I'd love to know;
> chain grease has to be one of THE toughest things to get off hands (not to
> mention what it does to your handlebars).
>

It isn't hard, but it takes a little patience to learn. Put the toe of the
shoe on the underside of the chain and pull the chain toward the front of
the bike. As the chain reaches the apex of the smallest sprocket, lower it
so that it engages on the top. The tricky part follows in that you have to
release the chain from the toe of the shoe without dislodging the chain from
the sprocket. At this point, the chain is usually half-on (though in rare
instances, it works perfectly) and needs a spin to completely engage the
chain. Took a few tries to get it down and always takes 2 or 3 attempts as I
often bump the crank and dislodge the chain, but it does work.

Rick

[Frank Krygowski]

(Trudi Marrapodi) wrote in message >...
>
>
> This stuff is frightening. I guess I was luckier than I thought.

Not at all, Trudi. There are probably tens of thousands of minor
falls off bikes for every fatality. Sure, a fall is no fun, but the
idea that every fall is a near-death experience is absolute nonsense.
A minor fall is just a minor fall.

Don't let the rare horror stories worry you. Just exercise reasonable
caution, and get on with enjoying life and cycling.

- Frank Krygowski

[Trudi Marrapodi]

In article et>, "Rick"
> wrote:

> ...stuff deleted
> >
> > Can you teach the technique? There must be an art to it. I'd love to know;
> > chain grease has to be one of THE toughest things to get off hands (not to
> > mention what it does to your handlebars).
> >
>
> It isn't hard, but it takes a little patience to learn. Put the toe of the
> shoe on the underside of the chain and pull the chain toward the front of
> the bike. As the chain reaches the apex of the smallest sprocket, lower it
> so that it engages on the top. The tricky part follows in that you have to
> release the chain from the toe of the shoe without dislodging the chain from
> the sprocket. At this point, the chain is usually half-on (though in rare
> instances, it works perfectly) and needs a spin to completely engage the
> chain. Took a few tries to get it down and always takes 2 or 3 attempts as I
> often bump the crank and dislodge the chain, but it does work.
>
> Rick

Thanks! I'll give it a try next time.
--
Trudi
"Closed Due to Blackout. Pray for the Chocolate!"
--sign in Cleveland store, 8/14/03
____
Say NO to secret judging and corruption in skating --
support SkateFAIR!
http://www.skatefair.org

[Trudi Marrapodi]

In article >, Mitch Haley > wrote:

> Trudi Marrapodi wrote:
> >
> > How awful. Maybe she didn't have time to react at all when she went down.
>
> I just assumed she was the typical young American who had such a protected
> childhood that she never really learned how to fall. I'd like to see
> all the little couch potatoes enrolled in karate or gymnastics classes
> somewhere around 6-10 years of age. Another possibility is that she was
> busy trying to unclip her shoe all the way down.

Well, I wasn't wearing clips...actually, I threw a sandal!

> > This stuff is frightening. I guess I was luckier than I thought.
>
> Well, people have been falling down for thousands of years without
> often dying, but there is a fair amount of energy involved. I think
> both the examples I mentioned were mentionable because of their
> rarity. I suspect that Emily's bones were old enough to be a lot more
> fragile than they once were, and you do seem to go down hard and fast
> when a dog takes out the front wheel.
> The other incident was described to me as a new rider who forgot to
> unclip when stopping. I've done the same, but both times it happened
> to me I mainly landed on my hip and shoulder, although I lost some skin
> on my knee and elbow the time I did it on tarmac.
> Mitch.

How exactly *does* a dog take out the front wheel? Why would a dog just
run right into someone's bike? I know that's probably a dumb question,
but...
--
Trudi
"Closed Due to Blackout. Pray for the Chocolate!"
--sign in Cleveland store, 8/14/03
____
Say NO to secret judging and corruption in skating --
support SkateFAIR!
http://www.skatefair.org

[Mitch Haley]

Trudi Marrapodi wrote:
> How exactly *does* a dog take out the front wheel? Why would a dog just
> run right into someone's bike? I know that's probably a dumb question,
> but...

Chasing dogs are sometimes more sucessful than they intend to be. The
ones with herding instinct will try to push your front wheel if they
get the chance.
I've had a couple run into my back wheel with no real problem, you just
feel the bike twitch when the dog's shoulder bumps the tire. If they
try to run in front of you and hit the front wheel, the bike steers
out from under you on the side away from the dog, and you fall towards
the dog. I'm afraid of losing my front wheel (I once did a major face
plant when I broke a fork, had to wear a neck brace for a while and
still have the scar on my forehead) so I hit the brakes if it looks
like the dog can head me off.
Mitch.