What kind of helmet do you use?

I wear a Bell muti-sport helmet like skaters wear. It fits me better than any bike helmet I've tried. It's rated for bicycle use.

If I go through somebodies windshield it probably won't do me any good but it might catch my blood from ruining the car upholstery.
 
I don't know about that. The multis at least have a hard plastic shell.. Most cheap goods are plastic these days so people tend to think of it as cheesy, but a lot of DOT helmets are still made of good plastics. And the way auto glass shatters I can't see it defeating that multi shell. Other words I think there's a not-insignificant chance it will help you against a windshield. Much better chance than one of the aero bike ones.
 
Best helmet in the world is this one

http://www.schuberth.de/index.php?id=22

I have one which I use for my motorbike but Im seriously thinking of using it with my bicycle too - it is very very (shockingly) light, has amazing side visibility, built in sunglasses and chin bar protector.

One problem - costs an arm and a leg
 
Best helmet in the world is this one

http://www.schuberth.de/index.php?id=22

I have one which I use for my motorbike but Im seriously thinking of using it with my bicycle too - it is very very (shockingly) light, has amazing side visibility, built in sunglasses and chin bar protector.
Click to expand...



Looks very interesting - the best of both worlds!

How much is it?
 
most bicycle helmets have too many ventalation holes for my liking! surely they weaken the helmet design? i shoved extra styrene into the vent holes in my helmet cos i wanted to be extra safe and i don't need vent holes on an ebike. what do you think?
 
kazbluesky said:
Best helmet in the world is this one

http://www.schuberth.de/index.php?id=22

I have one which I use for my motorbike but Im seriously thinking of using it with my bicycle too - it is very very (shockingly) light, has amazing side visibility, built in sunglasses and chin bar protector.

One problem - costs an arm and a leg
Click to expand...

I think this one would be really nice for faster ebikes. I wonder if its available on this continent and how much it is.
 
monster said:
most bicycle helmets have too many ventalation holes for my liking! surely they weaken the helmet design? i shoved extra styrene into the vent holes in my helmet cos i wanted to be extra safe and i don't need vent holes on an ebike. what do you think?
Click to expand...
I don't think anybody expects their computer monitor, DVD player or plasma screen TV to survive falling off the back of a lorry at 30MPH.
They're packed in thicker, and often more resilient, foam than found in bicycle helmets. FWIW
 
Just my $0.02 on this.

I ride in a rather large bike club for this area, where we have 150+ cyclist on the road at once.

One of the more popular rides is down Natchez Trace, because it bans commercial traffic and speed limits max at 50 MPH through out the park. It has nice wide shoulders and silky smooth pavement all the way from Tennessee to Mississippi.

About 3 years ago, during one of the "mega" rides, we had about 100 riders going down one of the many steep hills on the trace. It was a 2 man wide 50 cyclist long line down the lane. I was in the back (yes on my e-bike, I never make it a point to lead because no one can keep up,hehe). So here we are, all 100 of us doing 35+ MPH down this hill when someone in the very front falls over and nearly all 100 of them crashed at 35+ MPH. It was a terrible site because people went flipping, crashing, skidding, EVERYWHERE!!

Luckily, there was no oncoming cars because many people would have died from that because 20 people skidded across the oncoming lane in the ditch. There was a lot of road rash, blood, and helmet pieces everywhere. I was in the back, so I was able to stop before the chain reaction got us, but out of the 100+ people, about 90 of them crashed bad.

(4) ambulances later; not a single head injury, but about 4 them had broken ribs, broken legs, arms, etc. Everyone else had either road rash or a mouth full of dirt; all made a full recovery though and the bicycle helmets, for as plastic and cheap as they may look, did their job to avoid giving anyone brain damage or death. They shattered like crazy from hitting other cyclist, the pavement, the ditch, etc. But that just reminds me of how Nascar vehicles shatter into a million pieces during a major wreck, but the driver walks away.

