It concerns me that there's so many stories of bike helmets cracking in two and allegedly having saved someone's life. Bike helmets are designed to compress under impact and as such, they are very weak under tension, so when you see a helmet split into two, it indicates that it wasn't working as designed. Compressed polystyrene in the helmet would indicate that it was doing its job.
It's not the polystyrene which cracks, but the plastic shell holding it in place. The separation will happen after the compression force is removed, because the compression will keep the split parts close together. Meaning that the helmet falls apart after it's done the job.
Also, there are various degrees of helmets, from a simple polystyrene to a mountain bike one to a motorcycle helmet.
You can always go to the next level if you want more protection. The polystyrene one is not supposed to be the end all of protection, just to be better than nothing with minimal inconvenience.
The pictures that I've seen of the various "saved my life" destroyed helmets have the polystyrene split apart - it's usually quite easy to split polystyrene if the force is applied the right (wrong) way.
I don't like the concept of requiring PPE for a relatively safe activity as cycling as it makes cycling seem like a far more risky activity than it is and there's also the problem of "helmet hair" which can dissuade commuters. It's telling that countries where bike helmets were mandated had a sharp downturn in the numbers of cyclists.
I'm with you on the mandatory helmet issue, I don't like it either, but mostly because I don't like needlessly restricting ones freedoms, if you want to risk your life, that's fine with me as long as you don't risk others lives too.
Cycling is only risky due to the shared infrastructure with cars. The thing that raises the risk is cars. We should all be demanding that our streets are made safe for all users. We already have sidewalks in many places for this reason, we just need to extend similar safe infrastructure to bicycles and other road users too.
Just throwing your hands up and not asking for change is a sure way to not improve things.
I used to live next to a popular bike trail, that had 0 sharing with cars. Not a road within 50 meters. There were plenty of injuries. Bike vs bike, bike vs pedestrian, bike vs stationary object, distracted cyclist injures themselves. Etc. If you're going 30 km/hr in thin lycra, you can certainly injure yourself with no help from anyone or anything else.
If you put on special dress for an activity, don't skip the helmet. Same as driving, actually: people who don special driving kit wear a helmet with that, everybody else drives without.
When I spent time in a French hospital after bike helmet use (not involving a car by the way, except for the ambulance that called the helicopter), I was really curious if I would continue that pattern or become of of those "helmet even on civilian clothes rides" people. Was expecting the latter, but nope, would still feel as alien as putting on a helmet to drive.
There are many people who cycle for transportation. In order to utilize cycling for transportation, people need to maintain higher speeds, or spend a lot more time commuting each way. Just dismissing their needs by calling them sports cyclists because they ride at faster speeds doesn't do anyone any favors.
Not sure exactly what your point is. The risky behavior being referred to in the article is partly going faster than one should. You're basically making the same point, in order to go faster you feel you must wear a helmet, which if you flip around, you don't go as fast when not wearing a helmet. Not going as fast is less risky behavior.
Now you can decide you want to bike faster, and by all means (and I would make this choice as well), when riding aggressively in any context, you should wear a helmet.
The problem is that pedestrians treat those trails like sidewalks and cyclists treat it like a road.
Mutual yielding (where two pedestrians approach each other on a sidewalk) works perfectly fine at walking speed. It doesn't work at vehicular speeds, which is why the rules of the road exist that determine positioning and right of way. In order to travel at faster speeds, one must follow a set of rules. Relying on mutual yielding results in the collisions you mention.
> Cycling is only risky due to the shared infrastructure with cars.
Use of shared infrastructure for all vehicles is risky when the rules of movement (position and right of way) rules are not followed. Some cyclists do not follow those rules and end up in collisions. Other times, authorities paint lines that guide cyclists to ride in unsafe areas (too close to the edge of the roadway, or too close to parked vehicles), or designate areas for cyclists to ride where they're hidden from the motorists' view until both enter the intersection.
When one follows the rules of movement and rides in a predictable manner, that risk is largely eliminated.
