As some of you will recognize, this follows a thread I posted a few days ago about clothing. That proved so successful, seriously and thanks for all of that) that I decided to try this one. Now the confession: I have never had a helmet. I hate to wear hats, caps, sweat bands - I hate 'em. However, I understand the safety thing and am starting to ride a lot around town. So I am looking into it. I was at my LBS and the owner gave me an education about helmets. From the $30 models to the inner framed, high air flow models at $130 - $160. So, not knowing the answer and not inclined to buy a $30 model and a $160 model and do my own research to find the answer, thought fondly of you guys and hoped once again that you could steer me in the right direction, that is, to give me your own experiences and give me the good advice. Oh, I am riding around 200 miles a week but nothing more than a 3 hour ride at any one time although I would like to up that single ride time. I ride in Plano-Dallas so it is hot. Thanks a bunch guys, Stamp

I started with a $30 helmet (maybe it was $45) -- a pretty basic Giro -- and went with it for a full season, then got a $180 helmet (though I paid $100). Forehead-slapper on temperature difference in the sun.

Both are going to protect your head just as well, but the vents definitely help. I think the Bell Sweep (had one, crashed it) is one of the best price / airflow out there; like $90 on eBay and every bit as cool -- temperature-wise -- as the Atmos.

I bought a $25 helmet. It serves me perfectly, and haven't been tempted by anything else. If the $180 helmets do really feel better on the head, then I think I'm better off not knowing that.

Wow, one of the helmets I was looking at was the Bell Sweep at $60. Sounds good to you, Argentius? Do you wear a sweat band under that?

John, I understand your sentiment exactly!

Yeah, if you can get a Sweep for 60 bucks I'd jump on it. Is that at an LBS? They retail for $125 or so!

I don't wear a sweat band, but I don't sweat very much -- part of the reason ventilation is important to me, actually, since sweat is cooling and all. I had a race a while back that was 100 miles in the desert heat, I must have drank 8 water bottles, and dumped 10 more over my head!

Checked in with my local and the sweep turned out to be the slant. I mistook because I was also looking at the solar that day. So you have to be careful with Bell, those names, just remember the prices, if its too good to be true... By the way, is a white helmet cooler than a black one?

As some of you will recognize, this follows a thread I posted a few days ago about clothing. That proved so successful, seriously and thanks for all of that) that I decided to try this one. Now the confession: I have never had a helmet. I hate to wear hats, caps, sweat bands - I hate 'em. However, I understand the safety thing and am starting to ride a lot around town. So I am looking into it. I was at my LBS and the owner gave me an education about helmets. From the $30 models to the inner framed, high air flow models at $130 - $160. So, not knowing the answer and not inclined to buy a $30 model and a $160 model and do my own research to find the answer, thought fondly of you guys and hoped once again that you could steer me in the right direction, that is, to give me your own experiences and give me the good advice. Oh, I am riding around 200 miles a week but nothing more than a 3 hour ride at any one time although I would like to up that single ride time. I ride in Plano-Dallas so it is hot. Thanks a bunch guys, Stamp
Did you try the search as there must be well over 100 threads on this. You answered your own question,Dallas,hot,high air flow.

If you are going to be riding in hot a lot, you'll definitely want more vents. Watch for closeouts on those $150 helmets where they go down to $80-100.

Yup. Main difference with pricey helmets is weight and vents. There are sales a LOT, so never pay full price for a high-end helmet, if you go that way, and there are some nicely vented models started at the $60 price point or so.

Also, trends change. The "great thang" between 2002-2004 or so, the Ghisallo, used to be $150. Now you see 'em all the time for under $100, and folks are talking about a different "great thang."

Shokhead, yeah, I did try the search and perused the forums for about an hour thinking that there must be a 100 threads on this. However my perusing General and Beginners w/o success and finding nothing when I tried the search, just wrote the thread. My point is that I am relatively new here so suggestions on how to use the Search (I entered "helmets") would be greatly appreciated. I have never had success with using the Search. Thanks for any help, Stamp.

Hype - Anything said by the helmet manufacturers.

Real - Your head, and how the helmet fits it and feels on it.

Sorry, but recommending helmets (and shoes, and saddles, and handlebars) is kind of like recommending underwear. Very personal, kinda gross, and not at all useful.

--Shannon

best bang would be the sweep or ghisallo IMO

Shannon,

You couldn't be more wrong. Here, your advice is that there is no difference between the $25 and the $225 model. It is all about fit. This is a very valuable piece of information for someone on a budget and who has never before purchased a helmet.

Others suggest there is another big factor - airflow, especially in hot climates. Snce I am in Texas, this is a concern.

Finally, I have information on how to save money on the model I choose.

When I think of the time saved and the money saved listening to the opinions of those with experience in clothing - well all I can do is say thank you, thank you thank you. And I haven't been disappointed in following the collected wisdom of my more experienced riders not once.

