Home
Verdict: 
Looks good and performs well, being comfortable, a good weight for the money, and with decent ventilation
Weight: 
267g

The Sweet Protection Outrider is a good looking, comfortable and relatively well-ventilated helmet for the money.

  • Pros: Looks, ventilation, strap design
  • Cons: Could be more adjustable for those with smaller heads/bigger ears

The Outrider sits below the Falconer in Sweet Protection's two-model range of road helmets, with four variations on offer: with and without Mips for men, and with and without Mips for women.

> Buy this online here

Sweet Protection has worked across many different sports for the past 30 years and has built a really effective retention system with its Occigrip dial. This controls bands that run from the back of your head to the temples, meaning that tightening runs around most of the head rather than just at the back. It is pretty small compared to many other helmets, so less likely to be annoying on the back of your head. The dial also allows small increments of adjustment, so it's easier to find the right fit.

sweet_protection_outrider_helmet_-_back.jpg

Helping with comfort are the pads, which have a medium depth but more density than many others I have used. This combination means the helmet can sit closer to the head to improve fit, while still providing a decent level of comfort.

sweet_protection_outrider_helmet_-_inside.jpg

Another nice touch is the way the straps have been built, with two different elements, a bit like Specialized's 'Tri-Fix splitters', but adjustable. I found this worked really well as it basically nullified any twisting, but because you can only adjust the clips by a couple of inches, it might not be quite so good for those with smaller heads or bigger ears.

sweet_protection_outrider_helmet_-_strap.jpg

Ventilation is fairly good, although this is one area where you can really notice the difference between a mid-price helmet and a really high-end one. It is slightly better than others I have used in this price bracket, though; I used it on some of the hottest days of the year and didn't ever find myself wishing I was wearing something with more ventilation.

sweet_protection_outrider_helmet.jpg

Weight is pretty good for a helmet in this price bracket, too – 267g isn't far off the Salice Ghibli, which Stu noted was impressive at 255g; by comparison, the Smith Portal weighs 309g.

sweet_protection_outrider_helmet_-_detail.jpg

It's around the same price as both those (the same as the Salice and a fiver more than the Smith), comparable in most respects and better in some, such as head retention and – subjectively – looks. (It's available in four other colours if this doesn't do it for you.)

> Buyer's Guide: Cycling helmets – everything you need to know

Overall, I was impressed with this helmet. It looks really good, is well priced, has decent ventilation and is very comfortable. There's little not to like, although those with larger ears or smaller heads might not get on so well with the straps.

Verdict

Looks good and performs well, being comfortable, a good weight for the money, and with decent ventilation

If you're thinking of buying this product using a cashback deal why not use the road.cc Top Cashback page and get some top cashback while helping to support your favourite independent cycling website

road.cc test report

Make and model: Sweet Protection Outrider Helmet

Size tested: Medium

Tell us what the product is for and who it's aimed at. What do the manufacturers say about it? How does that compare to your own feelings about it?

Sweet Protection says, "A sleek, do-it-all road helmet, the Outrider uses impact technology inherited from the high-end models. This means low weight and great ventilation all in a compact shaped value-for-money package."

Rate the product for quality of construction:
 
8/10
Rate the product for performance:
 
8/10

Performed really well; decent ventilation and fit help to keep it comfortable.

Rate the product for durability:
 
8/10

Seems well made and likely to last.

Rate the product for weight (if applicable)
 
8/10

Good weight for a helmet in this price bracket, with similarly priced helmets coming in heavier.

Rate the product for comfort (if applicable)
 
7/10

Good comfort thanks to well-designed pads and decent ventilation.

Rate the product for value:
 
6/10

Pretty good value for a fairly lightweight and comfortable helmet.

Tell us how the product performed overall when used for its designed purpose

It performed well, offering relatively good ventilation, decent fit, and good looks.

Tell us what you particularly liked about the product

I really liked its looks combined with the performance. You could happily wear this without looking like a faux-pro while still getting the benefits of its performance elements.

