About helmet

Hi everybody

Are there really any major different between using stylish cycling helmets( Giro, Met
etc.) and those hard plastic round helmets(California pro type). I have the latter (bought
for inline-skate) and thinking of using it for cycling(looks a bit inappropriate though).
Any comments?

The said helmet is solid black and I was thinking of adding vibrant colour(paint) to sort
of pattern it (better visibility). I have considered using stickers but wonder if it is not
good for the safety aspect of the helmet.Any advice please?

Thanks!

 

In article <[email protected]>, "}=CroW={" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Are there really any major different between using stylish cycling helmets( Giro, Met etc.) and
> those hard plastic round helmets(California pro type). I have the latter (bought for inline-skate)
> and thinking of using it for cycling(looks a bit inappropriate though). Any comments?

Here we go again. The word "helmet" is like a red flag to some. Just add water, instant flame war.

> The said helmet is solid black and I was thinking of adding vibrant colour(paint) to sort of
> pattern it (better visibility). I have considered using stickers but wonder if it is not good for
> the safety aspect of the helmet.Any advice please?

Here's the deal, basically, from a former pro-helmet guy who no longer cares whether you wear a
helmet or not (I wear one most of the time while riding, but in all honesty I don't expect it to
save my life or anything like that). There's no proof that helmets are beneficial to your safety.
There's no proof that helmets are not beneficial to your safety. There's some evidence both ways but
nothing is conclusive, and that evidence largely depends on how the data is collected, what type of
data is collected, and who paid for the research. According to the Minnesota Department of Health,
your risk of head injury is higher from driving, motorcycling, walking on the sidewalk, simply
falling over, assault, or gunshot wounds, than it is from bicycling.

Wear a helmet if you want, it will probably do you no harm whatsoever and there's some possibility
it might help in some types of crashes. Your skating helmet probably offers just as much protection
as a bike helmet, unless it's an unlined plastic shell. All things considered, it probably doesn't
look any more dorky than the average bike helmet- but it WILL if you start painting it or putting
stickers on it. So don't do that, IMHO. Mainly the issue is ventilation- bike helmets are vented to
reduce the amount of sweat running into your eyes.

 

Tim McNamara writes:

>> Are there really any major different between using stylish cycling helmets( Giro, Met etc.) and
>> those hard plastic round helmets(California pro type). I have the latter (bought for
>> inline-skate) and thinking of using it for cycling(looks a bit inappropriate though). Any
>> comments?
>
> Here we go again. The word "helmet" is like a red flag to some. Just add water, instant flame war.
>
>> The said helmet is solid black and I was thinking of adding vibrant colour(paint) to sort of
>> pattern it (better visibility). I have considered using stickers but wonder if it is not good for
>> the safety aspect of the helmet.Any advice please?
>
> Here's the deal, basically, from a former pro-helmet guy who no longer cares whether you wear a
> helmet or not (I wear one most of the time while riding, but in all honesty I don't expect it to
> save my life or anything like that). There's no proof that helmets are beneficial to your safety.
> There's no proof that helmets are not beneficial to your safety. There's some evidence both ways
> but nothing is conclusive, and that evidence largely depends on how the data is collected, what
> type of data is collected, and who paid for the research. According to the Minnesota Department of
> Health, your risk of head injury is higher from driving, motorcycling, walking on the sidewalk,
> simply falling over, assault, or gunshot wounds, than it is from bicycling.
>
> Wear a helmet if you want, it will probably do you no harm whatsoever and there's some possibility
> it might help in some types of crashes. Your skating helmet probably offers just as much
> protection as a bike helmet, unless it's an unlined plastic shell. All things considered, it
> probably doesn't look any more dorky than the average bike helmet- but it WILL if you start
> painting it or putting stickers on it. So don't do that, IMHO. Mainly the issue is ventilation-
> bike helmets are vented to reduce the amount of sweat running into your eyes.