So when I see a study that claims that helmets don't make a difference, to me it's just a spin on numbers. You can make data stay anything you want with enough spin on the math. You can also get brain damage at 8 MPH if you head hits a solid wall, so I think any speed *can be dangerous* on a bicycle. Not because we aren't careful, but because we can't plan for the unexpected.
 
You know what I get from your post is, what a bunch of idiots.

What was everyone doing following so close that they ended up crashing (besides you of course) after someone fell in front of them? Were they fair weather bicyclist, have they not seen the crashes like this in bicycle races?

Like you, I would have given the idiots plenty of room knowing any little mishap would spell disaster.

Helmet, smelmet, there should have been someone in charge, with a bike meeting at the start of the event explaining how to ride safe and give yourself plenty of reaction time to avoid people around you.

Any common sense among the group?

Deron.
 
knightmb said:
So when I see a study that claims that helmets don't make a difference, to me it's just a spin on numbers. You can make data stay anything you want with enough spin on the math. You can also get brain damage at 8 MPH if you head hits a solid wall, so I think any speed *can be dangerous* on a bicycle. Not because we aren't careful, but because we can't plan for the unexpected.
Click to expand...

I don't think there is such a study. Nobody can plan for the unexpected. Luckily we know what the most common types of bike accidents are and can ride accordingly.
 
deronmoped said:
You know what I get from your post is, what a bunch of idiots.

What was everyone doing following so close that they ended up crashing (besides you of course) after someone fell in front of them? Were they fair weather bicyclist, have they not seen the crashes like this in bicycle races?

Like you, I would have given the idiots plenty of room knowing any little mishap would spell disaster.

Helmet, smelmet, there should have been someone in charge, with a bike meeting at the start of the event explaining how to ride safe and give yourself plenty of reaction time to avoid people around you.

Any common sense among the group?

Deron.
Click to expand...

It's common practice for cyclists to follow each other closely, for drafting and so that they can be passed easily. Not sure how necessary that is when going down hill. However it sounds like the helmets did a fantastic job of preventing head injuries.
 
deronmoped said:
You know what I get from your post is, what a bunch of idiots.

What was everyone doing following so close that they ended up crashing (besides you of course) after someone fell in front of them? Were they fair weather bicyclist, have they not seen the crashes like this in bicycle races?

Like you, I would have given the idiots plenty of room knowing any little mishap would spell disaster.

Helmet, smelmet, there should have been someone in charge, with a bike meeting at the start of the event explaining how to ride safe and give yourself plenty of reaction time to avoid people around you.

Any common sense among the group?

Deron.
Click to expand...

It's a common thing to draft and these types of lines have been done for years without incident. The problem was, it takes a lot of practice to do a pace line.

When the rider fell over in the front, it sent his bike flying backwards into the others behind him like a missile. That's what started the chain reaction. I know you may be thinking everyone was riding wheel on wheel, but they don't ride that close. Each rider keeps about a bicycle length between each other. The problem was, at that speed, reaction time isn't quick enough, plus I know of lot of them panic and slid off to the side which caused other accidents along the way.

So needless to say, they no longer do pace lines that long anymore, it's broken up into smaller groups. So regardless of how bad of an idea it was for everyone to try it, it doesn't negate the fact that the helmets did what they were designed to do. That group along could have been it's own statistic for crashes if no one was wearing any helmets.

To me, it's not different than the 30 car pile ups that happen on the Interstate. It doesn't mean all those people wanted to crash or were stupid, it just means a bad situation affected a lot of people at once.
 
knightmb said:
It's a common thing to draft and these types of lines have been done for years without incident. The problem was, it takes a lot of practice to do a pace line.

When the rider fell over in the front, it sent his bike flying backwards into the others behind him like a missile. That's what started the chain reaction. I know you may be thinking everyone was riding wheel on wheel, but they don't ride that close. Each rider keeps about a bicycle length between each other. The problem was, at that speed, reaction time isn't quick enough, plus I know of lot of them panic and slid off to the side which caused other accidents along the way.

