Schumacher's Helmet

[Cyclezee]

As I am sure most of you are aware, Michael Schumacher had a serious skiing accident yesterday and although he suffered serious head injuries and his prognosis is uncertain, doctors are saying that he would not have survived if he had not been wearing a helmet.

Daily Telegraph Report
Michael Schumacher remains in a critical condition but would not have survived without a helmet, say doctors - Telegraph

 

[Cakey]

Being an avid skier and dh / road anything that involves speed .
Wearing a helmet is a must , what is scary about skiing is the off piste hidden objects.
It tends to be the blunt trauma that causes most of the fatalities . On a bike you tend to slide hopefully not into an immovable object.
I always wear poc helmets and arai or schuberth on my motor bikes , my head is kind of precious to me.

 

[Cyclezee]

Hi Cakey,

I have to agree, not sure where I heard it, but someone once said in my motorcycling days, "if you have a cheap head, get a cheap helmet".

Out of interest, which model of POC helmet do you use when cycling?

I know this thread may well reignite the old helmet debate, but to be frank I don't care.

It is my personal choice to wear one, everyone else is free to make their own decision.

 

[Cakey]

I use the cortex flow for downhill and trabec MIPS for general cross country , road .
What I like is the lower back skull protection on the trabec.
For snow, runs skull comp swedes , off piste I use the cortex flow.
I did a few black runs , way above my expertise . The worst feeling ever was on the way down I knew I was out of my depth .

 

[flecc]

I know this thread may well reignite the old helmet debate

They catch fire as well!?

 

[Cakey]

Helmet debate will always be an issue .
Had a met giro which connected with a tree stump with me in it.
It saved all my teeth and possible head trauma . Split right in half but did its job .
Until you have a fall and then think what if .
Another incident on the road bike doing 35mph on a slight downhill bend , hit 15 yards of cow slurry , slid off into a garden , my head rattled along the ground for 30 feet approx .
Helmet was nice and groovy , not a mark on me apart from cow s&&t.

 

[flecc]

Helmet debate will always be an issue .

The issue is quite simply risk related, the high risk taker is a far greater influence on head injuries than wearing a helmet.

General purpose cycling, as opposed to sport style riding, has no more risk than walking and thus has no more need for a helmet than that universal activity. I am a general purpose cyclist and my injury free record shows me to be lifelong risk averse.

Skiing is far more dangerous, and off-piste after an official warning against it is very much more dangerous. That Michael Schumacher chose to do that, accompanied by his 14 year old son, shows a willingness to accept risk levels that were high to the point of irresponsibility.

For the sake of his family I hope he survives without any brain damage ill-effects, but his accident has no relevance whatsoever to my cycling.

 

[john h]

flecc i am a General purpose cyclist , being on a bike some 50+ years , in may this year going down a small hilly road; i pulled my brake to slow down a bit, the next thing i know i am flying through the air , landed on my left shoulder, broken a bone ,my helmet was smashed to bits on left side, that would have been my skull( most certainly) for years i was like you never put a helmet on. now i where one every time.

 

[jackhandy]

General purpose cycling, as opposed to sport style riding, has no more risk than walking and thus has no more need for a helmet than that universal activity. .

Apart from being conducted on the carriageway among fast-moving vehicles whose drivers inevitably claim they can't see you & you're moving at 4 to 5 times walking pace when you go over the top & pogo on your head.

IMHO, of course

 

[Cakey]

Yes I agree with flecc , on average most cycle journeys are very un eventful , most cyclists ride at a very safe pace , so minimising any risk. As always each to their own , and would never impose my equipment choice on others.
Skiing for me is different. As stated, I have skied off piste and it can be very risky for the most experienced , what is strange, is that shuey decided to ski very early in the season which increases the danger.

 

[flecc]

I've always thought that risk taking has an immunising effect, the more risks one takes and gets away with, the higher the threshold of risk acceptance becomes.

Given the scale of risks that Shuey has taken over the years with the only one bad consequence due to car failure, not his own, that could account for the risk he took this time, one unaccountable to lesser mortals like us but to him perfectly acceptable.

 

[flecc]

flecc i am a General purpose cyclist , being on a bike some 50+ years , in may this year going down a small hilly road; i pulled my brake to slow down a bit, the next thing i know i am flying through the air , landed on my left shoulder, broken a bone ,my helmet was smashed to bits on left side, that would have been my skull( most certainly) for years i was like you never put a helmet on. now i where one every time.

Apart from being conducted on the carriageway among fast-moving vehicles whose drivers inevitably claim they can't see you & you're moving at 4 to 5 times walking pace when you go over the top & pogo on your head.

IMHO, of course

The "What if" argument is always valid of course, since anything is possible. But what is forgotten is that it's a two way argument, I can equally say "What if I don't have any accident", balancing the two factors.

Using a cycle helmet would have been a huge inconvenience to me over my 67 years of cycling, one not justified by the proven risk to date. And since studies show that general purpose cycling is no more dangerous than walking, some even showing it to be less dangerous, my wearing a helmet only for cycling and not for walking would be irrational.

 

[OxygenJames]

The "What if" argument is always valid of course, since anything is possible. But what is forgotten is that it's a two way argument, I can equally say "What if I don't have any accident", balancing the two factors.

Using a cycle helmet would have been a huge inconvenience to me over my 67 years of cycling, one not justified by the proven risk to date. And since studies show that general purpose cycling is no more dangerous than walking, some even showing it to be less dangerous, my wearing a helmet only for cycling and not for walking would be irrational.

