SweetLou

Well, I read the opening post, but I was still dazed from the helmet saving me, but still having a concussion, so I thought I would just skip over the rest and just give my anecdote.

But if there was a silly looking helmet that would protect my brain, I would consider wearing it. Especially if it was designed to protect my brain when I am hit by another vehicle.

Edit: Sorry for the above. I was just told that I should start wearing my helmet to work. I work at an LBS and was told that it gives the wrong impression for me not to wear a helmet.

John C. Ratliff

Interesting. Did you hit the tree right on the top of your head?

John

John C. Ratliff

I think this was a bit more than a roll in the dirt. 'Seem that I posted this photo from a head-first crash over a guard rail in the Tour de France.

John

John C. Ratliff

Merrium-Webster is very close:



Main Entry:
1peb·ble Listen to the pronunciation of 1pebble
Pronunciation:
\ˈpe-bəl\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle English pobble, from Old English papolstān, from papol- (of unknown origin) + stān stone
Date:
14th century

1 : a small usually rounded stone especially when worn by the action of water 2 : transparent and colorless quartz : rock crystal 3 : an irregular, crinkled, or grainy surface
— peb·bly Listen to the pronunciation of pebbly \-b(ə-)lē\ adjective

Anyway, glad you were able to do it. I'll try it again on my helmet, with a different, sharper rock. All I got was about an 1/8 inch degression using the rounded pebble's flat side. I just got it a bit deeper using a wedge-shaped part, but could not get it to stick. You're the better man on this one. But try it again in 30 years and see if you can still do it.

John

PS--Kids, Six jours was kidding, please don't try this on your forehead, or your helmet for that matter.

closetbiker

head first crash yeah, right!



remember the story?

The Chicken jumps to a conclusion and whips the populace into mass hysteria, which the unscrupulous fox uses to manipulate them for his own benefit.

Remember the moral of the tale? Do not believe everything you are told and don't be afraid of non-existent threats. Have some courage.

roadiejorge 

I don't know because all I remember was seeing the tree then it all went black.

Six jours

If this thread is still going 30 years from now -- and I'm still participating -- somebody please shoot me.

Pelle 79

Well i think first of al you ALWAYS need to wear a helmet. Otherwise you can hurt yourself relly bad.

closetbiker

yup, in the car, on the stairs, in a bar and most definitely, when you're old(er)



according to a report by the Canadian Institute for Health Information, falls were the leading cause of hospital injury admissions, falls were responsible for 80% of head injury hospitalizations in seniors and cycling accounts for only 2% of hospital head injury admissions.

or maybe, when you're younger (youth has it's drawbacks)



and from https://www.nsc.org/issues/ifalls/falquiz.htm

4) What accounts for the most falls that result in death?

1. Ladders
2. Stairs and steps
3. Slippery tile

Answer: b. More falling deaths result from stairs and steps, according to the CPSC. Beds rate second, while ladders are in third place.

closetbiker

I know what you mean...

then again if I lived in a "transportationally civilized" society, I probably wouldn't comment at all.

derath

Do I care if anyone else wears a helmet? Not really. Personally I wear one. For me if the helmet simply keeps me from needing stitches in my head I am happy (Scalp stitches suck).

I don't expect it to "save my life" but I won't complain if it does.

-D

GreenPremier

Hey Closetbiker, there's a guy where I work who commutes to work, who is a pretty much a Fred when it comes to biking, always wear's a helmet, has a mirror for his sunglasses, wears a high-vis jacket...
He was working on his roof late last fall and fell off and cracked his head open and broke his collar bone. Was he wearing a helmet? He sure wasn't. You just never know when you're gonna need one of those silly helmets.

closetbiker

I had a friend at work (sadly, he passed away from a liver disease) who raced for years and went through eras where helmets weren't worn and when they were.

He started to wear a helmet (first because he thought it was good to do - just in case - and then because it became a requirement) but after he was laid off at work, he became a landscaper. Guess what happened to him? Fell off a ladder trimming a tree, landed on his head and was hospitalized with a head injury. Turns out it is one of the most common admittances for head injury.