So needless to say, they no longer do pace lines that long anymore, it's broken up into smaller groups. So regardless of how bad of an idea it was for everyone to try it, it doesn't negate the fact that the helmets did what they were designed to do. That group along could have been it's own statistic for crashes if no one was wearing any helmets.

To me, it's not different than the 30 car pile ups that happen on the Interstate. It doesn't mean all those people wanted to crash or were stupid, it just means a bad situation affected a lot of people at once.
Click to expand...

My view is it's an avoidable situation. There is no reason to be that close together in a pace line when going down hill. If they had left more space between each other that all could have been avoided, just as a pile up on the interstate could be avoided by leaving more space in front of you. Helmets prevent head injuries, smart and safe riding prevents accidents and I think if someone really cares about safety they should think first about the latter then about what they're gonna wear on their head. I'm just saying safe riding is more important.

In Copenhagen, a bicycling city, there is a law saying you must have lights on your bike at night, not only is there no law enforcing helmets but hardly anyone wears them. Albeit the bike safety standards there above and beyond anything we could dream of here, they have bike lanes everywhere there and they have safety in numbers.
 
I still think they were quite stupid.

Anyone depending on the guy that is one bicycle length in front of them and one bicycle length in back of them to ride in perfect formation with 100% concentration during this type of ride is fooling themselves. Heck if you have done any riding at all, you find out real quick that to follow or lead even one person with little spacing leads to near collisions.

Here is where I going to throw something at you guys that you will probably deny.

The helmets contributed to the crash!

It has been shown that when people feel safer they take more risks. This has been proven to be a human trait. Take cars, with some of the safety features and perceived safety they added, people took more risks. Better brakes, steering, road handling, decrease in perceived speed... have all changed the way people drive their cars. No longer do they drive like they did in 50's, 60's and 70's, speeds have gone up, following distances have gone down, people take more risks...

Helmets are no exception, people feel safer when they put a helmet on, so they have a tendency to take more risks.

Ask yourself this: Would you be more likely to ride at high speeds in a big group with bicyclist within a bicycle length you with a helmet on? "I have my helmet on, so that will protect me".

Now ask yourself this: Would you put yourself into the same situation without a helmet on? Or would you say to yourself, "Man, I left my helmet at home, I do not want to risk it".

Deron.
 
Besides helmets you even mentioned some of the other contributing factors to taking more risks.

"One of the more popular rides is down Natchez Trace, because it bans commercial traffic and speed limits max at 50 MPH through out the park. It has nice wide shoulders and silky smooth pavement all the way from Tennessee to Mississippi."

Less traffic, you feel safer = more risks taken.

Slower traffic, you feel safer = more risks taken.

Nice wide shoulders and silky smooth pavement, you feel safer = more risks.

With just the opposite, lots of traffic, faster traffic, narrow shoulders rough roads and no helmets, hell, no will be out there riding. :(

Deron.
 
The Stig said:
knightmb said:
It's a common thing to draft and these types of lines have been done for years without incident. The problem was, it takes a lot of practice to do a pace line.

When the rider fell over in the front, it sent his bike flying backwards into the others behind him like a missile. That's what started the chain reaction. I know you may be thinking everyone was riding wheel on wheel, but they don't ride that close. Each rider keeps about a bicycle length between each other. The problem was, at that speed, reaction time isn't quick enough, plus I know of lot of them panic and slid off to the side which caused other accidents along the way.

So needless to say, they no longer do pace lines that long anymore, it's broken up into smaller groups. So regardless of how bad of an idea it was for everyone to try it, it doesn't negate the fact that the helmets did what they were designed to do. That group along could have been it's own statistic for crashes if no one was wearing any helmets.