> We already have sidewalks in many places for this reason
Sidewalks or side paths that have cyclists follow pedestrian right of way rules on approach and through intersections simply doesn't work. The reason is that cyclists move much faster than a walking pedestrian. Pedestrians walk between 2 to 4 mph, while cyclists ride between 10 to 20 mph. A pedestrian that's within a few feet of entering the roadway can be seen by a motorist in time for the motorist to stop and yield to them. On the other hand, a cyclist can be 50 feet away and not seen by the motorist before the enter the intersection. So, instead of yielding, a collision happens instead.
Cyclists move closer to vehicular speeds as opposed to pedestrian speeds (you can't ride in a straight line when going at walking pace). It makes sense for them to be treated like vehicles and follow the same rules. The rules are designed in a way to accommodate vehicles moving at different speeds.
People fall with their bikes when there's no cars around.
And there are plenty obstacles available around the city to help you fall. Hitting your head against a road surface after falling with a bike will generally ruin your day if you are not wearing a helmet. Simple physics, really.
No one has ever been injured cycling on a trail! It’s amazing how the laws of physics no longer apply once you stop sharing infrastructure with motor vehicles.
More seriously, you can easily hit a rock or something and go over the handlebars on a bike path.
A human being's weight hitting the ground at 30 mph (already a generously high figure) is far less serious than a multi-ton vehicle hitting them at 30 mph (already a generously low figure).
There’s worlds of difference between crashing your bike versus being hit by a car while riding your bike. Yeah, it’ll hurt either way, but the former is substantially less likely to be fatal
> We should all be demanding that our streets are made safe for all users
We should also be demanding that there is no crime as well.
But outside of this fantasy land you need to accept that cyclists will be interacting with cars at multiple points in their journey from A to B. There are just too many practical issues building an entirely seperate cycling network.
So until this magical day cycling should be considered risky.
Cycling in a vacuum is safe-ish and not a particularly risky affair. Cycling on a shared road with automobiles going eight times your speed and weighing some 250 times your bipedal vehicle’s weight is not so safe.
Differences in speed and mass are largely irrelevant if collisions don't occur. You can minimize the risk of a collision by following the rules of movement on the road (right of way and positioning) and anticipate if someone isn't following those rules and take appropriate action to avoid a collision before it's imminent.
If passenger cars, large trucks and buses. and motorcycles can share the road, so can pedalcyclists.
I never said that it was ever going to be perfect. I did say one could minimize the risk by following the rules and practicing defensive driving. Crashes aren't as inevitable as people make them out to be. I've avoided crashes while cycling as well as motoring by paying attention to the situation ahead and behind and proactively taking action to avoid putting myself in a situation where I would have crashed into another vehicle or been hit (e.g., seeing that drive not stopping for the red light and not driving into their path).
The vast majority of collisions cyclists are involved in happen at intersections (incluing mid block drivways and alleys). Very few collision involve hit from behind.
Cycling infrastructure that places cyclists in the pedestrian position when crossing an intersection exacerbates the risk of getting into a collision when crossing the intersection because motorists aren't really looking to see someone moving at cyclist speed as they're exiting the intersection. The other problem is that cyclists are hidden from view by parked cars until a short time before entering the intersection. This makes it difficult for both the cyclist and motorist to see each other until it's too late to avoid a collision. If you're not riding where motorists are looking, you're far more likely to end up in a collision, fatal or not[1]
Also, the average person likely drives much more than rides a bicycle, so they're much more likely to be injured in a car accident. But no one would suggest mandatory helmet use for drivers, even though that would likely prevent many times more deaths and injuries than mandatory bicycle helmets.
Can you provide some evidence that helmets provide additional benefits when used in combination with airbags and seatbelts? Specifically actual testing. You would probably want to look at auto racing. My gut feeling is that even a slight decrease in visibility in a car wherein visibility is already limited would make a collision more likely and airbags would already provide substantial cushioning for your head so long as the seatbelt keeps the driver in the car.
I admittedly only commuted by bike for 3 years, 2018-2020, but I was never involved in a crash. I ride in some ways contrary to common advice, but that may contribute.
The full-face helmets provide much better protection, but they have the trade-offs of being more uncomfortable and hotter.
I'm not convinced that cycling is especially dangerous and my experience is that I've inevitably put my hands out when falling, so I think that gloves should be the first part of PPE recommended for cyclists. Luckily, I've never hit my helmet/head when coming off so I've found that a bike helmet is most useful for stopping low branches etc from hitting me. I'd recommend cycling/protective glasses too - very good for protecting against insects hitting your eyes.