The ventilation and padding are inadequate on hot days. I find that the sweat drips from the
padding down my face into my eyes. Because of that, I wear a helmet infrequently, opting instead
for a cycling cap which absorbs a great deal more sweat thus preventing the aforementioned sweat
in the eyes.

 

Tim McNamara wrote:
> Here's the deal, basically, from a former pro-helmet guy who no longer cares whether you wear a
> helmet or not (I wear one most of the time while riding, but in all honesty I don't expect it to
> save my life or anything like that). There's no proof that helmets are beneficial to your safety.
> There's no proof that helmets are not beneficial to your safety. There's some evidence both ways
> but nothing is conclusive, and that evidence largely depends on how the data is collected, what
> type of data is collected, and who paid for the research. According to the Minnesota Department of
> Health, your risk of head injury is higher from driving, motorcycling, walking on the sidewalk,
> simply falling over, assault, or gunshot wounds, than it is from bicycling.

I have yet to hear someone utter, after a crash, "damn, I wish I hadn't been wearing my helmet". As
for the research, I think it has a lot to do with what king of riding your doing. On the road my
intuition says a helmet probably isn't going to save you in a crash. Off road or free riding I can
testify that I have and have seen helmets get used all the time.

My unprofessional opinion is that the type of helmet doesn't matter as long as it is secure.

 

With regards to some of Tim's comments.... Just ask yourself...if you knew you were going to crash
and hit your head, would you rather have a helmet on??

Tim is right in that you never know for sure if it is gonna save you or not, but I think it is safe
to say that if you -do- hit your head in a crash, your -chances- of survival are gonna be a lot
better with a helmet..

"Richard Ney" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Tim McNamara writes:
>
> >> Are there really any major different between using stylish cycling helmets( Giro, Met etc.) and
> >> those hard plastic round helmets(California pro type). I have the latter (bought for
> >> inline-skate) and thinking of using it for cycling(looks a bit inappropriate though). Any
> >> comments?
> >
> > Here we go again. The word "helmet" is like a red flag to some. Just add water, instant
> > flame war.
> >
> >> The said helmet is solid black and I was thinking of adding vibrant colour(paint) to sort of
> >> pattern it (better visibility). I have considered using stickers but wonder if it is not good
> >> for the safety aspect of the helmet.Any advice please?
> >
> > Here's the deal, basically, from a former pro-helmet guy who no longer cares whether you wear a
> > helmet or not (I wear one most of the time while riding, but in all honesty I don't expect it to
> > save my life or anything like that). There's no proof that helmets are beneficial to your
> > safety. There's no proof that helmets are not beneficial to your safety. There's some evidence
> > both ways but nothing is conclusive, and that evidence largely depends on how the data is
> > collected, what type of data is collected, and who paid for the research. According to the
> > Minnesota Department of Health, your risk of head injury is higher from driving, motorcycling,
> > walking on the sidewalk, simply falling over, assault, or gunshot wounds, than it is from
> > bicycling.
> >
> > Wear a helmet if you want, it will probably do you no harm whatsoever and there's some
> > possibility it might help in some types of crashes. Your skating helmet probably offers just as
> > much protection as a bike helmet, unless it's an unlined plastic shell. All things considered,
> > it probably doesn't look any more dorky than the average bike helmet- but it WILL if you start
> > painting it or putting stickers on it. So don't do that, IMHO. Mainly the issue is ventilation-
> > bike helmets are vented to reduce the amount of sweat running into your eyes.
>
> The ventilation and padding are inadequate on hot days. I find that the sweat drips from the
> padding down my face into my eyes. Because of that, I wear a helmet infrequently, opting instead
> for a cycling cap which absorbs a great deal more sweat thus preventing the aforementioned sweat
> in the eyes.

