Helmet......the cool factor

[Nevin@Tec-toyz.com]

I wear my helmet, elbow, knee and now wrist guards with closed finger gloves. You should wear safety gear at all times. You don't have to go fast to get hurt. All you need is to fall off the wrong way or hit something while falling off. People don't like wearing safety gear because they don't look good with it or it doesn't feel good. But after learning it the hard way you will soon realize the correct thing to do all along was the thing you should of done in the first place. take it from the people who had learned it the hard way, wear your safety gear!

[Donald1800]

On ‎12‎/‎20‎/‎2015 at 1:53 PM, MetricUSA said:

Besides the awesome horny helmet, you need this for ultimate protection...

http://www.amazon.com/Buddy-Bounce-Outdoor-Play-Inflatable/dp/B009E8LPDK/ref=pd_sim_200_8?ie=UTF8&dpID=61MvObRMn5L&dpSrc=sims&preST=_AC_UL160_SR145%2C160_&refRID=12ASYP2HTSTJ3H462QYJ

Now, THAT'S Cool - but I would still wear my 'Pro Hockey' Helmet.

[Gimlet]

I have a feeling you'd need your helmet with that thing. It looks like it would automatically roll your head into contact with the ground if you came off.

13 hours ago, Donald1800 said:

Now, THAT'S Cool - but I would still wear my 'Pro Hockey' Helmet.

 

[vespaman]

I'm also using bicycle helmet and bicycle gloves. Putting the helmet on my most precious body part is not a problem for me. In the beginning I used knee and elbow pads - those where much worse to put on, and to wear. I have fallen a few times on my own, but I am fairly convinced that if/when I "make use of" the helmet, it will not be in a single crash, but maybe hit by a car or bicyclist. Traffic accidents happens all day long in cities.

While bicycle commuting to work, I have had experience in thanking my helmet twice - that makes using a helmet a non-question for me.

The debate seams common for all kinds of transportation - there are always people who run their motorcycles/mopeds/bicycles without helmets, so in that sense it is expectable to see this discussion also for EU's.

 

[SuperSport]

5 hours ago, vespaman said:

I have fallen a few times on my own, but I am fairly convinced that if/when I "make use of" the helmet, it will not be in a single crash, but maybe hit by a car or bicyclist. Traffic accidents happens all day long in cities.

My Wife's Ex Husband's 17 year old son was riding his bike last year in a Bike Lane.  He dropped his grocery bag and bent over to grab it.  At the same time, a drunk driver entered into the bike lane and hit him in his head at 20 mph.  It crushed the left side of his head and he's now unable to walk, barely speaks any words, and will be this way the rest of his life.  I don't know for sure if a helmet would have helped or not, but I wish we had the opportunity to find out.  He was such a sweet kid, and now he has to be fed by others and wear a diaper the rest of his life.

I also realize this is ONE instance and One bad outcome, but as I've mentioned before in the forums, as someone who does extreme sports at times throughout my life, I've personally lost a few friends to accidents.  Some so slow and simple it would blow your mind.  I PERSONALLY will wear my helmet on each ride on the Unicycle.

But, on the other hand, I don't want to tell Others that THEY have to wear one.  As an avid motorcycle rider, I'm against mandatory helmet laws for motorcycles, but I will personally always wear one.  I find it Ludicrous that our Government Forces people to wear helmets, and then allows Cigarette Smoking when the numbers prove cigarette smoking is so much more dangerous.  Again, I don't think they should force people to stop smoking either, I just don't like the Government being SO involved, then SO hypocritical when there's money to be made.

[Pilotguy]

Well expressed !!

[SlowMo]

When I was a teenager, I hit my forehead on the tri-wheeled motorcycle handle when I made a sudden turn to evade another vehicle on my way. It left a permanent indentation on my forehead near the top of my right eye. If I had a helmet, I would not be looking ugly today.