The result of your opinion and the opinion of the others responding to this thread lead me to a Bell, high flow helmet that fits my head, cost $45.00 from an on-line store, is of color rather than black due to safety concerns (easier to see). I can use this same example for the clothing that I have purchased because of that thread. Thanks for your input, Stamp

I bought a cheaper helmet when i first started out and noticed it was very hot. I then bought a giro atmos online from ebay. If you check e-bay they will have pretty good deals on helmets and on the giro atmos. Better than the LBS could give you. I think the money is well spent with the atmos but there are also other brands that are just as good.

when people talk about Giro they always mention the Atmos as the only option...
I purchased a 60$ Monza (retails for 100$) from Performance (locally, not online) from Giro and it works and fits just as well as the Atmos for 1/2 the cost. they look fairly identical except I think the Atmos has a few more vents and weighs a few less grams...
a 50-80$ helmet (if it fits properly) will do you fine in most temps......I mean honestly, its a helmet....and if you've ever cracked one, you're glad it there...and you're also glad you didn't pay 200$ for it.

I normally try to buy MSRP ~$100 helmets on sale for 50. good bang for the buck, and worth the $50.

Shannon,

You couldn't be more wrong. Here, your advice is that there is no difference between the $25 and the $225 model. It is all about fit. This is a very valuable piece of information for someone on a budget and who has never before purchased a helmet.

Others suggest there is another big factor - airflow, especially in hot climates. Snce I am in Texas, this is a concern.

Finally, I have information on how to save money on the model I choose.

When I think of the time saved and the money saved listening to the opinions of those with experience in clothing - well all I can do is say thank you, thank you thank you. And I haven't been disappointed in following the collected wisdom of my more experienced riders not once.

The result of your opinion and the opinion of the others responding to this thread lead me to a Bell, high flow helmet that fits my head, cost $45.00 from an on-line store, is of color rather than black due to safety concerns (easier to see). I can use this same example for the clothing that I have purchased because of that thread. Thanks for your input, Stamp


Well, my answer was somewhat tounge-in-cheek, but was basically correct. And from the text of your post, it seems that we agree more than we disagree. But there's so much hype in helmet marketing that it needs to be cut through. Any reasonably well-ventilated, decently light helmet will work about as well as any other, provided both fit your head. Not all helmets fit all heads. And once you get much above 50 bucks, the law of rapidly diminishing returns sets in with a vengance. Also, when helmet manufacturers like to change colors every year and call that a new model, you can get screamin' deals on closeouts. I've never paid more than 50 bucks for a helmet, and I've never paid retail list for one either.

Above a certain minimum level, there isn't enough difference to justify the costs. That minimum level is a lot lower than you might think. That's all I was sayin'...

--Shannon

I normally try to buy MSRP ~$100 helmets on sale for 50. good bang for the buck, and worth the $50.

Yep. Heck i havent paid msrp for anything over 50 bucks. I just took my new helmet out of the box that i bought 6 months ago. Its an 04 Giro Pneumo for a tity sum of $59.99

I'm with Shannon on this one. Assuming that it fits you, the main difference in helmets that cost $50 and up is the paint.

I'm with Shannon on this one. Assuming that it fits you, the main difference in helmets that cost $50 and up is the paint.
Maybe, but the idea that "there isn't enough difference to justify the costs" is just stupid and presumptuous on its face. What is justified depends on the buyer.

It is a given that essentially all helmets sold in, at least, the US, meet certain minimal standards for protection. However, people need to remember that policing this policy is left up to the manufacturer. Also, there is continual debate about whether a given standard is really enough and if a given impact test really reflects what a head will experience. This is true in motorcycle helmets, as well as bicycle helmets.

A person could probably safely assume that no helmet sold legally will be a danger to his or her head. And it is true that the finish on costlier helmets is better, and that money generally gets you more ventilation. Fit is a primary concern, because if a helmet does not fit well, then it won't protect as well as it could. Any slop in fit will translate to a distribution of forces on the head that the manufacturer did not intend.

I'm of the mind that I won't pinch pennies when it comes to any brain bucket. Granted I came to the state of mind after destroying three helmets in 100+ mph crashes, racing motorcycles, but even without that, I'd still be one of people that errs on the side of a costlier helmet...just in case. My reasons might be totally based on rationalizations, but I was the one buying my helmets. And I am the one wearing them.

So, if the OP is still out there, whatever you buy, make sure it fits well. That is most important.

FWIW, I'm wearing an Atmos--flat black, because black is faster. It replaced a Pneumo that died when I was hit by a car.

FWIW, I'm wearing an Atmos--flat black, because black is faster. It replaced a Pneumo that died when I was hit by a car.

Here is a good post on the same subject at the Fixed Gear Gallery. For me the question is flat black or glossy black and how do I tell the difference. Is my black Pneumo flat or glossy?

Orange is for people in their thirties trying to cheer up their depressive life with "Color". Black is for Speed, Rock and ghost like maneuvers in the night. I am faster than any man on this earth and never will be seen with a brake. Because I never stop! Like the Terminator.

http://fixedgeargallery.com/2006/june/Brianleber_2.htm

my advice is pick up whatever fits you well... when i needed my last helmet i smashed the back of it where the foam is the thickest. The more expensive met helmets had better, more adjustable fit to keep the helmet more comfortable, but also had more rear protection... so i would reccy the Ippogriffo or the Stradivarius. In the end, i picked up the sfero b/c it was good enuff and i needed a helmet i could use for a commuter that i could just leave locked up on my cheapo MTB that i use for primary transportation. Also wasn't prepared to pay RRP on the other two (200, $300 AUD respectively), but i needed to pick something up since i wrote-off my only helmet. But one of the other two are definately on the to buy list for exclusive roadie use.