I find it interesting that people seem to have a skewed attitude towards head protection and cycling. If head protection is that important, then why are helmets not recommended for car passengers, people showering, changing a lightbulb etc.?
> then why are helmets not recommended for car passengers, people showering, changing a lightbulb etc
Strawman much?
car passengers: airbags and seatbelts are in direct conflict with and superior to helmets.
people showering and changing lightbulbs are not traveling at speeds exceeding a walking pace in an orientation predisposing them for a head/facial impact for hours at a time.
The full-face helmet I wear is heavily vented like any other bicycling helmet, there is practically no worse comfort than any other cycling helmet worth wearing. And considering how much I appreciate my teeth and not potentially needing to drink hamburgers through a straw while my broken jaw heals due to a cycling mishap, even if it were less comfortable I'm totally on board.
I've written this up with details in previous comments on this subject, but I have multiple friends/friends' family members who have suffered substantial facial/dental injuries in seemingly totally benign cycling activities gone awry. All of them would likely have been non-events had they been wearing a full-face MTB helmet.
People do still receive head injuries from car collisions even with airbags and seatbelts, so it's reasonable to think that wearing a car helmet would provide additional head protection - it's certainly common in motorsport.
I'm trying to compare activities that have a significant risk of head injuries (and deaths) with cycling and yet PPE is very rarely mentioned for them.
Motorsport doesn't use airbags and has a steel tubular cage exposed directly to the occupants, the helmet is mostly for protecting from impact with the cage AIUI.
All those grease monkeys driving around with aftermarket cages in their cars and not wearing helmets are actually less safe for it. The last drag strip I was at wouldn't even let you run if you had a cage and no helmet to accompany it.
Airbags and no steel tubes next to your head change the calculus completely.
I mean, basically any adventurous activity where you're moving [quickly] with equipment gives rise to use of helmets - kayaking, rock climbing, roller blading, skateboarding, skiing, skydiving, horse riding, ...
Can I ask, is it only safety equipment for cycling you're against?
It looks like you're trying to argue that people shouldn't wear helmets when cycling because people in cars; that have protection from a steel cage with crumple zones, and airbags, and seatbelts, and cushioned seats; don't wear helmets.
Like, sit in your car and get someone to launch a paving slab towards you; then sit on your push bike and do the same thing ... I'd do the first without a helmet, I definitely wouldn't do the second without a helmet (or at all). I can't see how you can find these situations comparable wrt indication of benefit from a protective helmet.
I'm not "against" cycle helmets, but think that their benefits are over-sold. The big issue is when people think that bike helmets are an important safety aspect of cycling, when they're probably not even in the top ten. It's interesting to see different countries' attitudes towards road safety and cycle helmets.
For the record, I always wear a bike helmet here in the UK, but I am not convinced that they really provide much benefit. There's plenty of different studies on bike helmets and a lot of them are very flawed (quite often ones that are sponsored by helmet manufacturers), which is worrying as it should be easy to demonstrate if they are having a big effect on road safety. My opinion is that population wide, they do provide a small benefit, but they can also act as a barrier to cycling for some people, so it's best to not over-emphasise them.
The health benefits from active travel are undeniable, so I'd prefer cycling to be promoted as much as possible and talking about helmets is missing the point.
Most sports where participants could materially benefit from helmet use absolutely do discuss helmets though usage varies from common (e.g. recreational downhill skiing) to almost universal--whitewater kayaking.
Downhill skiing in particular has transition from essential no non-racers wearing a helmet to quite a high percentage in maybe a couple of decades.
In 2009, a German state governor caused a terrible skiing accident, which he survived but the victim didn't. He was wearing a helmet, she wasn't, and after that point, helmet sales in Germany and Austria shot through the roof and use has remained high. Before that, it was pretty much only racers and children.
Natasha Richardson (reasonably well-known actress) also died the same year from a skiing-related brain bleed. And yeah, while I haven't had a lot of visibility into ski area helmet usage over the past decade, that does seem to be around the time when it really shot up.