[SuperSport]

Just now, SlowMo said:

When I was a teenager, I hit my forehead on the tri-wheeled motorcycle handle when I made a sudden turn to evade another vehicle on my way. It left a permanent indentation on my forehead near the top of my right eye. If I had a helmet, I would not be looking ugly today.

I only WISH I could use that excuse for how I look...

[Jurgen]

@SlowMo luckily it was only you forehead, and not the side, so now it only affected your personality and not your motor skills

[SlowMo]

15 minutes ago, Jurgen said:

@SlowMo luckily it was only you forehead, and not the side, so now it only affected your personality and not your motor skills

It also made me dumb. 

[Jurgen]

22 minutes ago, SlowMo said:

It also made me dumb. 

contrary to some that never had an accident, you're still smart enough to wear a helmet

 

[vespaman]

On 12/27/2015 at 5:46 PM, SuperSport said:

But, on the other hand, I don't want to tell Others that THEY have to wear one.  As an avid motorcycle rider, I'm against mandatory helmet laws for motorcycles, but I will personally always wear one.  I find it Ludicrous that our Government Forces people to wear helmets, and then allows Cigarette Smoking when the numbers prove cigarette smoking is so much more dangerous.  Again, I don't think they should force people to stop smoking either, I just don't like the Government being SO involved, then SO hypocritical when there's money to be made.

I don't disagree with you on this,  but laws has its benefits in changing peoples habits, something that takes forever without some sort of incitement.

But I think the real difference in view on this, is how much trust we have with our governments - there's a lot of studies regarding the differences between Europe (and perhaps northern Europe in particular) and the US. Perhaps living in a smaller country, where government is closer to you (or perhaps better behaved), makes a difference. I only mention this, since I find this an interesting subject - it has nothing to do with EUC since I'm not advocating helmet law.

P.S. Over here, cigarrette smoking is getting harder and harder - the last law forbids smoking on many outdoor places as well. Having a full stop law would be impossible, since it would only explode the black market.

Sorry for going off-topic.

 

[Makoben]

Another sidenote. In the late 1970s I had to go to the University of Southern California and meet with a safety professor. He was so excited that California had repealed their motorcycle helmet laws.  I ask him why he was so happy about it.  He explained. " my study is on the effectiveness of motorcycle helmets. When they passed the law for motorcycle helmets almost every crash involved someone with a helmet.  When they repealed the law,  Half of the riders wore helmets making for a perfect statistical base. ".  I asked what his results of shown so far. He said  " if you get in a wreck at over 40 miles an hour without a helmet, it is in the 90 percentile you will be dead or vegetable.  At any speed if you have a helmet you have about a five times better chance of surviving."

I have been riding my EU for two weeks now and I always wear a helmet. 

Mike

[Mono]

11 hours ago, vespaman said:

I don't disagree with you on this,  but laws has its benefits in changing peoples habits, something that takes forever without some sort of incitement.

But I think the real difference in view on this, is how much trust we have with our governments - there's a lot of studies regarding the differences between Europe (and perhaps northern Europe in particular) and the US. Perhaps living in a smaller country, where government is closer to you (or perhaps better behaved), makes a difference. I only mention this, since I find this an interesting subject - it has nothing to do with EUC since I'm not advocating helmet law.

P.S. Over here, cigarrette smoking is getting harder and harder - the last law forbids smoking on many outdoor places as well. Having a full stop law would be impossible, since it would only explode the black market.

Sorry for going off-topic.

 

Keeping it off-topic: the "problem" with governing and law-making is that it should depend on facts and evidence (interpreted with expertise) instead of the opinions of old (or young) guys that happened to have been elected. The biggest problem in the US is that it is legal for anyone, and common practice, to pay law-makers lots of money before they turn "their" opinion into law. That is a devastating practice independently of the size of the state or country.

I don't see a reason why facts and evidence could not strongly suggest as best possible policy a helmet law only for motorcycles and not for EUCs (or bicycles).