It really pisses me off everytime i think about paying for the top models... i mean, 200 or 300 bucks? its foam + a hard plastic shell, i mean, these bastards paid what? 3 bucks to make it? ehh, rant over.

Maybe, but the idea that "there isn't enough difference to justify the costs" is just stupid and presumptuous on its face. What is justified depends on the buyer.

It is a given that essentially all helmets sold in, at least, the US, meet certain minimal standards for protection. However, people need to remember that policing this policy is left up to the manufacturer. Also, there is continual debate about whether a given standard is really enough and if a given impact test really reflects what a head will experience. This is true in motorcycle helmets, as well as bicycle helmets.

A person could probably safely assume that no helmet sold legally will be a danger to his or her head. And it is true that the finish on costlier helmets is better, and that money generally gets you more ventilation. Fit is a primary concern, because if a helmet does not fit well, then it won't protect as well as it could. Any slop in fit will translate to a distribution of forces on the head that the manufacturer did not intend.

I'm of the mind that I won't pinch pennies when it comes to any brain bucket. Granted I came to the state of mind after destroying three helmets in 100+ mph crashes, racing motorcycles, but even without that, I'd still be one of people that errs on the side of a costlier helmet...just in case. My reasons might be totally based on rationalizations, but I was the one buying my helmets. And I am the one wearing them.

So, if the OP is still out there, whatever you buy, make sure it fits well. That is most important.

FWIW, I'm wearing an Atmos--flat black, because black is faster. It replaced a Pneumo that died when I was hit by a car.

Well i dont know about the finish but the vents,straps and locks will be different on better ones. Weight wise isnt enough difference to worry about.

I'm still kinda a NewB myself, but let me share my early experiences.
Try different hemets on. I swear by Bell and my brother swears by Giro. We tried on each others helmets and neither likes the way the other fits our heads. So even though we share the same genes, everyones head is different (if I had a nickel for everytime that has been said on this board)
2nd, I bought a top of the line MOuntain biking helmet when I got my first bike. It's a Bell x-Ray but it was selling for $125 (this is a few years back). I loved it. Provided great fit and great ventilation. You also get much more adjustment options with the more expensive helmets.
When I got my road bike last year, I bought a Bell Furio. It cost me about $45. It fits great, but I wish it provided better ventilation.
I might not be comparing apples to apples, but my point is that there does appear to be benefits to the more expensive helmets. Atleast in my limited experience.
As mentioned-just about all helemts meet safety regulations and will protect your head. But if it doesnt fit right and slips off your head in a crash.....
So buy what fits and spend as much as you can afford.

Though a newbie myself, I have a bunch of experience with helmets - mostly motorcycles and now (and long ago) roadbikes as well.
The themes noted above are correct. Like motorcycle helmets, virtually all helmets sold today pass the minimum rated head protection standard. Thus, in theory, they all provide the same amount of protection.
But a few things to add. Head shape matters. Or rather, the head/helmet interface matters. And helmet shape tend to track with brand. Bell more oblong, Giro more round. This not only is important for comfort but for safety as well. Preferably you want a consistent contact area all around your head. Besides feeling better, it's better in distributing shocks when a 'bad thing' happens.
Again, as noted, price affects weight and tends to track with ventilation although that's a varying feature. Not everyone wants the breeze blowing through their helmet - though I sure do.
So, your head tends to be an important part of your body. More for some people than for others. So this is one piece of gear to buy (or at least sample for fit) at your LBS.
Fit really matters.

Oh and at the risk of rambling on way too long on this topic, helmets do not last forever. In motorcycles the rules generally include: one bump (including dropping it on the ground from waist height) and it's gone. Toss it. Also, 3-5 years and, with or without a bump, throw it out. The styrofoam has hardened affecting it's impact absorbtion. And don't let them cook in the car or in the sun if you can avoid it.
I accept that bicycle helmets are not moto helmets (why do you think they call them donor cycles?) but I live by the same rules.
You have only one brain - maybe less. Though it's nice to ogle a new set of carbon wheels, your helmet is the most important piece of gear you own.

The safety bike helmets provide is a myth. Check out

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/

and read some of the summaries of scientific papers.

Helmets are great for children but if you expect to hit anything faster than 10mph leave it at home...you are infact MORE likely to get a serious head injury wearing a helmet in a high-speed impact.

The safety bike helmets provide is a myth. Check out

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/

and read some of the summaries of scientific papers.

Helmets are great for children but if you expect to hit anything faster than 10mph leave it at home...you are infact MORE likely to get a serious head injury wearing a helmet in a high-speed impact.
I'm still gonna wear my helmet.

wow, i'm speechless. Spearman, that's the stupidest website and post ever.

retarded.

Lemme guess, you're not really that educated are you? why don't you search my thread when i got into an accident and have a look at my helmet.... If you seriously believe they crack open that easy, you're wrong.... if you’d rather your head take the impact my helmet did on the ground well you're a dumbass.

i must apologise, i don't usually let these things dissolve into personal attacks, but this is stupid. It is also a safety concern, and if you influenced someone that got hurt, I’d take you out to dry.

