I rode naked today!
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
I rode naked today!
Sort of. I took off after work for my 1 hour ride.A couple of minutes into the ride I realized I forgot my helmet.I started to turn around and said the hell with it.Uneventful ride ,weather is beautiful ,low humidity.Towards the end 2 blocks from the ranch.I sense a car from behind,too close.I hear a familiar voice No Helmet!! Of course it's my wife.Next car is my daughter and son in law.Down goes the window, heh Dad where is your helmet? Never again!
#3
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Bozeman
Posts: 4,094
Bikes: 199? Landshark Roadshark, 198? Mondonico Diamond, 1987 Panasonic DX-5000, 1987 Bianchi Limited, Univega... Chrome..., 1989 Schwinn Woodlands, Motobecane USA Record, Raleigh Tokul 2
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Happened to me the other day as well. I usually do my (short) commute without a helmet on, so I didn't notice it until halfway through my (long) ride!
#4
Senior Member
My first thought at reading the thread title was, "Eeewwww! Gross."
I rode naked once too, but for me it was starting off on a ride without my gloves. Took about three or four houses down the street when I realized that something just wasn't right. Something was missing, I felt "naked". I did turn around to go home and grab a set of gloves. For sure I want those if I were to fall off the bike.
I rode naked once too, but for me it was starting off on a ride without my gloves. Took about three or four houses down the street when I realized that something just wasn't right. Something was missing, I felt "naked". I did turn around to go home and grab a set of gloves. For sure I want those if I were to fall off the bike.
#5
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: St Peters, Missouri
Posts: 30,225
Bikes: Catrike 559 I own some others but they don't get ridden very much.
Liked 645 Times
in
366 Posts
I think that's a good thing. It means that your helmet fits you comfortably.
__________________
My greatest fear is all of my kids standing around my coffin and talking about "how sensible" dad was.
My greatest fear is all of my kids standing around my coffin and talking about "how sensible" dad was.
#7
Senior Member
Some time you just forget. I went for a ride with my wife, who doesn't like going uphill at all. I get to the top of a hill and wait for her to catch up. Then she needs a break at the top of the hill. Break time over, we ride down the back side of the hill. Then she realizes she doesn't have her helmet on. So back up the hill to look for it. No helmet. We finish the ride, and plan to go the LBS for a new one. We get back to the car, open the door, and there it is sitting on the seat.
Glad you didn't crash and die.
Glad you didn't crash and die.
#10
Billd76
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: South west Florida
Posts: 105
Bikes: 07 Trek 1000 and 014 Giant Escape
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
You can bike naked for real next week in Portland Oregon World Naked Bike Ride sets 2016 date in Portland | OregonLive.com I wont be there!!!!
#11
Standard Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Brunswick, Maine
Posts: 4,350
Bikes: 1948 P. Barnard & Son, 1962 Rudge Sports, 1963 Freddie Grubb Routier, 1980 Manufrance Hirondelle, 1983 F. Moser Sprint, 1989 Raleigh Technium Pre, 2001 Raleigh M80
Liked 1,055 Times
in
524 Posts
I've been thinking about this thread, and since you've brought it up, I must say that never in my wildest imagination could I ever conceive of a circumstance where I would forget to bring my helmet, let alone actually start riding without it. I hope this event cues your memory skills.
Last edited by 1989Pre; 06-23-16 at 08:16 AM.
#12
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Posts: 15,279
Bikes: Nashbar Road
Liked 341 Times
in
228 Posts
I ride without helmet every other week, daily commute, just to remind myself that I don't have to if I don't feel like it. I commend OP for making his own decision, rather than turning back because we're "supposed" to always wear one.
#13
- Soli Deo Gloria -
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Northwest Georgia
Posts: 14,779
Bikes: 2018 Rodriguez Custom Fixed Gear, 2017 Niner RLT 9 RDO, 2015 Bianchi Pista, 2002 Fuji Robaix
Liked 738 Times
in
469 Posts
#14
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Posts: 15,279
Bikes: Nashbar Road
Liked 341 Times
in
228 Posts
It may not be universal, but I've noticed that the more consistent I am in wearing a helmet, the more it feels like I have to. The physical risk is so slight that the risk of developing a psychological dependence becomes the greater danger, so I choose at some times to leave the helmet at home. I see it as monitoring for an incipient neurosis (is there any emotional response for example) and as an exercise in mental hygiene.