To me, it's not different than the 30 car pile ups that happen on the Interstate. It doesn't mean all those people wanted to crash or were stupid, it just means a bad situation affected a lot of people at once.
Click to expand...

My view is it's an avoidable situation. There is no reason to be that close together in a pace line when going down hill. If they had left more space between each other that all could have been avoided, just as a pile up on the interstate could be avoided by leaving more space in front of you. Helmets prevent head injuries, smart and safe riding prevents accidents and I think if someone really cares about safety they should think first about the latter then about what they're gonna wear on their head. I'm just saying safe riding is more important.

In Copenhagen, a bicycling city, there is a law saying you must have lights on your bike at night, not only is there no law enforcing helmets but hardly anyone wears them. Albeit the bike safety standards there above and beyond anything we could dream of here, they have bike lanes everywhere there and they have safety in numbers.
Click to expand...
Normally I would agree, but break out some math (spin) on it and things change. Large car pile ups, unless people keep a 300 feet driving distance, your vehicle can cover the distance at highway speeds every second. So even given reaction times, your speed, coupled with the fact that brakes don't stop you instantly (that would be bad of course if they did), and then reaction time for something unexpected, you just have too many variables to make a safe assumption on how everyone would react.

But, if you talk to them, they would disagree of course. All new pacelines are only single file (no more double file) and limit to about 25 riders and only those that have experience in it are allowed to lead, anyone else can just trail for safety reasons. No accidents since then, but really neither of us can prove that the former and new setup they use is any safer because that depends on the riders involved.
 
deronmoped said:
I still think they were quite stupid.

Anyone depending on the guy that is one bicycle length in front of them and one bicycle length in back of them to ride in perfect formation with 100% concentration during this type of ride is fooling themselves. Heck if you have done any riding at all, you find out real quick that to follow or lead even one person with little spacing leads to near collisions.
Click to expand...
You don't need 100% formation, that's why the distance allows for flexibility so you can speed up or slow down to prevent collisions.
Here is where I going to throw something at you guys that you will probably deny.

The helmets contributed to the crash!

It has been shown that when people feel safer they take more risks. This has been proven to be a human trait. Take cars, with some of the safety features and perceived safety they added, people took more risks. Better brakes, steering, road handling, decrease in perceived speed... have all changed the way people drive their cars. No longer do they drive like they did in 50's, 60's and 70's, speeds have gone up, following distances have gone down, people take more risks...

Helmets are no exception, people feel safer when they put a helmet on, so they have a tendency to take more risks.

Ask yourself this: Would you be more likely to ride at high speeds in a big group with bicyclist within a bicycle length you with a helmet on? "I have my helmet on, so that will protect me".

Now ask yourself this: Would you put yourself into the same situation without a helmet on? Or would you say to yourself, "Man, I left my helmet at home, I do not want to risk it".

Deron.
Click to expand...
Actually, the cause of the crash was mechanical. The front fork had one of the sides break, so the wheel bent sideways (became a brake basically) and it sent him flipping over his bike and of course it went right into the riders behind it. So if you want to get technical, the cause of the crash was more of the bike than the riding skills of it's rider.

But, we can both debate what impact helmets have on the feelings of others, but that's not really a scientific way to look at it. The hard science is basically will it protect your head from a crash? They do that very well, I've seen that first hand.

Now if they make people want to go faster, that's all personal preference. There are plenty in the bike club that ride without helmets because they feel it will do more damage to their head or that they have *ninja* skills to avoid any major injuries during a crash :roll:

So if anyone ask me if helmets save lives, I say yes and there is a lot of evidence for that. If anyone ask me if helmets make people ride to fast, well it's a subjective question, so it varies depends on who you ask.