Here tis: http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showthread.php?t=56374&highlight=helmet

Also should note that I later noticed a hairline crack right thru the top…. You wanna get hit that hard by the road, your choice… I didn’t have time to prepare for the crash, it happened. My head hit the ground at full acceleration while falling backwards since my bike was taken out from underneath me… connect the dots Einstein !

I will resist the temptation to comment on your unnecessary personal attack, if I were as "educated" as you I would no doubt respond in like manner.

No doubt your helmet DID crack. However most often your head hits the ground because of the extra weight of your helmet. I don't believe they crack open easily. If you read the scientific papers, no doubt written by very well educated people, you wil note that what are called rotational head injuries (it is these head injuries that are lethal) are more likely to occur to a cyclist wearing a helmet, because of the helmets shape and attachment to the neck.

I urge not to just senselessly dismiss the wealth of contradictory evidence about cycle helmets. Personal experience, particularly traumatic personal experience will obviously colour your interpretation but I urge to to read some of the evidence and come to an opinion that way.

I will resist the temptation to comment on your unnecessary personal attack, if I were as "educated" as you I would no doubt respond in like manner.

No doubt your helmet DID crack. However most often your head hits the ground because of the extra weight of your helmet. I don't believe they crack open easily. If you read the scientific papers, no doubt written by very well educated people, you wil note that what are called rotational head injuries (it is these head injuries that are lethal) are more likely to occur to a cyclist wearing a helmet, because of the helmets shape and attachment to the neck.

I urge not to just senselessly dismiss the wealth of contradictory evidence about cycle helmets. Personal experience, particularly traumatic personal experience will obviously colour your interpretation but I urge to to read some of the evidence and come to an opinion that way.

Ever woke up having an MRI because you got clipped by a loser on the road? Hey, I did and my personal experience, my doc, the insurace company, my family, my riding buds, the ER techs, the neuro folks etc etc etc all said, wow man, lucky you wore a helmet basically kept me alive...

SO, while the enormous power of the internet and band of whiners who hate being hot when they ride can indeed dig up a mountain of data to make you think, I prefer to retain the ability of cogent thought by encasing my brain bucket in a shell. Hey, its just me man....

Otherwise, Giro has some great multi vented deals that have been mentioned as well. I just wanted to remark about how a post such as yours is an open invite to form team Organ Donor......

The safety bike helmets provide is a myth. Check out

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/

and read some of the summaries of scientific papers.

Helmets are great for children but if you expect to hit anything faster than 10mph leave it at home...you are infact MORE likely to get a serious head injury wearing a helmet in a high-speed impact.

Believe what you want....here's my argument to that...pix of my helmet after bouncing off pave at 25mph. Separated shoulder/fingers, broken collarbone, lots of rash, bruised ribs, ruined Atmos and ZERO head damage...you be the judge if helmet safety is a myth. Note the nice crack where my skull would've been...
http://SnortingBull.smugmug.com/photos/72966241-M.jpg
http://SnortingBull.smugmug.com/photos/72966254-M.jpg

I will resist the temptation to comment on your unnecessary personal attack, if I were as "educated" as you I would no doubt respond in like manner.

No doubt your helmet DID crack. However most often your head hits the ground because of the extra weight of your helmet. I don't believe they crack open easily. If you read the scientific papers, no doubt written by very well educated people, you wil note that what are called rotational head injuries (it is these head injuries that are lethal) are more likely to occur to a cyclist wearing a helmet, because of the helmets shape and attachment to the neck.

I urge not to just senselessly dismiss the wealth of contradictory evidence about cycle helmets. Personal experience, particularly traumatic personal experience will obviously colour your interpretation but I urge to to read some of the evidence and come to an opinion that way.

again, i apologise for that, but i reserve the right to attack what you're saying. I did read some of that site, what a nugget of information !! (yes i'm paraphrasing)

"after being hit at 70mph, the helmet did not save the cyclist's life, thus there is nothing to support the claim helmets save lives" :rolleyes:

OH BRILLIANT ! see, by putting the term "scientific" they can hook people into believing there is some sort of credibility, but common sense prevails (hopefully) such as this:
Believe what you want....here's my argument to that...pix of my helmet after bouncing off pave at 25mph. Separated shoulder/fingers, broken collarbone, lots of rash, bruised ribs, ruined Atmos and ZERO head damage...you be the judge if helmet safety is a myth. Note the nice crack where my skull would've been...

word.

However most often your head hits the ground because of the extra weight of your helmet. .
did you seriously say that? I mean come on! The gravitational pull upon my helmet which weighs 290gms is what made my head hit the ground? WTF?