> I'm not convinced that cycling is especially dangerous and my experience is that I've inevitably put my hands out when falling, so I think that gloves should be the first part of PPE recommended for cyclists.
Around 15 years ago I fractured my right arm doing the same. There were no scratches on my hands--I used my right hand to stop the fall primarily and the force was just too much. However, if I had hit my head, which was not unlikely in that particular fall, a fractured skull would have been much worse.
> It's not the polystyrene which cracks, but the plastic shell holding it in place. The separation will happen after the compression force is removed, because the compression will keep the split parts close together. Meaning that the helmet falls apart after it's done the job.
Nope. As a cyclist, I've seen numerous people in social media groups, friends, etc post pictures of their helmets that "saved their lives." Every single time, it's cracked to pieces, with no visible denting to the polystyrene foam.
Deformation of that foam is how a helmet absorbs impact force, and cracking apart is a failure of the helmet.
Bike helmets in the US are required to pass one test - a weight being dropped directly on top of the helmet that simulates a detached adult male head falling onto the ground from about the height of an average adult male. The test makes absolutely no sense, because the whole thing is a sham.
Motorcycle helmets are typically also polystyrene, although with multiple densities for handling both light and heavy impacts.
Motorcycle helmets also have degrees of protection, from the useless DOT standard to the less bad Snell standards to the quite good ECE and FIM standards.
I have worn a bike helmet without fail starting in the early 80s. I have always understood that they are disposable after any hard hit. Visible or not, polystyrene compresses, cracks, crumbles, etc. The shell or skin of the helmet never seemed to matter much, so whether it splits or shreds, doesn't matter. Maybe I'll have a look for a source on this.
Yeah, it's a crumble zone that might add a few precious millimeters to the very short deceleration path of the brain if limbs and reflexes fail to do that job completely. Disintegration means that it's doing its job.
That's a completely different story from the primary task of the helmets for rock climbers, construction workers or soldiers, which is distributing a small, concentrated impact (a rock or a dropped tool or random debris) to a wider area.
Rock climbing helmets differ in design substantially. Loads of modern ones are more like bike helmets - recognising, I suggest, that most head injuries climbing are head hitting the crag rather than rocks falling, making it more like cycle impacts. That said, I've no real insight into what makes one design better over another.
Well, when I was hit by a car and hitting the asphalt head first as a teenager, I found it adequate, that the helmet was cracked to pieces afterward. Did it save my life? I don't know, but with the helmet I only had a light concussion (and broken leg) compared to very possible skull crack.
Compressed polystyrene I know only from light accidents, but it has been a while and I suppose todays helmets are a bit more durable.
(But luckily never had to find out, if they fare better nowdays. Also I learned to fall and only rarely wear a helmet nowdays)
Could be both? Usually it is the outer shell that is cracked and described as split. I could see that happening more on the road style helmets, due to their shapes.
The pictures that I've seen of the various "saved my life" destroyed helmets have the polystyrene split apart - it's usually quite easy to split polystyrene if the force is applied the right (wrong) way.
I'd guess impacts at different angles. AFAIK bike helmets are tested for direct impacts via drop tests, so manufacturers may not care so much about how the helmet performs under different conditions - it may even be a good marketing gimmick to have helmets destroy themselves dramatically as people are more likely to share a picture along with a "saved my life" anecdote.
I had a helmet damaged by a roommate who knocked down a bike on a stand. The polystyrene was cracked completely through but remained bonded to the shell. They are supposed to break like that. Older styles of construction are going to be less durable but if it keeps the structure constrained to your head it will to a better job than nothing.
If you could demonstrate that the helmet was splitting and taking energy with it maybe you could make an argument for splitting, but it seems unlikely that this is a mode of operation.
Why not? Given every helmet I've seen in a significant crash was split somehow, my assumption is that splitting is an important part of the energy absorption.
Polystyrene is very weak in tension (can be broken by hand) so won't be deflecting much energy. The principle is to slow the deceleration of the head by the polystyrene compressing and thus reducing the g-forces to the skull (not so much the brain which tends to slosh in the skull and cause concussion). Some motorbike helmets use materials such as polycarbonate which are intended to provide protection by breaking - quite different to bicycle helmets.