Health and safety huh? Always looking out for us. Oh how I have loved these last couple of years not having to wear a very annoying helmet. It ruins your hair and is a general pain in the butt. Oh sure its safer. So is staying indoors.

 

[tillson]

I have difficulty in understanding how a cycle helmet protects the brain when striking something blunt like a road surface or pavement. There is virtually no cushioning inside a cycle helmet, so the brain will still experience high G, similar to if no helmet was being worn. On the other hand, I can see how a helmet protects against striking an object of low surface area like a kerb stone or jagged rock (as in Schumacher's case) by spreading the point of impact (high pressure) over a greater area.

So, I suppose that the ideal cycle helmet would protect against the two modes of impact briefly outlined above. Is there such a thing? Collapsible aluminium honeycomb? What is the consensus on the best type / make of cycle helmet?

 

[Deleted member 4366]

A helmet keeps your head warm in the winter, which is especially useful if you're folically challenged. The snowboard helmets are the best.

 

[tillson]

A helmet keeps your head warm in the winter, which is especially useful if you're folically challenged. The snowboard helmets are the best.

I've got an Aldi snowboard helmet and it's very good for keeping my head and ears warm during the winter, but so is a woollen hat. I tend to wear a cycling helmet most of the time, but it's just out of habit rather than it being a calculated measure to reduce the probability of sustaining a serious brain injury.

 

[Clockwise]

I have difficulty in understanding how a cycle helmet protects the brain when striking something blunt like a road surface or pavement. There is virtually no cushioning inside a cycle helmet, so the brain will still experience high G, similar to if no helmet was being worn. On the other hand, I can see how a helmet protects against striking an object of low surface area like a kerb stone or jagged rock (as in Schumacher's case) by spreading the point of impact (high pressure) over a greater area.

So, I suppose that the ideal cycle helmet would protect against the two modes of impact briefly outlined above. Is there such a thing? Collapsible aluminium honeycomb? What is the consensus on the best type / make of cycle helmet?

Helmets are tested for a 12mph impact on the crown of the head and that the strap works, some test for other things but legally that's all they need test for to be in the shops. I wouldn't say any brand is better/worse, and more helmet buying advice things say that the helmet having the best fit for you will have the greatest impact on how it preforms so if you have an oval head or a round head or whatever then the helmet should suit that.

As for how they do it, they generally have a hard shell that should stop penetration and an inner layer that dispurses forces/cushions the blow.

I personally would wear a helmet if I felt it was suited to a typical impact but currently they are good for falling from my bike under my own steam, being blown off/over in the wind ect but not in anyway for being hit by a car. I could wear a motorbike helmet but with 10% of my time on a bike spent looking over my shoulder and constantly listening for traffic approaching the loss of senses a full face helmet will cause is a much greater risk.

If it was made law to wear a helmet then I would go out and buy an open face motorbike helmet, they are tested for impacts at typical road speeds and really if you think being on a bike doing 15-20mph and being clipped by a car passing doing 30-40mph is any different to the same accident on a motorbike then fool be you sadly.

 

[flecc]

I have difficulty in understanding how a cycle helmet protects the brain when striking something blunt like a road surface or pavement. There is virtually no cushioning inside a cycle helmet, so the brain will still experience high G, similar to if no helmet was being worn. On the other hand, I can see how a helmet protects against striking an object of low surface area like a kerb stone or jagged rock (as in Schumacher's case) by spreading the point of impact (high pressure) over a greater area.

So, I suppose that the ideal cycle helmet would protect against the two modes of impact briefly outlined above. Is there such a thing? Collapsible aluminium honeycomb? What is the consensus on the best type / make of cycle helmet?

Separation by distance is the best protection factor, and it needs to be all around the head. The crumple zone at the front of modern cars is a good example, the longer the zone the more effective it can be, as witness the generally superior safety ratings of larger cars.

Cycle helmets are too close fitting and too solid in construction to provide more than very light impact protection, and they generally cover far too small an area to be anything like effective. Add the single chinstrap location of the "pimple on a haystack" type and they can be worse than useless at times.

But of course a twice-the-volume of a head full enclosure with a progressively crumpling interior lining that could protect to a much greater degree is completely impractical for cycling. My conclusion is that we just have to acknowledge that cycling has some inherent danger that we must accept and cater for with safe practice and skill.

For those who cannot do that adequately as shown by their posting about the number of times they bounce their heads on the tarmac, a helmet makes sense to avoid the painful consequences of minor impacts. But existing helmets do little else, they wouldn't have saved any of the recent spate of lives lost in conflicts with trucks for example.

 

[mike killay]

Basically, we have far too many politicians and a severe reduction in their numbers is long overdue.
Most seem to be narcissistic psychopaths, with ready mouths and small brains.
I have just listened to Ms Sturgeon in the Scottish parliament extolling the virtues of an independent Scotland.
Talk about motor mouth, she droned on and on and on. I was fascinated that a person could talk so long about essentially nothing.
Of course, it's actually about jobs for the boys, never mind the public.

 

[flecc]

Talk about motor mouth, she droned on and on and on. I was fascinated that a person could talk so long about essentially nothing.

Akin to a barrister presenting a legal argument if you've ever witnessed that. There's a strangely closed loop in politics and law, a much higher proportion of lawyers than one might expect enter politics and they often dominate cabinet offices. So we have the phenomenon of lawyers making the law, in the guise of the CPS enforcing it, as barristers arguing it in courts, and in the guise of judges drawn from the ranks of the bar, judging it.

We do get a look in through the jury of course, but that is far less influential than most seem to think, since the concept of employing 12 opinions to reach a decision is flawed.