No… I’M PRETTY SURE IT WAS THE CAR KNOCKING ME FLAT ON MY BACK @ 30km/h !

since you don't like helmets spearman, why don’t you get a cheap one, and try to crack it with a hammer. As the site says, they are so fragile they crack just by looking at them !

pfft whatever ! they are pretty strong, and most importantly absorb and help dissipate energy.... I guarantee you, by dropping a hammer (from half a meter without added force) on the top of a modern helmet; no real marks, much less cracking will occur.... now do that to your head since you seem to prefer to not be protected.... gunna hurt right? You’ld prefer to be wearing a helmet when that happens right? that's not so hard to understand is it? Now repeat this experiment by whacking the helmet with a hammer as hard as you can…. Now your head (if you haven’t already).

you know what? don't wear one, but don't bring this crap in here either. Using it as a discussion point is one thing, casting this BS aspersion as truth is another.

NB: Some of us have something to protect.

Since several people here seem to believe that they are able to judge helmet effectiveness(i.e. how much injury was prevented or reduced by bicycle helmets), perhaps they would care to comment on these two actual real-life incidents?

1. Rider descending a small hill at 30 mph. A car travel in the opposite direction suddenly takes a left turn (across the rider's path) just in front of cyclist. Car was in middle of turn, at approx. 45 degree angle in the rider's lane, when cyclist collided with car. Bicycle hit just behind front left corner of car, rider catapulted forward into car windshield, smashing windshield with head. Cyclist came to reset lying on car hood. Injuries to cyclist - seperated left shoulder, hairline fractures to lower and upper jaws, many lacerations on left side of face and ear (some with imbedded glass), requiring approx. 50 stitches to close. Rider lost consciousness for a minute or two, but was alert after coming to, with no additional brain injury. Bicycle damage - Front wheel completely tacoed (i.e bent into shape of potato chip), steel fork blades bent back about 4-5 inches, downtube bent into arched shape, headtube/top tube junction creased, headtube bent back to near vertical angle.

2. Rider was descending a moderate grade at about 30 mph with a large group of other cyclists. A crash occurred amongst the cyclists ahead of the rider in question, sending many of the cyclists sprawling onto the road. Rider struck one of the fallen cyclists, and went flying over his handlebars. Upon landing on the pavement, rider tumbled and rolled to stop. Injury to cyclist - moderate patches of road ratch nearly equally distributed to hips, knees, elbows and backs of shoulder blades. Small laceration above left eye requiring 4 stitches to close (apparantly cased by edge of eyeglass lens after eyeglasses broke). Rider lost consciousness for about 1 minute, but was alert after coming to, with no additional brain injury. Bicycle damage - none. Handlebar stem (threaded quill type) got rotated in steerer tube requiring only turning handlebars while holding front wheel to straighten out . Rider continues to use same bicycle many years later.

In one of these incidents, the rider was wearing a helmet. In the other incident, the rider was not wearing a helmet. So the question to the experts here is, in which incident was the rider wearing a helmet, and how much injury did it prevent?

Since several people here seem to believe that they are able to judge helmet effectiveness(i.e. how much injury was prevented or reduced by bicycle helmets), perhaps they would care to comment on these two actual real-life incidents?

1. Rider descending a small hill at 30 mph. A car travel in the opposite direction suddenly takes a left turn (across the rider's path) just in front of cyclist. Car was in middle of turn, at approx. 45 degree angle in the rider's lane, when cyclist collided with car. Bicycle hit just behind front left corner of car, rider catapulted forward into car windshield, smashing windshield with head. Cyclist came to reset lying on car hood. Injuries to cyclist - seperated left shoulder, hairline fractures to lower and upper jaws, many lacerations on left side of face and ear (some with imbedded glass), requiring approx. 50 stitches to close. Rider lost consciousness for a minute or two, but was alert after coming to, with no additional brain injury. Bicycle damage - Front wheel completely tacoed (i.e bent into shape of potato chip), steel fork blades bent back about 4-5 inches, downtube bent into arched shape, headtube/top tube junction creased, headtube bent back to near vertical angle.

2. Rider was descending a moderate grade at about 30 mph with a large group of other cyclists. A crash occurred amongst the cyclists ahead of the rider in question, sending many of the cyclists sprawling onto the road. Rider struck one of the fallen cyclists, and went flying over his handlebars. Upon landing on the pavement, rider tumbled and rolled to stop. Injury to cyclist - moderate patches of road ratch nearly equally distributed to hips, knees, elbows and backs of shoulder blades. Small laceration above left eye requiring 4 stitches to close (apparantly cased by edge of eyeglass lens after eyeglasses broke). Rider lost consciousness for about 1 minute, but was alert after coming to, with no additional brain injury. Bicycle damage - none. Handlebar stem (threaded quill type) got rotated in steerer tube requiring only turning handlebars while holding front wheel to straighten out . Rider continues to use same bicycle many years later.

In one of these incidents, the rider was wearing a helmet. In the other incident, the rider was not wearing a helmet. So the question to the experts here is, in which incident was the rider wearing a helmet, and how much injury did it prevent?

Percentage of effectiveness? What, I am half brain dead, so it only worked 50%?

What does a helmet have to do with bike damage. Get to the point. In the incidents related, the helmet worked. Thats the point. Want a percentage, get one yourself.

I will resist the temptation to comment on your unnecessary personal attack, if I were as "educated" as you I would no doubt respond in like manner.

