fell off bike

going downhill from my house on the way to work at 32mph both wheels slid from beneath me as i rounded a slight bend.amazingly bike was ok.but i have a nasty gravel rash on my left arm and hip and its a bit sore to walk.i wont be belting down that hill again.roads are definetely more slippy at this time of year.take care folks.

Sorry to hear of your fall Subevo, I think the roads in Autumn are as bad as when there's ice, the oily sap from decaying leaf fall being at least as treacherous.

 

A good rainfall washes it away, and the forecast seems to be indicating more rain over the next week, so hopefully things will improve a bit.

.

Phew 32 mph:eek: Lucky to get away with scrapes.

I would be interested to know if Subevo was wearing a helmet at the time of the fall.

I would be interested to know if Subevo was wearing a helmet at the time of the fall.

It sounds like the sort of crash where a helmet could do more harm than good. When sliding off like that the helmet could catch on the road surface and wrench the neck violently and cause severe injury.

Fully agree, allotmenteer, that is one reason why I was interested.

 

Another reason for my interest is that this type of injury is a fine example of how most of the body is unprotected when a helmet is worn, (and they provide very little protection, if any, even for the area they cover).

 

I wish all those, particularly non-cyclists, who succomb to the propaganda about helmet wearing would just do a simple plain-sight observation of the helmet wearing cyclist, and note that in fact 95% of the body is not covered by the helmet. The uncovered part is vulnerable to very serious, life-threatening, and often life-long, injury eg, ruptured spleen (bleed to death in 20 minutes), crushed pelvis (impotence, infertility, permanent catherisation), broken limbs (impaired movement, arthritis, etc).

 

For those who prefer to do their observation from the couch, there is a commerial currently running which features a full frontal of a very attractive female cyclist with the upper part of her head encased in the usual plastic bowl: her body looks so vulnerable to the following motor traffic that I have been unable to notice what is actually being advertised.

 

My second interest in this case is whether a helmet increased the rider's confidence so that he sped down the hill faster than he would otherwise have done. Such confidence is entirely misplaced given the evidence from analysis of cycle accidents where a helmet was worn and the precise speed at point of impact was ascertained. Such evidence, when heeded, soon destroys any confidence in the efficacy of helmets which may have come from purely anecdotal accounts along the lines of "I was going at 30mph, and my helmet saved my life".

I'm with Rooel and Allotmenteer on this issue too.

 

My experiences of sliding off a bike on slippery surfaces is always of side landing with an instinctive and entirely automatic reaction of raising the head to a more vertical position, away from the point of impact.

 

Evolution in action, instincts instilled through falls hundreds of thousands of years before bikes existed.

.

It sounds like the sort of crash where a helmet could do more harm than good. When sliding off like that the helmet could catch on the road surface and wrench the neck violently and cause severe injury.

 

Can anyone provide an example of this happening? It's an argument currently in vogue, but what's the evidence?

Can anyone provide an example of this happening? It's an argument currently in vogue, but what's the evidence?

 

There's associated research evidence that indicated the greatly increased head size of a motor cycle helmet increases the chance of impact from street furniture, quite logical of course, plus the fact that the increased weight of the head and helmet greatly increases the risk of neck injury in an accident.

 

Logically, the way in which a cycle helmet can slip off the head backwards on impact and use the neckstrap as a garrotte concerns me, since that could clearly cause a neck injury or death.

 

Ultimately it's a matter of weighing up the relative values of a large number of very rarely happening possibilities and making a personal decision as to whether to wear a helmet or not. It's certainly not a matter for law, given the muddiness of the issue.

.

It may not be possible to find an example of this happening, but simple observation shows that the circumference and diameter of a helmet is about twice that of the head itself.

 

The combined head/helmet is more likely to come in contact with a solid object, especially in a fallover type of fall where the shoulder or elbow are normally first to hit the ground, while the head without a helmet does not. If the helmet wearing head comes in contact with the ground while still moving the head is likely to be dragged back causing a twisted neck at least. The dragging will be stronger if the grooves, or straps, in the helmet catch on the ground.