[Mono]

2 hours ago, Makoben said:

Another sidenote. In the late 1970s I had to go to the University of Southern California and meet with a safety professor. He was so excited that California had repealed their motorcycle helmet laws.  I ask him why he was so happy about it.  He explained. " my study is on the effectiveness of motorcycle helmets. When they passed the law for motorcycle helmets almost every crash involved someone with a helmet.  When they repealed the law,  Half of the riders wore helmets making for a perfect statistical base. ".  I asked what his results of shown so far. He said  " if you get in a wreck at over 40 miles an hour without a helmet, it is in the 90 percentile you will be dead or vegetable.  At any speed if you have a helmet you have about a five times better chance of surviving."

In which case my next question would be: why do we need (more) data if we already know the result? It seems clear to me that collecting data solely for its own sake can be rather unethical. AFAIK it is common practice in medical testing to stop the procedure when it becomes statistically clear that one group has a remarkably lower survival rate than the other(s).

[Makoben]

That is exactly why the professor was so excited, all of his research was after the fact(accident). He could not require some of the population to ride without a helmet and force a balanced study. He had a motorcycle and always rode with a helmet and encouraged everyone to wear a helmet. 

A helmet is only needed for that split second your head hits another mass, I just don't know when that split second is going to occur. I would like to say every time I have needed a helmet it was on my head, but out of the four times I have hit my head hard, only once was I wearing a helmet. I was in a formula car race in the seventies and got hit in the head with a tire from another car that was still attached to that car. Once I walked into the wing of my airplane that I had ducked under a million times. Another time I was surfing a real steep shore break and somehow ended up head first into the beach and the last was getting hit in the head by a sailboat boom. Only one of those situations would I still wear a helmet, but at my age, I don't think I am ever getting in a formula car again. The whole point of this is everyone should be able to make his own decisions about their own personal safety or their children.

in Florida you can ride a motorcycle without a helmet, but you have to carry extra insurance to pay for extended care health insurance.

after I learn how to ride my EU, since it is so slow, I will make a decision about wearing a helmet.

mike

[Donald1800]

6 hours ago, Niko said:

I don't see a reason why facts and evidence could not strongly suggest as best possible policy a helmet law only for motorcycles and not for EUCs (or bicycles).

California USA just passed a law requiring helmet use by hover boarders. I too despise passing laws that ONLY protect users (nanny laws), but wisdom dictates every owner/user should use helmet and body armor - especially if they are an aggressive rider or ride on public streets. JMO.

[Jurgen]

Does anybody riding at higher speeds, use spinal column protection?

[Nevin@Tec-toyz.com]

Legal to ride in California now. Use them helmets. Protect yourself before you wreck yourself!

[ThatCharlieDude]

On 12/31/2015 at 4:57 PM, Donald1800 said:

California USA just passed a law requiring helmet use by hover boarders. I too despise passing laws that ONLY protect users (nanny laws), but wisdom dictates every owner/user should use helmet and body armor - especially if they are an aggressive rider or ride on public streets. JMO.

The California law also states riders must be 16 years old or older. 

[esaj]

22 hours ago, Jurgen said:

Does anybody riding at higher speeds, use spinal column protection?

I've been thinking of buying a spine-armor, but haven't done so yet. Something like this: 

Costs about 40€, probably not very high quality compared to "real" motorcycle spine armors.

Or this:

About 60€

Both are Level 2 CE-certified. ("EN1621-2 assesses armor designed to protect the back/spine. It is a more stringent standard allowing no more than 18 kN of force to be transmitted to attain Level 1 protection (EN-1621-2 CE Level 1). Armor that allows less than 9 kN of force to be transmitted can attain a Level 2 protection (EN-1621-2 CE Level 2)")

[Jurgen]

@esaj

For my daily rides (except the funny stuff) I’ve stopped wearing knee and elbow protection, only helmet and wrists, because I don’t go over 18KmH (older Lhotz 340 model).

But I’m looking to buy a faster wheel, and I tend to push things to the limit.
When I was much younger ‘they’ said it would get better with age, but they lied… it doesn’t.