No doubt your helmet DID crack. However most often your head hits the ground because of the extra weight of your helmet. I don't believe they crack open easily. If you read the scientific papers, no doubt written by very well educated people, you wil note that what are called rotational head injuries (it is these head injuries that are lethal) are more likely to occur to a cyclist wearing a helmet, because of the helmets shape and attachment to the neck.

I urge not to just senselessly dismiss the wealth of contradictory evidence about cycle helmets. Personal experience, particularly traumatic personal experience will obviously colour your interpretation but I urge to to read some of the evidence and come to an opinion that way.Thanks, ishmael.

Since several people here seem to believe that they are able to judge helmet effectiveness(i.e. how much injury was prevented or reduced by bicycle helmets), perhaps they would care to comment on these two actual real-life incidents?

...


Who cares...did the helmet add to the injuries? Why risk it? I'm certain that if my head, without a helmet, would've bounced off a jutting rock in the road at 25MPH on my last wipe I'd have been cooked as opposed to ZERO head injuries.

Does the helmet hurt? No.
Can it help a little? Yes...see my helmet above with all that road rash? That would've been my skull scraping across pave.
Can it help a lot? Yes...see that crack in my helmet above? That would've been my skull splitting open...
Can it help if you're hit head on by a car at hi speed? Likely not...go get some kevlar spandex.

I like my odds/outcome with a helmet.

Try this one out. I would say its scientific and from a reputable source:

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/320/21/1361?maxtoshow=&HITS=20&hits=20&RESULTFORMAT=&author1=Thompson&titleabstract=Bicycle&searchid=1004370623714_124372&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=PUBDATE_SORTDATE+desc+Score+desc&fdate=1/1/1988&tdate=10/31/1990&journalcode=nejm

About 10 years ago, I crashed my bike into a guard rail (the same day Christopher Reeve broke his neck). I was going 49 MPH down a steep hill when the road took a very sharp turn to the left (with a 15 MPH posted speed limit). I locked my wheels up and skidded into the guard rail. My rear wheel climbed over the guard rail and tacoed, and the bike got jammed onto the guard rail. I went flying over the handlebars. It was a controlled flight, much like diving off a diving board. I actually had time to think about how I wanted to land. I chose to tuck and role and landed square on my head. I was wearing a Bell V1-Pro hard shell helmet. I slid on the ground on my helmet, then my butt came round and slammed into the pavement (ouch!), then I continued to spin around and landed on all fours. My knees were quite scraped up and my ears were ringing, but other than that, I was OK. My helmet's hard shell had deep scrapes in it and the inner foam liner cracked, but the helmet stayed intact. So, the fact that I was wearing my helmet altered how I chose to land. Without the helmet, I probably would have done a face plant, and who knows how that would have turned out. I certainly wouldn't have tucked my head down. Of course, I could have broken my neck like Christopher Reeve using my chosen method, but what the heck, when you are experiencing a crash you don't have much time to think about all those things. I always felt that my helmet minimized my injury and always ride with one. I am not so sure how the more modern, light weight shells would hold up under a similar crash and hope to never have to find out. In summary, I fall into the camp that helmets are a good thing to use and help more than they hurt.

One thing I do know, in the states that have mandated motorcycle helmets and bike helmets on kids, the abundance of good viable organ donors plummeted at the implementation of the law. So it seemed helmets were saving lives, as far as I'm concerned if anyone doesn't have the brains to wear a helmet, there's not much worth saving anyway. I wear mine.

Well this has turned really ugly. I don't understand. The other day I wrote a thread about a test ride I made on a new bike (19.5 lps) compared it to a ride on my old bike (25 lbs). the result over a 10 mile ride was from 15mph average to 21 mph. Now the respondant didn't say, hmmm, that is interesting, kind of contrary to what we know about wt reduction. Do you have an explanation for it? Instead he writes There is no f****k** way that there was a 6 mph increase (read, "you are a liar"). So I write back and lay out all the parameters. Including my agreement that it shouldn't have made anything like that kind of difference. He responds with something like "Well the math says it all, if I were you, I'd buy a $10,000 bike and join the tour". What is going on that if someone offers an opinion that is contrary to our beliefs, we should attack them, call them stupid, uneducated, what ever. Spearman drew a cunclusion based on the data which he was good enough to give to us. His conclusion, based on that data is valid. Even though the data may not be. So if you don't agree with Spearman, attack the data, but not Spearman. Offer studies that contradict the data that Spearman gave us, or discuss why you think it is wrong, like looking at injury and not fatalities. Spearman, himself alludes to this, "if you ride over 10 mph" then don't use a helmet. Suggesting that helmets are beneficial for rides up to 10 miles an hour which, at impact I suggest include the vast majority of accidents. To paraphrase the a/b question up above, the rider is coming down hill, he is doing 30 mph. He hits a object at a 45 degree angle. But the wind shield is also lays back at at least a 45 degree angle. So what is the force acting on this guys head at impact? Well some physics guy here can calculate that by vector analysis, but I think it will be something under 10 mph. So, wear your helmet and land softly, because, as we have learned from crash dummies, if your brain instantly goes from 30mph to 0...you're dead. In any event, let's try to play nicely, it is a lot more enjoyable. Stamp

The safety bike helmets provide is a myth. Check out


Come on guys!!

http://mercury.walagata.com/w/vaia/emotes/dont-feed-troll.gif

I started with a $30 helmet (maybe it was $45) -- a pretty basic Giro -- and went with it for a full season, then got a $180 helmet (though I paid $100). Forehead-slapper on temperature difference in the sun.