If I forgot my helmet (and that has happened twice where I rode to some place and for some reason, started off down the road without my helmet), then yes I ride much slower. Not because the helmet gives me super powers, but because I know that riding faster without it increases my risk of injury if an accident occurs. So is it a vicious cycle? No different than what I would experience in a car. I do 70 MPH in my car and not worry, but that doesn't mean I would feel any less safe driving at 120MPH. I just know that driving that fast increases my risk of injury or crash, even if I am able to walk away unharmed from the accident. I feel the same way with my e-bike. I have no problem doing over 50MPH on it. Because I know it can handle it and I know what roads I can safety do this speed on.

If I have an accident at 5MPH or 50MPH, I want a helmet on my head.
 
Zoot Katz said:
I don't think anybody expects their computer monitor, DVD player or plasma screen TV to survive falling off the back of a lorry at 30MPH.
They're packed in thicker, and often more resilient, foam than found in bicycle helmets. FWIW
Click to expand...

I think this is the first time I've taken issue with anything you've had to say Zoot, but I've worked in a warehouse. The Styrofoam used in packing is not as compressed as the stuff used in helmets or car bumpers. Totally different properties even though it looks the same. You can poke your finger right in to packing Styrofoam. Try that with a helmet.. its way too compressed for that. Anyway, I've handled plenty of bike helmets, motorcycle helmets, auto bumpers, and packing materials, and this has been my experience.
 
vanilla ice said:
Zoot Katz said:
I don't think anybody expects their computer monitor, DVD player or plasma screen TV to survive falling off the back of a lorry at 30MPH.
They're packed in thicker, and often more resilient, foam than found in bicycle helmets. FWIW
Click to expand...

I think this is the first time I've taken issue with anything you've had to say Zoot, but I've worked in a warehouse. The Styrofoam used in packing is not as compressed as the stuff used in helmets or car bumpers. Totally different properties even though it looks the same. You can poke your finger right in to packing Styrofoam. Try that with a helmet.. its way too compressed for that. Anyway, I've handled plenty of bike helmets, motorcycle helmets, auto bumpers, and packing materials, and this has been my experience.
Click to expand...

Okay, I'll partially retract that statement with qualifications. The styrofoam packing, on a microwave oven for instance, is thicker at the corners than any I've seen in any squash pot. True it's not as dense as what's found in magic beanies, so therefore compresses more and absorbing more energy. No?
I wasn't able to push my finger through it or any of the thinner sections. It's just as brittle though. Other neat packaging is more like a sponge except it doesn't absorb water and is harder to compress.

I once put a new buckle on the strap of a "Motorino" branded Polish made scooter hat. It was the crappiest styrofoam helmet liner I'd ever encountered.
The helmet industry promotes replacing your helmet every three years due to deterioration of the magic foam and shrink wrap. (Bunk, IMO)

Expecting a bicycle helmet to withstand any impact at greater than the 14mph for which they're certified is ridiculous. That's my point.

A thick wool toque would provide protection against most of the same head injuries used as data points in the Thompson/Rivera study. Scalp wounds, scraped chins and cut ears count as head injuries. They outnumber brain concussions and cracked skulls. Landing hard on your butt can cause a concussion.

Helmet wars aren't my interest. I've worn one since ~1976 and never used it. It's deflected a few more bugs than it's caught. Whether or not others decide to wear one is their business but I don't think they should expect a styrofoam beanie to "save their life". There are stories of helmets simply splitting in half from being tossed onto the ground.
 

Attachments

  • bump-beanies.jpg
    bump-beanies.jpg
    30.7 KB · Views: 1,693
philf said:
I still just *love* the streamlined GE unit... It's a work of art, that. I just get so gooey every time I see it...

*sigh*.
Click to expand...

And as a signed limited edition work of art, it has its price.

I do have an unworn second one.

You wanna start a bidding war?
 
Zoot Katz said:
These 1967 GE kettles are scarce now.
This one went for $120
Click to expand...

Where would you like to start? Say... $150?

I'm serious, BTW...

As an aside... The pics you've been posting of late include plenty of peripheral information. I like your space.

(Wow. Didn't THAT sound creepy?)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top