GreenPremier

But I do agree, that, if anyone is really serious about protecting their heads they'd wear full face helmets...I'd be more worried about facial reconstructive surgery than having to get stitches in my scalp. That at least gets covered up by hair again.

closetbiker

it's far more likely the front of the head (face) and side of the head will be involved in impacts than the top of the head. Further, helmet standards only require protection above the bottom 1 to 2 inches of the helmet. The brain falls below the helmets protection on the side and look at the free space between the eye brows and helmet and think of an inch above that portion. That small area has some, limited protection that doesn't take into consideration the mechanics of a brain injury



Oh, and by the way, in addition to the ones I gave a couple of pages back about why I do wear a helmet, I remembered another reason on my way to work today.

Since my province has a MHL, I am not entitled to any head injury compensation regardless of fault if I am not wearing a helmet. A driver could be drunk, running a red light and hit me but he is not liable for any head injury I would receive if i wasn't wearing a helmet.

Even more odd is the legal disclaimers by the manufacturers of helmets, valid in law that waive the liability of the manufacturers of helmets if the wearer receives a head injury while wearing their product.

My province says the helmet works, you must wear one, even if we recognize they don't and we'll take away your bike if you don't have one.

GreenPremier

Wow, what a crock of sh1t.

closetbiker

... and I've been smelling it for the last 12 years.

GreenPremier

hmmmm this sounds like religion. So many people feel so deeply for a man that is 2000 years dead, never met, don't even know what he was really like, and follow things people wrote down in a book. If only we really knew the truth and didn't just think we know it.

Yes, I've been going back and reading this thread. This quote was from 12-23-07

closetbiker

2 years ago, on this thread I said, "Maybe what we're dealing with here is faith."

Late last year I found a reference (that I didn't give much thought of at the time) that was brought up by John involving faith that may explain the fervor in his stance.

In Chris Boardman's article in Pro Cycling regarding his stance on helmets he said (something like) that the debate has taken on a religious quality by helmet supporters.

GreenPremier

That's what I'm beginning to think. Along time ago when I was a kid, riding my bike down a big hill with a friend of mine; he lost control near the bottom going pretty fast. Neither of us were wearing helmets, he crashed and smashes a couple teeth in, had to have a route canal or two. Still has to wear a retainer at night, not quite sure if that's because of that accident or if he has naturally crooked teeth, but he sure would have benefitted from a full face helmet. Not a scratch to the top of his head. And we were kids then...

Of course there is such a thing as liquid armor. I don't think it's commercially available, but it's used to specail ops and whatnot, if we just wore that, we'd be impervious to head injuries...am I right or am I right?

closetbiker

Chip had a good response to that idea he put up about 6 weeks ago,

Wussy, real men who are serious about protecting themselves on a bike wear the Interceptor system:

John C. Ratliff

You asked, Closetbiker, whether I remembered the story. Well, yes I do. It was a Tour de France crash a while back, and here is the entire sequence:







To be continued...

John C. Ratliff

...continued:






Now do you remember us debating whether the cyclist who went down was protected when his helmet hit the ground and guard rail; you were maintaining that a bicycle helmet would not protect from a 20 mph impact, and I was maintaining that the forces were independent force vectors, and that the 20 mph crash was actually a crash from about 6 feet because the helmet continued traveling horizontally and did not stop abruptly in that vector, but did from the fall from 6 feet? Well, the other cyclist in the pink jersey was the one who went over the rail, head first (pretty conclusively head first), and ended with the rocks in his helmet. He was the one who continued in the race; the others were out with injuries, but not head injuries.

To all of you watching out there, remember well what Closetbiker said about not believing everything you are told. Also, about "...non-existent threats...", I think these photos, my and many other's experiences, plus over 700 fatalities a year on bicycles show that there is a hazard which needs to be mitigated. Now, according to Closetbiker, I'm the one with a "brain injury" (concussion, which may or may not be an actual brain injury), but who's memory of this event is better?

John

trombone

John, I enjoy your posts tremendously, but every now and again you say something that I don't get. For example...

Yep, I think we can all agree on that. There is a level of risk associated with riding a bicycle.

But then the bit I don't get:

Why, exactly, does the particular risk associated with riding a bicycle need mitigating? From what I read, the risk is, in absolute terms, rather low. There are many other activities with similar risk levels, yet I'm guessing you don't urge people to wear PPE when using a staircase, or when taking a shower. Yet these activities too carry risks, and indeed fatalities occur regularly.

Furthermore, why does the mitigation always come back to helmets? There are other, perhaps more effective, ways the risks inherent in cycling can be mitigated. Yet they get far less airplay than helmets.

StrangeWill

Hahah, complaining about low-risk mitigation on A&S, A&S would scold you for 6 months straight about something that only happens in 1/10,000,000 rides.