 

Dick wrote:
> Tim McNamara wrote:
>
>> Here's the deal, basically, from a former pro-helmet guy who no longer cares whether you wear a
>> helmet or not (I wear one most of the time while riding, but in all honesty I don't expect it to
>> save my life or anything like that). There's no proof that helmets are beneficial to your safety.
>> There's no proof that helmets are not beneficial to your safety. There's some evidence both ways
>> but nothing is conclusive, and that evidence largely depends on how the data is collected, what
>> type of data is collected, and who paid for the research. According to the Minnesota Department
>> of Health, your risk of head injury is higher from driving, motorcycling, walking on the
>> sidewalk, simply falling over, assault, or gunshot wounds, than it is from bicycling.
>
>
> I have yet to hear someone utter, after a crash, "damn, I wish I hadn't been wearing my helmet".

I did that once when I was a kid and had just gotten a helmet (caving - bicycling hardshells didn't
exist yet). I put it on and went for a bike ride to see a friend but hit a pothole in the street and
the helmet bounced forward over my eyes. Couldn't see a thing so I promptly ran into the back of a
parked car. Landed on the top tube and it sure wasn't my head that needed protection.

 

If it says ANSI (or better yet, Snell) approved, probably not. Some are more comfortable, have
better ventalation, fit better, etc.

The most important thing (after cerification (ANSI/Snell) is fit. If it doesn't fit correctly, it
won't do as good a job of protecting your noodle.

Ask the shop salesman to help you in selection of a proper fitting model and showing you how to get
it to fit properly.

If he (she) can't or wont. look fior a better shop. It is your brain were talking about, after all.
And unlike other bodilly organs, it doesn't repair it self real good.

May you have the wind at your back. And a really low gear for the hills! Chris

Chris'Z Corner "The Website for the Common Bicyclist": http://www.geocities.com/czcorner

 

On Tue, 15 Apr 2003 16:07:08 -0400, JD wrote:

> With regards to some of Tim's comments.... Just ask yourself...if you knew you were going to crash
> and hit your head, would you rather have a helmet on??
>
> Tim is right in that you never know for sure if it is gonna save you or not, but I think it is
> safe to say that if you -do- hit your head in a crash, your -chances- of survival are gonna be a
> lot better with a helmet..

And, of course, you never know in advance.

As you might have read here a couple of weeks ago, on 1 April I was coming home from work and had
the front tire on a Moulton blow out. The result was a catastrophic loss of front end stability,
followed immediately by augering into the pavement at about 15 mph. Totally unexpected, zero
warning. Bam! Crash! Just like that.

I was quite glad I had the helmet on. In fact, the impact ruined the helmet. I cannot imagine any
circumstance in which I would have been better off _not_ having it on at that moment.

I'm certainly not claiming I wouldn't have survived without it, but I'm pretty damn sure I would
have had more than a couple of minutes of fuzzy, slow thinking and a bit of a headache to accompany
the road rash (which I wrote about here because the bandaging I tried was so utterly spectacularly
wonderful), the feeling that I'd been pounded on the shoulder by someone with the skills of a Rocky
Marciano in his prime, and a few other assorted muscle aches.

At the very minimum, I'd have had road rash on my head and my face, and who needs that? Beyond that,
I'd bet money I'd have had a much more serious blow to the head. Been there; had the shit kicked out
me plenty when I was a kid. I don't need to spend half a day with a head full of the buzzing of
bees, unable to read because the letters were dancing little dots, again.

 

In article <[email protected]>, "Richard Ney" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Tim McNamara writes:
>
> > Mainly the issue is ventilation- bike helmets are vented to reduce the amount of sweat running
> > into your eyes.
>
> The ventilation and padding are inadequate on hot days. I find that the sweat drips from the
> padding down my face into my eyes. Because of that, I wear a helmet infrequently, opting instead
> for a cycling cap which absorbs a great deal more sweat thus preventing the aforementioned sweat
> in the eyes.

Well, inadequate for you perhaps. I rarely have trouble with this, but I know people wo do. Must
depend on how many sweat glands you have in your scalp or something.