I don't think helmets should be compulsory for adults and I personally don't wear one. However, I do think I would be safer if I did.... I'm always curious about evidence to the contrary, though.

 

The fact that the helmet leaves the rest of the body exposed is irrelevant.

 

Whatever statistical evidence there is for "risk compensation", it's something that I, as an individual, feel that I should be able to counter-compensate:D

Of course, a helmet is a very convenient place to mount a mirror...

Of course, a helmet is a very convenient place to mount a mirror...

 

Surely you don't attend to your makeup while riding Mary?

.

 

The fact that the helmet leaves the rest of the body exposed is irrelevant.

 

 

I would not agree that this is irrelevant. If cyclists and, more importantly, motor drivers, do not realise the lack of protection for more than 95% of the body, their confidence in the protection provided by a helmet is misplaced. Some drivers treat helmet wearing cyclists as having total protection, and some cyclists ride as though the helmet will protect them from everything. (I have even encountered some, admittedly non-cyclists, who believe that helmets "prevent accidents".)

 

For myself, knowing that a helmet provides little, if any, protection to the area it covers, and no protection at all to the rest of the body, and that it may in fact exacerbate the consequences of a collision, I protect myself instead by careful choice of route, and where motor traffic cannot be avoided, riding in accordance with all the best advice on how to do so*, while ignoring all the ill-founded advice about wearing a helmet.

 

*including not going too fast down hills!

Edited November 20, 200718 yr by rooel

Nothing you've said convinces me that it's more dangerous to wear a helmet. Frankly, that's all I'm interested in. Everything else is statistical voodoo and there's certainly a lot of that about.

Nothing you've said convinces me that it's more dangerous to wear a helmet. Frankly, that's all I'm interested in.

 

Better read this quick then!

 

Press Release - 11 September 2006 University of Bath

 

Just one survey, albeit a prolonged one. However, one can try it oneself, even if, like me one does not own a helmet: bareheaded, I find that sensible drivers pass more cautiously than when I am wearing my soft cap.

Yes, I read that when it came out. Seems like what's needed is driver education. I'd be dubious of using this kind of small scale study as a reason for not wearing a helmet. How does one quantify the actual risk and balance it against others?

Edited November 20, 200718 yr by Miles

I had a rather nasty accident myself in autumn the second year I had the bike. The cyclist in front of me moved out to overtake parked cars and I followed her, having a quick glance behind for traffic. She then braked suddenly because she had forgotten to look over her shoulder at the point it would have actually made sense to, just as I was also glancing behind because I was about to move out around the cars. Of course, she carried on blithely unaware of the bus which had been following me too closely hitting my back wheel as I braked to avoid her after finding myself on top of her wobbling all over the place too close when I looked forward again. I ended up flying head over heels (via a nasty collision of my crotch with the handlebars) in spectacular fashion. I was set to land on my head I guess, but instinctively rolled to protect it , which saved me any further damage. My bike went under the bus, but it had enough clearance it was also, miraculously, not damaged. Only other injury was my pride, one for being so dumb as to be too close to the bike in front where there was no room to get past her, and two, explaining my injury to the doctor. No point in getting mad at the bus being too close to me, when I was too close to the dippy cyclist in front too.

 

I still dont wear a helmet, the instinctive roll to protect my head having been of more use to me, taking me to the side of the road unbruised instead of under the bus as well. I don't try to get everywhere at high speed though, thinking this is where I can be cautious of my health more.

Helmets: the first one

 

I wore my first cycling helmet today,20/11/2007, UK BIKE STORE LTD BELL 2008 METROPOLIS HELMET WITH RAIN COVER, MIRROR & REAR LIGHT , the chin buckle is a bit of a fiddle & so is the mirror, but on the whole it's quite good. I don't have much faith in them to prevent injury but I think wearing it can't be deleterious, well not seriously. If I did have an accident I couldn't be accused of not being "suitably equipped", in the risk free climate we now live in.