Tell us what you particularly disliked about the product

It would be good to have a little more adjustability in the straps for people with smaller heads/bigger ears.

How does the price compare to that of similar products in the market, including ones recently tested on road.cc?

The Salice Ghibli comes in at the same price and the Smith Portal is £5 cheaper, both of which offer roughly the same kind of performance.

Did you enjoy using the product? Yes

Would you consider buying the product? Yes

Would you recommend the product to a friend? Yes

Use this box to explain your overall score

It's a decent weight for the money and ventilation is pretty good. It would perhaps be nice to have more adjustability in the straps for those with smaller heads or larger ears, but really that's nitpicking what is otherwise a very good helmet.

Overall rating: 8/10

About the tester

Age: 29  Height: 6 ft  Weight:

I usually ride: Cinelli Gazzetta  My best bike is: Cannondale Supersix Evo

I've been riding for: Under 5 years  I ride: Every day  I would class myself as: Expert

I regularly do the following types of riding: commuting, club rides, sportives, general fitness riding, fixed/singlespeed, mountain biking

George spends his days flitting between writing about data, running business magazines and writing about sports technology. The latter gave him the impetus (excuse) to get even further into the cycling world before taking the dive and starting his own cycling sites and writing for Road.cc. 

When he is not writing about cycling, he is either out on his bike cursing not living in the countryside or boring anybody who will listen about the latest pro peloton/cycling tech/cycling infrastructure projects.  

45 comments

Avatar
ClubSmed [781 posts] 5 months ago
1 like
Cugel wrote:
ClubSmed wrote:

I wear a helmet on my commute and the main concern for me is "how it looks, feels, ventilates and weighs" as any helmet will be protection enough for me.

I wear a helmet to stop my head getting hit by low hanging branches on my commute along the canal/river paths and through the park. I have tried a cycling had and it is not enough protection, so I wear a helmet as it is perfect for this purpose.

 

That's a reasonable and well-judged reason for wearing a cycling helmet, in that the accidental blows from a branch or similar at the sort of low-medium speeds you'd be doing on river or canal paths is just about the limit of what a helmet can mitigate against.

But these are not the risks to the head that most cyclists encounter. Those risks are to do with the serious blows imparted at high speeds, either by crashing into something immovable and shaped (not a nice flat surface) or, most likely, getting hit by a car. A cycling helmet will do virtually nothing to help in those situations. In practice, the helmet seems to actually encourage wearers to take the sort of risks that might increase the liklihood of such risks realising.

Cugel

Are you sure that "these are not the risks to the head that most cyclists encounter. Those risks are to do with the serious blows imparted at high speeds"?

I doubt that more people get serious blows at high speeds than get low impact blows. If you are right then cycling really is a dangerous activity and serious action needs to be taken. If you are just over-reacting to try and prove your point, think about the damage painting this type of picture does for cycling. It certainly doesn't do anything to stop people feeling that they should be wearing a helmet.

I would be willing to bet that close to all cyclists have had a low impact blow of some form to the head whilst cycling at some point in their life. If this is true, that would mean for your statement to be true that all cyclists will have encountered "serious blows imparted at high speeds"!

Avatar
hawkinspeter [3272 posts] 5 months ago
2 likes
Rich_cb wrote:

 You can't draw any conclusions from countries which have introduced compulsory helmet laws as the cycling population changes after the introduction of the law. The death/ksi rate in the UK fell dramatically as the helmet wearing rate increased The number of cycling accidents remained static which is good evidence against risk compensation. Is there any good evidence for risk compensation? It is perfectly reasonable to assume that helemts will distribute force. Any solid/semi solid head covering would do so. You can test it yourself. Tap yourself on the head with a hammer. Do the same wearing a helmet. Is the pain equal? If not then the force from the hammer must have been distributed over a greater area.

Risk compensation paper: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1730777/

Also this one, but doesn't look to be as detailed:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15273524

 

The helmet/hammer test is flawed as you're unlikely to encounter hammers on a typical bike ride, but your point about helmets providing some protection is valid. However, is the protective effect worth the risk compensation effect?