#15
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: SF Bay Area, East bay
Posts: 7,971
Bikes: Miyata 618 GT, Marinoni, Kestral 200, Soma double cross 2002 Trek 5200, KHS Flite, Koga Miyata, Schwinn Spitfire 5, Mondia Special, Univega Alpina, Miyata team Ti, Santa Cruz Highball, Waterford rs11
Liked 3,055 Times
in
1,389 Posts
You need only tell people you have borrowed the Emperors helmet for the day...
#17
Ride On!
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 970
Bikes: Allez DSW SL Sprint | Fuji Cross
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times
in
3 Posts
Yes. This same thing happened to me on the towpath last week. I got all set to head out, put my bandana on (you wouldn't believe how many bugs get in your helmet when riding through the woods by the river)...got about 4 miles down and went to scratch my head through my hole, and realized my helmet wasn't there. I just kept wondering if people were judging me for not having a helmet on.
#18
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I did the same thing the other day. Was a couple of miles in before I noticed. Cut between 2 lines of cars waiting for a light and one was a cop car. Thought I was going to get a ticket for sure or something, but nothing.
#19
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: northern michigan
Posts: 13,320
Bikes: '77 Colnago Super, '76 Fuji The Finest, '88 Cannondale Criterium, '86 Trek 760, '87 Miyata 712
Liked 601 Times
in
314 Posts
After being so lucky to have survived the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s without a helmet....and drinking water out of a hose, I suppose the short, slow, casual rides around town will be ok without a helmet. But I do draw the line at riding in the bed of a pickup at 55mph.
#21
Banned
Less metaphorical than Actual..
World Naked Bike Ride Day World Naked Bike Ride
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Naked_Bike_Ride
https://pdxwnbr.org/ Etc, Etc.
World Naked Bike Ride Day World Naked Bike Ride
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Naked_Bike_Ride
https://pdxwnbr.org/ Etc, Etc.
#23
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Houston
Posts: 540
Bikes: Novarra Randonee 2016, Trek Verve 2 2015
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times
in
3 Posts
Let's try to put some qualitative numbers in a crash accident:
You are riding downhill on a paved street and for whatever reason (pothole, small animal, a truck going by, a pedestrian...) you take a spill and hit the sidewalk with top right of your skull. The impact is strong enough to break the bones ...and that's it...You are a vegetable or a cadaver.
Let's assume that the contact surface was 2"x0.5" = 1 square inch (the edge of the sidewalk, crushing your skull).
Had you worn a helmet, the contact patch on your skull would be more like 3" x 2" = 6 in sq therefore the contact pressure would be 1/6th than that of the helmetless.
Moving on, in a collision the kinetic energy of your head K=1/2 mV2 which will increase slightly due to the addition of the helmet mass, has to be absorbed. The kinetic energy absorption is proportional to the load P(t)xΔt. The P(t) is a triangular more or less function and if Δt is the base of the triangle, the kinetic energy is proportional to the area of the triangle.
In the helmeted crash the time Δt increases, because it takes time to crush the styrofoam, before the load is transmitted to your skull. Let's say 3Δt. Since the kinetic energy is the same, this means that the load is further reduced by threefold (more or less independently of the sixfold reduction due to the contact patch). we are at 18-fold reduction of the load which tries to crush your skull.
I told a small lie before. The kinetic energy to be absorbed is not the same. There is energy consumed in crushing the styrofoam. I am not sure how much and how it can be incorporated in a quick qualitative calculation.
Anyway, reducing the load on the skull by 18 times (reducing it to 5.5% of the original) is good enough reason for me. YMMV.
You are riding downhill on a paved street and for whatever reason (pothole, small animal, a truck going by, a pedestrian...) you take a spill and hit the sidewalk with top right of your skull. The impact is strong enough to break the bones ...and that's it...You are a vegetable or a cadaver.
Let's assume that the contact surface was 2"x0.5" = 1 square inch (the edge of the sidewalk, crushing your skull).
Had you worn a helmet, the contact patch on your skull would be more like 3" x 2" = 6 in sq therefore the contact pressure would be 1/6th than that of the helmetless.
Moving on, in a collision the kinetic energy of your head K=1/2 mV2 which will increase slightly due to the addition of the helmet mass, has to be absorbed. The kinetic energy absorption is proportional to the load P(t)xΔt. The P(t) is a triangular more or less function and if Δt is the base of the triangle, the kinetic energy is proportional to the area of the triangle.
In the helmeted crash the time Δt increases, because it takes time to crush the styrofoam, before the load is transmitted to your skull. Let's say 3Δt. Since the kinetic energy is the same, this means that the load is further reduced by threefold (more or less independently of the sixfold reduction due to the contact patch). we are at 18-fold reduction of the load which tries to crush your skull.