 

Derrick - Llanberis

Edited November 20, 200718 yr by derrick7

Helmets: the first one

 

I wore my first cycling helmet today,20/11/2007, UK BIKE STORE LTD BELL 2008 METROPOLIS HELMET WITH RAIN COVER, MIRROR & REAR LIGHT , the chin buckle is a bit a fiddle & so is the mirror, but on the whole it's quite good. I don't have much faith in them to prevent injury but I think wearing it can't be deleterious, well not seriously. If I did have an accident I couldn't be accused of not being "suitably equipped", in the risk free climate we now live in.

 

Derrick - Llanberis

The whole helmet issue is not one on which I have strong opinions either way, sometimes I wear one, sometimes i don't. However, that is not to say I don't have a view on the compulsion issue to which I am strongly opposed.

 

I do however believe helmets can do more good than harm, a 40mm thick lump of polystyrene foam will crush and absorb considerable energy that may otherwise be absorbed by the skull in the event of a blow to the head, maybe only in certain circumstances and maybe only at low speed but I would rather be wearing one if I hit my head.

 

I don't think anyone can seriously argue that the weight presents a whiplash hazard, my fairly cheap helmet weighs under 200g, only 50g more than my non-protective waxed cotton hat. Even my ordinary woolly hat weighs 100g!

 

Likewise I don't think there is a serious argument that the helmet could catch things in the event of a slide, if it did, in many cases chunks of the helmet would simply break away. Cycle helmets are very weak other than in compression, it's very easy to rip one to pieces with ones fingers.

 

There is also the question of why professional racers wear helmets, they don't normally carry anything that serves no purpose and would jump at the chance to save a couple of hundred grams, some of it may be aerodynamics and some of it may be a place to stick the sponsors name, but surely that could be achieved with just the outer shell at a fraction of the weight.

 

Finally there is the fact that a helmet can help keep ones head warm, which is my main reason for wearing one in winter, and the reason I don't usually wear one in summer.

 

I'm certainly not advocating that people should wear helmets, merely stating that I feel that some of the arguments against are a bit flimsy. To me the fact that a helmet may be uncomfortable or may otherwise detract from the pleasure of cycling is a perfectly good reason for not wearing one.

Edited November 20, 200718 yr by Ian

I think we did the helmet debate a few weeks ago so and don't want to repeat it all, but I see it as being very simple.

 

I see the world dividing into four categories:

1. People who don't wear helmets and don't want anyone else to.

2. People who don't wear helmets and don't have a problem if others do or not

3. People who do wear helmets and don't have a problem if others do or not

4. People who do wear helmets and want to make everyone else either do so or not ride a bike.

 

I'm in category 2.

Ian (above) is sometimes in category 2 and other times in 3.

I completely respect the views and actions of those in 2 and in 3.

I've never come across anyone in category 1.

A small minority appear to be in category 4, and I have a problem with them.

 

That's about all there is to it!

 

Frank

I agree with your sentiments Frank, but I think there are more in category 1 on this issue than you believe.

 

I see myself as category 3.

 

John

Do you really think so John?

 

I think most of those who argue against helmet wearing are arguing the principles of 1) whether they protect, and 2) whether it's a subject for the law.

 

I believe they virtually all fall into category 2 where I am, but like me, just get mad at the suggestion that helmet wearing should be enforced by the zealots.

 

I'm sure nearly all don't care what others wear, just so long as they wear something.

.

Well it does seem so Flecc. There are some people that are very passionate about the supposed added benefits of wearing a helmet for safety and/or other purposes to the point of being bias.

 

I think once someone has bias, then I think its less likely that tolerance is one of their virtues. My own personal opinion only of course.

 

John