The biggest annoyance I have with helmets is what to do with the dang thing when you're not riding.
Then it becomes a PITA. I don't wear a helmet when I'm riding to work for that reason, I have no
where to put the thing (my work situation is a little unusual).

 

In article <[email protected]>, "JD" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Just ask yourself...if you knew you were going to crash and hit your head, would you rather have a
> helmet on??
>
> Tim is right in that you never know for sure if it is gonna save you or not, but I think it is
> safe to say that if you -do- hit your head in a crash, your -chances- of survival are gonna be a
> lot better with a helmet..

Here you are talking about beliefs rather than facts, and the two should not be confused. Beliefs
may make you feel better but do not protect your head.

 

JD wrote:
>
> With regards to some of Tim's comments.... Just ask yourself...if you knew you were going to crash
> and hit your head, would you rather have a helmet on??

Please remember, riding in cars causes 50% of the head injury deaths in America. It's by _far_ the
biggest head injury problem. Riding bikes is less than 1%, and even on a per-hour basis, it's not a
serious head injury risk.

So if you go for a ride in your car, ask yourself: if you knew you were going to get hit in the
driver's door, would you rather have a helmet on?

(I was going to say "... hit in the driver's door by a pro-war yuppie yakking on a cell phone,
driving an SUV paid for by a rich-person's tax cut, who was driving because he couldn't use his
recumbent in traffic" ... but I figure, one flame war at a time!)

--
Frank Krygowski [email protected]

 

Tim, I stand corrected. Since there is no proof that helmets help, no one should wear them. Amen!

"Tim McNamara" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, "Richard Ney" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Tim McNamara writes:
> >
> > > Mainly the issue is ventilation- bike helmets are vented to reduce the amount of sweat running
> > > into your eyes.
> >
> > The ventilation and padding are inadequate on hot days. I find that the sweat drips from the
> > padding down my face into my eyes. Because of that, I wear a helmet infrequently, opting instead
> > for a cycling cap which absorbs a great deal more sweat thus preventing the aforementioned sweat
> > in the eyes.
>
> Well, inadequate for you perhaps. I rarely have trouble with this, but I know people wo do. Must
> depend on how many sweat glands you have in your scalp or something.
>
> The biggest annoyance I have with helmets is what to do with the dang thing when you're not
> riding. Then it becomes a PITA. I don't wear a helmet when I'm riding to work for that reason, I
> have no where to put the thing (my work situation is a little unusual).

 

Dick <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...

> I have yet to hear someone utter, after a crash, "damn, I wish I hadn't been wearing my helmet".

I have. Well, he may not have used those exact words but the sentiment was similar. It was a rider
who was forced onto the grass during the sprint at the end of a criterium. He executed a nice
forward roll but the tail of the helmet caught the ground. Back in the changing room he had a broken
helmet and a very sore neck. He was convinced that without the helmet he would have been completely
unscathed.

For fashion, aerodynamics and ventilation go for the sort of helmets you see everyone else wearing.
For protection from injury I suspect that round helmets are better, provided the shell and internal
padding are to the same standard. They cover more of your head and are less likely to twist it in
an impact.

--
Dave...

 

On Tue, 15 Apr 2003 21:25:58 -0400, Tim McNamara wrote:

> The biggest annoyance I have with helmets is what to do with the dang thing when you're not
> riding. Then it becomes a PITA. I don't wear a helmet when I'm riding to work for that reason, I
> have no where to put the thing (my work situation is a little unusual).

While I'm at work, my helmet hangs off the top tube on my bike. No PITA there.

 

On Tue, 15 Apr 2003 22:48:35 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:

> Please remember, riding in cars causes 50% of the head injury deaths in America. It's by _far_ the
> biggest head injury problem. Riding bikes is less than 1%, and even on a per-hour basis, it's not
> a serious head injury risk.