Bike helmets aren't really designed to distribute force (although they do to some extent) - they're designed to compress under force. This is behind a lot of mistaken people who point at a broken helmet and assume that because the helmet split into two pieces that it must have provided a substantial protective effect whereas bike helmets are very weak under tension.

Edit: fixed the links

Avatar
hawkinspeter [3272 posts] 5 months ago
0 likes
Rich_cb wrote:
hawkinspeter wrote:

Risk compensation paper: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/bf39/4b752ee22ca84bdeb6200b2c3497304312...

Also this one, but doesn't look to be as detailed:

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/bf39/4b752ee22ca84bdeb6200b2c3497304312...

 

The helmet/hammer test is flawed as you're unlikely to encounter hammers on a typical bike ride, but your point about helmets providing some protection is valid. However, is the protective effect worth the risk compensation effect?

Bike helmets aren't really designed to distribute force (although they do to some extent) - they're designed to compress under force. This is behind a lot of mistaken people who point at a broken helmet and assume that because the helmet split into two pieces that it must have provided a substantial protective effect whereas bike helmets are very weak under tension.

Unfortunately those links don't work. While you might not encounter many hammers you will encounter lots of kerbs/stones/branches etc that can deliver a similar pattern of force/area. If risk compensation had any effect in the real world we'd have seen a big increase in the number of cycling accidents after the use of helmets increased. We didn't. So the effect is either negligible or non-existent.

I fixed the links now.

Personally, I've found that my bike helmet does indeed provide excellent protection from branches - luckily, I've not tested it against kerbs.

You propose that risk compensation would be easily viewable in statistics, but it's just not that simple. Firstly, it's tricky to accurately count the number of helmet vs non-helmet cyclists. Secondly, there are a large number of other factors at play - probably the biggest one is the number of cyclists.

To get around the issue of counting the number of helmet using cyclists, it's easiest to look at places where they have introduced a mandatory helmet law (e.g. Australia). I don't have the stats to hand, but I recollect that after the helmet law, the number of accidents stayed roughly similar whilst the number of cyclists actually decreased.

That would seem at odds with your claim, so I'll see if I can find those stats.

Found from http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1012.html :

Meuleners LB, Gavin AL, Cercarelli LR, 2003. Bicycle crashes and injuries in Western Australia 1987 - 2000. University of Western Australia RR131.

Avatar
Rich_cb [850 posts] 5 months ago
1 like
hawkinspeter wrote:

I fixed the links now.

Personally, I've found that my bike helmet does indeed provide excellent protection from branches - luckily, I've not tested it against kerbs.

You propose that risk compensation would be easily viewable in statistics, but it's just not that simple. Firstly, it's tricky to accurately count the number of helmet vs non-helmet cyclists. Secondly, there are a large number of other factors at play - probably the biggest one is the number of cyclists.

To get around the issue of counting the number of helmet using cyclists, it's easiest to look at places where they have introduced a mandatory helmet law (e.g. Australia). I don't have the stats to hand, but I recollect that after the helmet law, the number of accidents stayed roughly similar whilst the number of cyclists actually decreased.

That would seem at odds with your claim, so I'll see if I can find those stats.

Found from http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1012.html :

Meuleners LB, Gavin AL, Cercarelli LR, 2003. Bicycle crashes and injuries in Western Australia 1987 - 2000. University of Western Australia RR131.

Unfortunately I still can't access the more detailed link but I will see if I have access in work.

The problem with using any mandatory helmet law jurisdiction as a test of helmet efficacy is that the risk profile of the cycling population before and after the law is very different.

Those who wore helmets before the law would be unaffected and vice versa. Groups that had high rates of helmet use pre law would therefore make up a greater percentage of cyclists post law.

The overall risk profile of the cycling population would therefore change.

Looking at the paper about Western Australia there is unfortunately no data about injury rates per mile/km that I can see, just absolute injury numbers.