So I’ve been looking at these spine-armor wondering whether it would be really of added value, but ofcourse there’s no data available on the use of spine-armors when riding EUC’s. So the 100K USD Q is wether you should wear one above 20kmH or only above 30KmH, but then is it level 1 above 30KmH, and level 2 above 40KmH???

I've looked into it a bit more what the spine-armors are supposed to do. Apparently they protect mainly against direct impact (that usually does limited damage), but not against torsional accidents than can easily leave you crippled for life.

If nobody on the forum has knowledge of spinal collumn damage resulted for an EUC accident, I guess  wearing even more protective gear riding a wheel results probably more in ‘pain’ inflicted by a perceived risk than anything else.....

 

[BA-B8]

Was thinking about one of those spine protectors but if you ride with a backpack just stick a sheet of foam inside with a book or two and might be just as good if not better.

[esaj]

53 minutes ago, Jurgen said:

@esaj

For my daily rides (except the funny stuff) I’ve stopped wearing knee and elbow protection, only helmet and wrists, because I don’t go over 18KmH (older Lhotz 340 model).

But I’m looking to buy a faster wheel, and I tend to push things to the limit.
When I was much younger ‘they’ said it would get better with age, but they lied… it doesn’t.

So I’ve been looking at these spine-armor wondering whether it would be really of added value, but ofcourse there’s no data available on the use of spine-armors when riding EUC’s. So the 100K USD Q is wether you should wear one above 20kmH or only above 30KmH, but then is it level 1 above 30KmH, and level 2 above 40KmH???

I've looked into it a bit more what the spine-armors are supposed to do. Apparently they protect mainly against direct impact (that usually does limited damage), but not against torsional accidents than can easily leave you crippled for life.

If nobody on the forum has knowledge of spinal collumn damage resulted for an EUC accident, I guess  wearing even more protective gear riding a wheel results probably more in ‘pain’ inflicted by a perceived risk than anything else.....

I don't think there are any statistics done about EUCs yet (accidents or otherwise)... Probably the spine armors only protect from direct impacts, torsion or twisting of spine would require something that more or less "locks" your back in place. Personally, I'd prefer to be wrapped in as much armor as possible should I ever have a serious accident, and hopefully walk away unscathed... So far it has worked, head first into pavement first day, another not-so-serious crash in third day, and a couple of other rider errors (overspeeding to uphill with the generic, going over deformed asphalt at maybe 15km/h with the Firewheel), the worst damage so far has been banged toe and minor scrape in elbow and pinky.

[dmethvin]

Spine armor seems like it would only be useful if you had a direct blow to your back, for example you tucked into a roll that ended up with your back hitting a rock or the curb. Based on the cases where I've had accidents it seems that's not likely. the Wikipedia article on armor seems to question it as well: 

• Serious spinal injures are usually caused by axial forces due to blows on the head, or bending and twisting forces on the back caused by blows to the shoulders, hips and other parts of the body. In the Cambridge Standard for Motorcyclists Clothing, Roderick Woods asserts that the majority of spinal injuries are caused by blows to the hip and shoulders. In the rare circumstance that a motorcyclist received a direct blow to the back the damage would be unmitigable by armor. The concept of a "back protector" is therefore not endorsed by Woods. Although back protectors, as defined in the standard, cannot protect against axial forces they are required to protect the scapula and there is now considerable anecdotal evidence that wearing a certified back protector can significantly reduce trauma in a major accident as they reduce the effect of impacts on the ribs and lessen the blows to internal organs too.

On a lot of motorcycle accidents you can see people sliding for long distances and tumbling as they fall, ending their fall abruptly as they hit a curb, pole, or roadside guard rail. At EUC speeds it's usually over pretty quickly and over less distance than that. I think we need more like a skateboarding or skating level of protection.

Just wearing jeans and a long thick shirt prevented me from getting road rash on my last fall. I was wearing helmet and gloves which is where I needed the real protection. However, I think if I was doing high speed offroading like vee73 I might go for motorcycle gear with full padding!