Both are going to protect your head just as well, but the vents definitely help. I think the Bell Sweep (had one, crashed it) is one of the best price / airflow out there; like $90 on eBay and every bit as cool -- temperature-wise -- as the Atmos.
I started with WalMart helmets. Then a skateboard helmet. Man was that helmet great... I felt and looked like a boiled egg. Went up to a $60 Giro and the fit difference was amazing. Light, airy, snug, and I didn't mind wearing it at all. Now have a Limar 707 and a Bell Sweep R. Both are >$100, and I love them both, though I like the Sweep more. Incredible second-skin fit, I've never felt my head to be overheated, and it's a black helmet. Pretty impressive. It's adjustable on the fly - you just reach back and there's a clicker you just push one way or the other to tighten or losen your helmet, which gives you something of a custom fit. This is true of the Limar, too, though it didn't fit my head shape quite as well, and was a bit more finicky.

If you're just riding around town a $30 helmet's fine. It's fine on a lonnnnnng ride too. But if you upgrade to a big-buck helmet, you'll feel a real difference. My biggest problem is riding off without my helmet now, because the Sweep is sooo nice that I sometimes dont realize I'm not wearing it.
-estone2

I ended up with a Bell Alchera from Performance.com. Total cost+ shipping was $58. Why the Alchera? 1. Really the entry point for "fitted" helmets. I was able to get it in a medium. 2. Lots and lots of air, big vents. 3. Bell helmets fit me better than others. I want to thank everyone. I wouldn't have ended up here without your help. I think it is a really good starting point. At least it was an educated guess. Stamp

Stamp, It's not just the speed increase. Earlier in this tread you said you were doing 200 miles a week, obvously with no helmet and tennis shoes. Nobody called you on that. (well, maybe I just did!)

53t, sorry, I don't understand your point. But I am very willing to enter into a civil discussion about it, as I am curious to understand if you are trying to say what I think you are. Stamp

Try this one out. I would say its scientific and from a reputable source:

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/320/21/1361?maxtoshow=&HITS=20&hits=20&RESULTFORMAT=&author1=Thompson&titleabstract=Bicycle&searchid=1004370623714_124372&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=PUBDATE_SORTDATE+desc+Score+desc&fdate=1/1/1988&tdate=10/31/1990&journalcode=nejm

Yes, the New England Journal of Medicine generally is a reputable source. However, by this point, I'm sure they wish they had never published it. Although the Thompson/Rivara study is one of the most widely cite, it is also one of the most widely criticized for being "junk science". Here is a reference to a criticism of the Thompson/Rivara study in another reputable source:

http://www.bikebiz.co.uk/daily-news/article.php?id=5495

Like much of "junk science", a large part of the problem with the Thompson/Rivara study is that their were too many uncontrolled variables in the population samples, not to mention a lot of "cherry picking" of the data (i.e., ignoring data that didn't agree with their conclusions). Thompson/Rivara compared two different groups - one that had a high percentage of helmet usage, and one that had a low percentage of helmet usage - and compared hospital admissions records between them. Unfortunately, there were many, many more differences between these groups than just their amount of helmet usage - in particular, the group with a high percentage of helmet use were middle and upper income children that rode largely in public parks, and the group with a low percentage of helmet use were lower income children that rode primarly on city streets. The higher income children were more likely to vist the hospital for all injuries, even minor ones, than the lower income children, who were more likely to visit the hospital only for major injuries. This tends to skew the hospital records to show more serious injuries per number of hospital visits for the lower income children. But an even more serious error in the study is that while the high helmet use group did have a lower incidence of serious head injuries (as a percentage of total reported accidents), they also had a lower incidence of serious lower body injuries per accident as well - in other words, to reach the conclusion that the high helmet use group had a lower incidence of head injuries, they either had to believe that helmets reduce severity of lower body injury, or they had to conveniently ignored that the low helmet use group had a higher total number of accidents (and that those accidents were often more severe, as they more often involved collision with motor vehicles).

Percentage of effectiveness? What, I am half brain dead, so it only worked 50%?.

I'm afraid that is a simplistic view. Brain injury is not a simple matter of died/didn't die. 1/2 inch of foam is more likley to only reduce the severity of brain injury, not

What does a helmet have to do with bike damage. Get to the point. In the incidents related, the helmet worked. Thats the point.

No, that is not the point. As noted above, a helmet was worn during only one of the incidents reported above, so one of these incidents is not an example of a helmet working. And given the little difference in head injury between these incidents, perhaps the second incident is an example of a helmet not working.

The bike damage was only mentioned to give a sense of the force and energy of the collisions.

I was the cyclist involved in both of these incidents. One occurred many years ago, before helmets were popular, and there were very few on the market. The other occured years later, when helmets were more common.

