Thank God for cycle helmets
We went to the park earlier this afternoon. Aprilia insisted on going on her bike so I insisted she wore her lid. She griped, she moaned but she agreed eventually. All was well going to the park, she played at the park for ages then we headed home.
There is a steep bank on our route that ends with the main road and for some unknown reason there isn’t one of those metal railing things at the end of it like there are with most of those sorts of pedestrian alleys that tip out onto roads. Normally she gets off at the top of the bank and wheels the bike down it but today, being as she is now a BIG girl, she decided to ride down then realised she was going waaay too fast and was in danger of flying out onto the road. So she grabbed 2 big handfuls of brakes. The bike stopped. Trouble was she didn’t. She flew off and pile-drived head first into a concrete fence post. Que much wailing.
When I got her back home (thankfully it was only a minute or so away) and had a good look all she has is grazed hands, a bumped knee and a small graze where the helmet strap tweeked her jaw a little. The helmet, on the other hand, is scrap. There is one huge great fence post shaped crevasse in it 2" long and a good 1/2" deep just where her left temple would have been had she not been wearing it. Que mummy feeling sick at what might have been adn one small girl promising never, ever to refuse to wear her lid again.
So, if anyone knows where I can get a mainly purple and pink with kittys on it Bell helmet from could you purleese let me know as we got that one at Melrose so I can’t just nip back to the shop and see if they have any more! (and she wants one the same 
)
Try Froogle
:-)
Comment by Tim — April 8, 2007 @ 5:49 pm
Mind you, I might be inclined to insist on One of these in the circumstances.
Comment by Tim — April 8, 2007 @ 5:54 pm
Oooh, very scary! Did you have a stiff drink when you got home?
Comment by Joanna — April 8, 2007 @ 6:01 pm
D’you know, I would pretty much just copy this post and send it in to your council who have a duty of care. It may result in them making some safety imrpovements. Also, if they have been warned and an accident occured (which hopefully would not happen), they could be (not would be) liable as they would have been aware of the possible danger.
Absolutely terrifying for you though. A couple of stiff drinks would be necessary imo.
Comment by michelle — April 8, 2007 @ 8:46 pm
Tim - thanks, I’ve ordered the pink and flowery Alibi on-line which we will hopefully have by the end of the week. The full face one is tempting but it’s too big for her yet
and it’s not pink…… 
Joanna, does a very thick smoothie count as a stiff drink? Sadly no alcohol as I was working last night and I am a cheep drunk
I did indulge in LOTS of Maya Gold choccie though which has similar calming effects for me 
Michelle, that’s a very good idea, thanks. I’m not entirely sure that the results would hve been less painful if she had crashed into railings rather than high siding trying to avoid going into the road but either way it would have been an awful lot worse if she had sailed into the road (which I am refusing to even think about)
The bit I forgot to mention yesterday was that she landed with her head inches away from a broken bottle. You know, the more I think about this, the more I think that we need a different route to the play park
Comment by Administrator — April 9, 2007 @ 10:24 am
Oh fuck.
None of us wear them. I’d like everyone to, but Max is convinced they don’t do any good so doesn’t make us.
Comment by Merry — April 9, 2007 @ 12:57 pm
I don’t believe they make a huge difference to adult sensible cyclists, particularly if they are gentle around and abouters - rahter than off roaders. I think they are ’sold’ with the idea that if your car crashes into you, you need a helmet, whereas you ould have multiple other injuries they have no benefit for. So i am mostly with Max.
However, on novice or erratic cyclists, off roaders - where you are particularly looking at falling off and into something - I think they are a good idea.
Comment by HelenHaricot — April 9, 2007 @ 9:04 pm
Don’t know if this link will work - BMJ study on the reduction in severity of head injury in helmet wearers who collide with cars.
Comment by Jan — April 9, 2007 @ 9:39 pm
interesting results, thanks Jan. I wonder how many of the people with head injuries whilst wearing helmets had them properly fastened/fitted and how old the “failed” helmets were…. (not that this sort of thing is a pt hate of mine or anything…..)
Comment by Administrator — April 9, 2007 @ 9:43 pm
Merry, I have a vague feeling that your usual cycle route is a bit “safer” than the concrete and broken glass jungle we have to go through to get to the park? If it is, and your girls are past the falling off every 5 minutes stage (Aprilia isn’t…. sigh, neither am I to be truthful!) then maybe it’s not such an issue but I’d be tempted to wear them “out of habit” anyway!
Helen, I sort of see what you mean about them not being so essential for adults but then to be fair, if you damage your body (unless its major) then you will usually heal up reasonably well, the same force to your head can do a lot more damage. I am probably a little towards the obsessive side with this sort of stuff because of having been a biker in my yoof and all the Red Cross stuff where I’ve ended up treating injuries that decent safety gear would have prevented.
Comment by Administrator — April 9, 2007 @ 10:02 pm
Oh my goodness! Yikes for you both - can well imagine how sick that must have made you.
The kids use helmets here, for precisely that sort of random falling-off potential.
Comment by Alison — April 9, 2007 @ 10:20 pm
Woah, scarey parent moment there.
I’m mostly with Max as well. The benefits of cycle helmets are limited, by the very nature of the design - unlike say motorcycle helmets which can be big and heavy and pretty strong, cycle helmets are light and full of holes, and are only designed to withstand relatively low energy impacts - basically, someone falling off their bike etc.- I would imagine Aprilla’s crash was pretty much at the limit of protection it could offer - and whilst very scary, she was probably actually traveling at a relatively low speed. In impacts involving say a car traveling at typical car speeds, cycle helmets offer little protection. As has been said, they are probably are most usseful for younger kids, who are most likely to be travelling at lower speeds, are nearer the ground, are more likley to fall off, or have a crash (such as Aprilla’s) due to lack of experince. For adults, they probably are most useful for off-roading and for offering some protection to more marginal head injuries - lacerations etc. I take your last point Tbird, but in an impact where the force is enough to cause major head injuries, then a cycle helmet is probably not going to help at all anyway - it will have been destroyed long before it reduces the energy of the impact enough to be of benefit, or the wearer will suffer other major injuries.