It's entirely irrelevant. The question is simply this: if you crash, would you rather have one on,
or not? Since I went through this two weeks ago, my answer is very fresh in my mind: hell yes, I
want it on. It certainly, obviously helped me.

Injuries due to auto accidents, incidence of SARS, cases of the clap: all irrelevant.

 

Steve Palincsar wrote:
>
> On Tue, 15 Apr 2003 22:48:35 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
> > Please remember, riding in cars causes 50% of the head injury deaths in America. It's by _far_
> > the biggest head injury problem. Riding bikes is less than 1%, and even on a per-hour basis,
> > it's not a serious head injury risk.
>
> It's entirely irrelevant. The question is simply this: if you crash, would you rather have one on,
> or not? Since I went through this two weeks ago, my answer is very fresh in my mind: hell yes, I
> want it on. It certainly, obviously helped me.
>
> Injuries due to auto accidents, incidence of SARS, cases of the clap: all irrelevant.

Sorry, I think the level of danger is relevant.

As one extreme example: a certain author wrote a book on the public's perception of risk a few years
ago. In it, this author talked about the many risks he took, personally, including backpacking in
extreme terrain where, as he put it, one misstep to either side would mean certain death.

He felt justified in assuming that risk, because he was so confident of his skill. However, he felt
very afraid for his neighbor, who rode a bike on a quiet suburban street without a helmet. To me,
his inconsistency was irrational.

It seems obvious to me that a rational decision on protective equipment would involve a rational
assessment of risk. If two activities have similar risks of a certain injury, that tends to indicate
similar levels of protection should be considered. Of course, level of risk is not the _only_
criterion, but it's a fundamental one.

How do we assess level or risk? One good way is to compare to levels of risk of other activities.
With bike head injuries, that's not done. People commonly say they want protection against _any_
possibility of a head injury - but only when they're on a bike! They ignore 99+% of the "serious
head injury" problem, yet demonize bicycling's tiny contribution.

It's anti-cycling.

--
Frank Krygowski [email protected]

 

In article <[email protected]>, "JD" <[email protected]> wrote:

> I stand corrected. Since there is no proof that helmets help, no one should wear them. Amen!

Hey, that's not my point. There's no conclusive proof that helmets provide protection or don't. You
decide whether to wear one or not based on your own risk analysis for your own situation.

Like I said, I wear one most of the time when riding even though I rarely crash (and haven't crashed
outside of a racing situation in the past decade or more). I wear it mainly because of Minnesota's
sharp increase in oblivious morons behind the wheels of SUVs. If nothing else I figure it may help
keep the road rash off my head.

 

In article <[email protected]>, Steve Palincsar <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Tue, 15 Apr 2003 21:25:58 -0400, Tim McNamara wrote:
>
> > The biggest annoyance I have with helmets is what to do with the dang thing when you're not
> > riding. Then it becomes a PITA. I don't wear a helmet when I'm riding to work for that reason, I
> > have no where to put the thing (my work situation is a little unusual).
>
> While I'm at work, my helmet hangs off the top tube on my bike. No PITA there.

In many of the neighborhoods in which I work, I'd just be a helmet donor if I did that. For many
people this would probably work fine. As I mentioned, I have an unusual work situation- two to four
work sites a day, five days a week; because there's no good way to clean up and change at work, I
ride in street clothes at a sedate pace when commuting.

 

On Wed, 16 Apr 2003 14:08:30 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:

> Steve Palincsar wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 15 Apr 2003 22:48:35 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>
>> > Please remember, riding in cars causes 50% of the head injury deaths in America. It's by _far_
>> > the biggest head injury problem. Riding bikes is less than 1%, and even on a per-hour basis,
>> > it's not a serious head injury risk.
>>
>> It's entirely irrelevant. The question is simply this: if you crash, would you rather have one
>> on, or not? Since I went through this two weeks ago, my answer is very fresh in my mind: hell
>> yes, I want it on. It certainly, obviously helped me.
>>
>> Injuries due to auto accidents, incidence of SARS, cases of the clap: all irrelevant.
>
> Sorry, I think the level of danger is relevant.