I told a small lie before. The kinetic energy to be absorbed is not the same. There is energy consumed in crushing the styrofoam. I am not sure how much and how it can be incorporated in a quick qualitative calculation.
Anyway, reducing the load on the skull by 18 times (reducing it to 5.5% of the original) is good enough reason for me. YMMV.
#24
Senior Member
Funny helmet story.
A friend of mine and I commute to work by bike. I leave work first. One day he calls me from work and asks where I hid his helmet and basically is getting torqued because he thought someone hid it and wouldn't tell him. So he goes home totally enraged someone took his helmet. He walks into his house and there is his helmet on the kitchen table. Turns out he drove to work without it on and never realized it. And he's not even 50 yet!
A friend of mine and I commute to work by bike. I leave work first. One day he calls me from work and asks where I hid his helmet and basically is getting torqued because he thought someone hid it and wouldn't tell him. So he goes home totally enraged someone took his helmet. He walks into his house and there is his helmet on the kitchen table. Turns out he drove to work without it on and never realized it. And he's not even 50 yet!
#25
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Virginia
Posts: 339
Bikes: Motobecane Century Pro Ti Disc
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Let's try to put some qualitative numbers in a crash accident:
You are riding downhill on a paved street and for whatever reason (pothole, small animal, a truck going by, a pedestrian...) you take a spill and hit the sidewalk with top right of your skull. The impact is strong enough to break the bones ...and that's it...You are a vegetable or a cadaver.
Let's assume that the contact surface was 2"x0.5" = 1 square inch (the edge of the sidewalk, crushing your skull).
Had you worn a helmet, the contact patch on your skull would be more like 3" x 2" = 6 in sq therefore the contact pressure would be 1/6th than that of the helmetless.
Moving on, in a collision the kinetic energy of your head K=1/2 mV2 which will increase slightly due to the addition
of the helmet mass, has to be absorbed. The kinetic energy absorption is proportional to the load P(t)xΔt. The P(t) is a triangular more or less function and if Δt is the base of the triangle, the kinetic energy is proportional to the area of the triangle.
In the helmeted crash the time Δt increases, because it takes time to crush the styrofoam, before the load is transmitted to your skull. Let's say 3Δt. Since the kinetic energy is the same, this means that the load is further reduced by threefold (more or less independently of the sixfold reduction due to the contact patch). we are at 18-fold reduction of the load which tries to crush your skull.
I told a small lie before. The kinetic energy to be absorbed is not the same. There is energy consumed in crushing the styrofoam. I am not sure how much and how it can be incorporated in a quick qualitative calculation.
Anyway, reducing the load on the skull by 18 times (reducing it to 5.5% of the original) is good enough reason for me. YMMV.
You are riding downhill on a paved street and for whatever reason (pothole, small animal, a truck going by, a pedestrian...) you take a spill and hit the sidewalk with top right of your skull. The impact is strong enough to break the bones ...and that's it...You are a vegetable or a cadaver.
Let's assume that the contact surface was 2"x0.5" = 1 square inch (the edge of the sidewalk, crushing your skull).
Had you worn a helmet, the contact patch on your skull would be more like 3" x 2" = 6 in sq therefore the contact pressure would be 1/6th than that of the helmetless.
Moving on, in a collision the kinetic energy of your head K=1/2 mV2 which will increase slightly due to the addition
of the helmet mass, has to be absorbed. The kinetic energy absorption is proportional to the load P(t)xΔt. The P(t) is a triangular more or less function and if Δt is the base of the triangle, the kinetic energy is proportional to the area of the triangle.
In the helmeted crash the time Δt increases, because it takes time to crush the styrofoam, before the load is transmitted to your skull. Let's say 3Δt. Since the kinetic energy is the same, this means that the load is further reduced by threefold (more or less independently of the sixfold reduction due to the contact patch). we are at 18-fold reduction of the load which tries to crush your skull.
I told a small lie before. The kinetic energy to be absorbed is not the same. There is energy consumed in crushing the styrofoam. I am not sure how much and how it can be incorporated in a quick qualitative calculation.
Anyway, reducing the load on the skull by 18 times (reducing it to 5.5% of the original) is good enough reason for me. YMMV.
As for me the past 5+ years of commuting it should go like this.
"You are riding downhill on a paved street and for whatever reason (pothole, small animal, a truck going by, a pedestrian...) nothing happens, I take no spill, I don't hit the sidewalk with my skull. I get off my bicycle at destination and say to myself that sure was a nice ride." I could "what if" all day long with the best of people. But what I do not do is live in fear or make excuses, which unfortunately is what about 95% of the people do every single day. live in fear and make excuses.