On the face of it, the first incident, involving a head first collision into a motor vehicle, which involved more total bodily (and facial) injury (not to mention the the total destruction of the bicycle) would appear the most likely to cause severe brain injury than the second incident, which involved a tumble over the handlebars onto a clear road (and no bike damage). However, it was the first incident (head first into the car) in which a helmet was not worn. And yet, the amount of brain injury was roughly equal between these two. How can this be? Is it possible that helmets can only provide just a small amount of protection?

After the second incident, I started looking around for evidence of the actual affectiveness of helmets. What I found was - although there are some presumptions and extrapolations on the effectiveness of helmets in reducing head injury, there is actually very little data indicating that helmets have had any affect on reducing the number or severity of head injuries in the general population. In fact, the data available seems to show that increased helmet usage has had little impact on overall bicycling safety. The popular idea is that helmets are hightly effective at reducing (or eliminating) head injury. But this is based mostly on conjecture and faith, and not on hard evidence. Unfortunately, many have picked up on the idea of helmets as the number one necessity for bicycle safety with an almost religious fervor, branding anyone who even questions the affectiveness or necessity of helmets as a heretic. But many who have approached the question with an open mind, who have carefully studied the available real-world data, have often come to the conclusion that helmets are not the end-all and be-all of bicycle safety.
Sure, they might be able to provide some level of protection, but the amount of protection appears to be grossly exagerated. There are more, and more important factors in bicycle safety than helmet usage, so much of the energy presently being directed toward helmet compulsion is probably best placed elsewhere.

So, if you are really interested in bicycle helmet effectiveness, here a few questions I suggest you research first:

What are the current helmet standards, and how what types of accidents are helmet test standards designed to simulate? How high (or low) are the acceptance criteria for a helmet to pass these tests?

What is the rate of head injury (or any other serious injury) among cyclists, as compared to other common modes of transportation (most of which are not done while wearing helmets)?

How much (or little) has the rate of head injury changed with increased helmet usage by the cycling public?

Has any mandatory helmet law been followed by a decrease in head injury amongst the cycling populace?

Anyone truly interested in promoting bicycle helmets should probably be able to answer these questions. If they were to really research these questions, I think they'd be surprised at what they'd find. The web page referenced is a good place to start.

Good luck to anyone not wearing a helmet who tries to sue over injuries caused by a driver in the wrong.

i like how people always use the "rate of injury" thing for not using saftey devices. i would be happy to never fall off my bike and hit my head, but that doesnt mean i wont wear a helmet. Same thing went for hockey when i played that. I wore a full shield, not because i thought i was gonna get hit in the head, but because you never know. In the 15 or so seasons that i did play. My shield protected me probably less than 5 times, though i still wore it. Same thing goes for the winners that dont wear helmets when they ride motorcycles. As far as effectivness goes, I pretty much would guarantee that your head would fare better with a helmet on it.
just my 2 cents

i like how people always use the "rate of injury" thing for not using saftey devices. i would be happy to never fall off my bike and hit my head, but that doesnt mean i wont wear a helmet. Same thing went for hockey when i played that. I wore a full shield, not because i thought i was gonna get hit in the head, but because you never know. In the 15 or so seasons that i did play. My shield protected me probably less than 5 times, though i still wore it. Same thing goes for the winners that dont wear helmets when they ride motorcycles. As far as effectivness goes, I pretty much would guarantee that your head would fare better with a helmet on it.
just my 2 cents
I agree. If I knew I was going to use my helmet for it's intended use, I wouldn't leave the house that day. :eek:

I'm an EEG tech, and I've worked in ER's as an RT for 30 years. I have seen a LOT of people who've had long term neurological sequelae from bicycle crashes, and what they've ALL had in common is, they were NOT wearing a helmet when they biffed. ( I do serial EEG's on 'em, trying to find a medication that'll control those SEIZURES they've been having ever since the accident.) I've seen lots of long bone injuries, wicked road rashes, etc. with cyclists wearing helmets...but don't think I've ever seen one with long term neurological consequences. They're usually conscious when they come in the door. So...yes. I wear my $40.00 helmet religiously. Jeez....the odds are bad enough as it is! Why push it?

Good luck to anyone not wearing a helmet who tries to sue over injuries caused by a driver in the wrong.

You mean if a car was struck by another car, and a passenger in the first car wasn't wearing a helmet?

Or if a driver hit a pedestrian, and the pedestrian wasn't wearing a helmet?

Everyone once in a while a driver who has struck a helmetless cyclists has claimed that the cyclist was partially at fault for not wearing a helmet. In every case, this claim has been thrown out. And rightly so.

You mean if a car was struck by another car, and a passenger in the first car wasn't wearing a helmet?

Or if a driver hit a pedestrian, and the pedestrian wasn't wearing a helmet?

Everyone once in a while a driver who has struck a helmetless cyclists has claimed that the cyclist was partially at fault for not wearing a helmet. In every case, this claim has been thrown out. And rightly so.

dunno how u guys construct a case over there.. As far as duty goes i would agree w/ u absolutely, but as far as damages go, good luck w/ that ! it is entirely possible that the P would be found CN, over here after recent legislative amendment CN can be held to a 100% reduction in damages. Given helmets are compulsory here, that would be very possible ! Even if they weren't, it could be an important factor in assessing damages, depending on injury and expert testimony..

cheers