The average number of injuries per year in the 5 years after the law was introduced is substantially lower than the 5 years before. This is likely a result of fewer cyclists but without injuries per km it is impossible to be sure.

It is also interesting that the both number of head injuries and overall injury severity fell after the law was introduced.

Again without data per km this is hard to analyse.

The WA also relies on estimation of helmet wearing rates, this introduces the potential for significant error especially given law enforcement changes regarding helmet use over the study period.

The UK data, by comparison, measures injuries by km and measures helmet use directly.

The UK data is also not compromised by legislation induced change of the cycling population.

Avatar
Cugel [73 posts] 5 months ago
2 likes
ClubSmed wrote:
Cugel wrote:
ClubSmed wrote:

I wear a helmet on my commute and the main concern for me is "how it looks, feels, ventilates and weighs" as any helmet will be protection enough for me.

I wear a helmet to stop my head getting hit by low hanging branches on my commute along the canal/river paths and through the park. I have tried a cycling had and it is not enough protection, so I wear a helmet as it is perfect for this purpose.

 

That's a reasonable and well-judged reason for wearing a cycling helmet, in that the accidental blows from a branch or similar at the sort of low-medium speeds you'd be doing on river or canal paths is just about the limit of what a helmet can mitigate against.

But these are not the risks to the head that most cyclists encounter. Those risks are to do with the serious blows imparted at high speeds, either by crashing into something immovable and shaped (not a nice flat surface) or, most likely, getting hit by a car. A cycling helmet will do virtually nothing to help in those situations. In practice, the helmet seems to actually encourage wearers to take the sort of risks that might increase the liklihood of such risks realising.

Cugel

Are you sure that "these are not the risks to the head that most cyclists encounter. Those risks are to do with the serious blows imparted at high speeds"?

I doubt that more people get serious blows at high speeds than get low impact blows. If you are right then cycling really is a dangerous activity and serious action needs to be taken. If you are just over-reacting to try and prove your point, think about the damage painting this type of picture does for cycling. It certainly doesn't do anything to stop people feeling that they should be wearing a helmet.

I would be willing to bet that close to all cyclists have had a low impact blow of some form to the head whilst cycling at some point in their life. If this is true, that would mean for your statement to be true that all cyclists will have encountered "serious blows imparted at high speeds"!

I worded that badly.

My own experience of nearly 60 years cycling is that the risk of a blow to the head (of any sort) is very low as a result of road cycling. I've never had one; nor have the vast majority of my club mates, many of whom have similar long histories of cycling.

As I understand it, statitical analyses indicate many other activities are far more likely to result in serious head injuries, including being a pedestrian on car-infested streets and travelling in a car. And going up & down stairs to bed.

What I meant to say is that, of those road cyclists who do bang their head, the bangs are likely to be serious as they tend to occur at high speed (of the cyclist, as in going over a parapet and down a defile; or of a car that hits them). In my experience, low speed falls off the bike result in gravel rash and bangs to everything BUT the head.

If this is so, a cycling helmet is not offering any protection to most road cyclists getting a head bang. It's offering (inessential) protection against low speed falls in which head bangs are rare; and much less traumatic when they do occur.

There is a case for wearing a helmet when low speed head bangs are more likely. Riding paths under overhanging trees or in very bumpy terrain (as in mountain biking) are examples. Road cycling is far less likely to result in head bangs and, when it does, the bangs are likely to be far greater than a cycling helmet can mitigate against.

Cugel

Avatar
davel [2718 posts] 5 months ago
1 like
Rich_cb wrote:
davel wrote:

Joining the dots between there not being an increase in accidents and risk compensation not being 'a thing' in cycling is a huge assumptive leap. It's been shown to be 'a thing' in other everyday travel behaviour, such as car driving behaviour following increases in safety, and sports, such as use of padding in boxing and American Football. I think you'd accept those observations in those other walks of life, so it's pretty bold to suggest it's negligible in an activity that combines elements of both.