I think I'm a better judge of the danger I was in during that crash than you. It was, after all, my
body hitting the deck, not yours. And the plain simple fact is, had I followed your advice rather
than mine on 1 April, I'd have incurred injuries that I thankfully avoided, and that I was quite
happy to have avoided.

> As one extreme example: a certain author wrote a book on the public's perception of risk a few
> years ago. In it, this author talked about the many risks he took, personally, including
> backpacking in extreme terrain where, as he put it, one misstep to either side would mean
> certain death.

We disagree utterly. I care absolutely nothing for discussions of the public's perception of risk
vis a vis cycling, and it's entirely irrelevant to this discussion. Once again, what _is_ relevant
is this: if you crash, would you be better off with, or without that helmet?

You think statistical information about risk level will somehow keep you from having an accident; in
the case of the accident I had on 1 April, the statistical chance of that accident was very low
indeed. In over 30 years of cycling I've never had a front tire blow out at the bead the way this
one did; and I've never had a sudden and complete loss of front end stability the way I did that
day. I never once augered into the ground the way I did that day. I've had plenty of rear BAM!
blowouts, always from the tire jumping off the rim, and never suffered a total loss of control.

So the crash was as unlikely as hell. Did it happen? Trust me, it happened. Was I "ready" for it?
Only in the sense that since it was chilly I had on a pretty thick long-sleeve shirt under my
jersey and a pair of tights on my legs; and because I always wear them, I had a helmet and cycling
gloves on.

> It seems obvious to me that a rational decision on protective equipment would involve a rational
> assessment of risk. If two activities have similar risks of a certain injury, that tends to
> indicate similar levels of protection should be considered. Of course, level of risk is not the
> _only_ criterion, but it's a fundamental one.
>
> How do we assess level or risk? One good way is to compare to levels of risk of other activities.
> With bike head injuries, that's not done. People commonly say they want protection against _any_
> possibility of a head injury - but only when they're on a bike! They ignore 99+% of the "serious
> head injury" problem, yet demonize bicycling's tiny contribution.
>
> It's anti-cycling.

Nonsense. I'm not demonizing anything. Even though my personal safety record is quite good, much
better than average, I have no illusions of personal invulnerability, and I realize that if I'm
moving along at something like 15 mph -- nothing fast, just ordinary cruising -- and something goes
wrong, I'm probably going to hit the deck at a speed fast enough to hurt when I go down.

Mostly, the sort of things I've had happen, or have seen happen, are pretty common, painful and
inconvenient but not particularly serious: road rash, broken clavicle. Not really threatening, and
not much you can do to protect against them other than common sense stuff like don't ride without a
shirt, don't get in pace lines with people you don't know - ordinary road sense. About the only
really nasty thing that can easily turn something like this very serious is when you manage to smack
your head on the pavement, maybe drag it along for a bit. And this you can do something about, at
modest financial cost and no cost of inconvenience or discomfort.

So why wouldn't you want to? And why would you waste your time worrying about relative risk in other
activities in life that have no relationship to this sport?

OK, you don't think it's dangerous enough. Fine - it's your head, and good luck to you. But I'll bet
if it'd been you rather than me coming off 14th St Bridge on the bike path at about quarter to 5 on
the 1st of April, you'd be sorry you made that choice. I made a different choice, and make no
mistake, I'm happy as can be.

 

On Tue, 15 Apr 2003 23:04:10 +0800, "}=CroW={" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Are there really any major different between using stylish cycling helmets( Giro, Met etc.)
> and those hard plastic round helmets(California pro type).

You're going to sweat like a pig, wearing a piss-pot helmet.

There's also an impact issue. Bike helmets are designed to absorb impact destructively, in a big
one-off accident. Most sporting helmets are designed for repeated small impacts. If you ever do
really need that helmet, it'll be for the big shunts.