On the topic of research - well prepare for bit of brain ache if you start to read it, as evidence is very contradictory. The are some case controlled studies (such as the one Jan quotes) that claim various amounts of injury reduction/benefit from helmets use, but a lot of it is flawed in one way or another. Population level research tends to show no benefit (in terms of serious injuries/death etc.), but again can suffer limitations. There is some evidence that helmet use is linked with increase in head injuries.
A good resource regarding cycle helmets is:
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/
It does have a bit of a ‘helmet sceptic’ stance (not anti helmet though), but is balanced in it’s approach (it’s roots are in the anti helmet complusion campaign). It has good links to research, critiques etc. as well as more general stuff on the helmet issue.
There is a response to the research Jan quotes here:
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html?1144
My view is that cycling is a safe activity with real health benefits - though of course not risk free, but the risk of serious head injury is small, and benefits of wearing a helmet are probably real but limited. As such it’s another area were really it comes down to personal judgment/risk assessment. It certainly isn’t a ‘no-brainer’. It’s needs considering in context, Children are much more likely to suffer head injuries when jumping or falling. There are much more likely to suffer them as pedestrians or as car occupants. We’d probably be much better wearing helmets as pedstrians and as car occupants than as cyclists.
With regard to helmet buying, the protection offered by helemets now is in general lower than they were in the 1990’s. as they are designed only to meet the EU standard (EN 1078) as opposed to the higher, unofficial standards used before. The best standard is (or was a year or so ago, I think the situation is the same) the Snell B95 one. Though it can be difficult to find them. In part because even if helmet does meet that standard, it might not have a sticker to say so when sold in the UK.
Specialized (company name) helmets were IIRC usually Snell B95 certificated, not sure if this is still the case.
There is a good article (originally published June 2005 in Cycle magazine) on this sort of aspect here:
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/papers/c2023.pdf
Comment by DaddyBean — April 10, 2007 @ 12:46 am
Woah, scarey parent moment there.
I’m mostly with Max as well. The benefits of cycle helmets are limited, by the very nature of the design - unlike say motorcycle helmets which can be big and heavy and pretty strong, cycle helmets are light and full of holes, and are only designed to withstand relatively low energy impacts - basically, someone falling off their bike etc.- I would imagine Aprilla’s crash was pretty much at the limit of protection it could offer - and whilst very scary, she was probably actually traveling at a relatively low speed. In impacts involving say a car traveling at typical car speeds, cycle helmets offer little protection. As has been said, they are probably are most usseful for younger kids, who are most likely to be travelling at lower speeds, are nearer the ground, are more likley to fall off, or have a crash (such as Aprilla’s) due to lack of experince. For adults, they probably are most useful for off-roading and for offering some protection to more marginal head injuries - lacerations etc. I take your last point Tbird, but in an impact where the force is enough to cause major head injuries, then a cycle helmet is probably not going to help at all anyway - it will have been destroyed long before it reduces the energy of the impact enough to be of benefit, or the wearer will suffer other major injuries.
On the topic of research - well prepare for bit of brain ache if you start to read it, as evidence is very contradictory. The are some case controlled studies (such as the one Jan quotes) that claim various amounts of injury reduction/benefit from helmets use, but a lot of it is flawed in one way or another. Population level research tends to show no benefit (in terms of serious injuries/death etc.), but again can suffer limitations. There is some evidence that helmet use is linked with increase in head injuries.
A good resource regarding cycle helmets is:
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/
It does have a bit of a ‘helmet sceptic’ stance (not anti helmet though), but is balanced in it’s approach (it’s roots are in the anti helmet complusion campaign). It has good links to research, critiques etc. as well as more general stuff on the helmet issue.
There is a response to the research Jan quotes here:
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html?1144
My view is that cycling is a safe activity with real health benefits - though of course not risk free, but the risk of serious head injury is small, and benefits of wearing a helmet are probably real but limited. As such it’s another area were really it comes down to personal judgment/risk assessment. It certainly isn’t a ‘no-brainer’. It’s needs considering in context, Children are much more likely to suffer head injuries when jumping or falling. There are much more likely to suffer them as pedestrians or as car occupants. We’d probably be much better wearing helmets as pedstrians and as car occupants than as cyclists.
With regard to helmet buying, the protection offered by helemets now is in general lower than they were in the 1990’s. as they are designed only to meet the EU standard (EN 1078) as opposed to the higher, unofficial standards used before. The best standard is (or was a year or so ago, I think the situation is the same) the Snell B95 one. Though it can be difficult to find them. In part because even if helmet does meet that standard, it might not have a sticker to say so when sold in the UK.
Specialized (company name) helmets were IIRC usually Snell B95 certificated, not sure if this is still the case.
There is a good article (originally published June 2005 in Cycle magazine) on this sort of aspect here:
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/papers/c2023.pdf
Comment by DaddyBean — April 10, 2007 @ 12:46 am
commented, didn’t appear, it included a couple of links, is it in moderation I wonder?
Comment by DaddyBean — April 10, 2007 @ 12:47 am
I suspect there were just a few too many links perhaps? Can’t see any other reason why you wer modded out Chris, it modded Jan out too, maybe I need to look at how tightly I’ve set the criteria!!!
Comment by Administrator — April 10, 2007 @ 10:50 am