You acknowledge yourself that mandating helmets changes the cycling population. An alternative conclusion might be that encouraging helmet use also changes the population to some extent (see countless surveys citing people not riding a bike because of safety fears and the article on the site about cycling only being 2nd to motorcycling in women/men gender imbalance). Again, I think you'd accept those observations. 

Risk compensation could therefore easily be 'a thing', but the cycling population is now made up of relatively sporty, skilled people who get away with it more than we'd see if everyone was happy to ride a bike - or when this bunch do have accidents, they shrug it off and walk away more often than fall awkwardly or panic into a tree. 

In short, I'm not confident in 'accident' stats, and an attempt to use them as evidence for risk compensation not being 'a thing' among cyclists? Hmmmmmmmmmm

You're using correlation as your evidence for risk compensation but don't accept a lack of correlation as evidence against it. I'm not familiar with the stats for boxing or NFL but the evidence for risk compensation in drivers is weak/non-existent as well. The year after seatbelts became mandatory in the UK the number of car accidents fell as did the number of cyclist KSIs. How does risk compensation explain that? If helmets and seatbelts produced a significant increase in risk taking it would be reflected in the accident statistics following a large increase in the rate of use. That didn't happen. In the real world risk compensation doesn't appear to play a significant role. If you don't want to use accident statistics to support your hypothesis then what are you using?

If I put forward a study, you'll fixate on why that study isn't perfect.

So do us both a favour. Google 'Risk compensation in sports' and you can pick your own study from the many it turns up.

And for supporting my hypothesis - well, where we have similar populations with more cycling uptake than the UK, helmet use is lower and yet cycling is safer. That suggests to anyone sane that where cycling is less safe, helmets are fixated on as part of the solution, as opposed to focusing on actual solutions. That's what happens with PPE and people who don't understand cause and effect. Again, Google your own stats - there are loads of them.

Avatar
hawkinspeter [3272 posts] 5 months ago
0 likes
Rich_cb wrote:
hawkinspeter wrote:

I fixed the links now.

Personally, I've found that my bike helmet does indeed provide excellent protection from branches - luckily, I've not tested it against kerbs.

You propose that risk compensation would be easily viewable in statistics, but it's just not that simple. Firstly, it's tricky to accurately count the number of helmet vs non-helmet cyclists. Secondly, there are a large number of other factors at play - probably the biggest one is the number of cyclists.

To get around the issue of counting the number of helmet using cyclists, it's easiest to look at places where they have introduced a mandatory helmet law (e.g. Australia). I don't have the stats to hand, but I recollect that after the helmet law, the number of accidents stayed roughly similar whilst the number of cyclists actually decreased.

That would seem at odds with your claim, so I'll see if I can find those stats.

Found from http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1012.html :

Meuleners LB, Gavin AL, Cercarelli LR, 2003. Bicycle crashes and injuries in Western Australia 1987 - 2000. University of Western Australia RR131.

Unfortunately I still can't access the more detailed link but I will see if I have access in work. The problem with using any mandatory helmet law jurisdiction as a test of helmet efficacy is that the risk profile of the cycling population before and after the law is very different. Those who wore helmets before the law would be unaffected and vice versa. Groups that had high rates of helmet use pre law would therefore make up a greater percentage of cyclists post law. The overall risk profile of the cycling population would therefore change. Looking at the paper about Western Australia there is unfortunately no data about injury rates per mile/km that I can see, just absolute injury numbers. The average number of injuries per year in the 5 years after the law was introduced is substantially lower than the 5 years before. This is likely a result of fewer cyclists but without injuries per km it is impossible to be sure. It is also interesting that the both number of head injuries and overall injury severity fell after the law was introduced. Again without data per km this is hard to analyse. The WA also relies on estimation of helmet wearing rates, this introduces the potential for significant error especially given law enforcement changes regarding helmet use over the study period. The UK data, by comparison, measures injuries by km and measures helmet use directly. The UK data is also not compromised by legislation induced change of the cycling population.

Have you got a link to the UK data?

Avatar
Rich_cb [850 posts] 5 months ago
0 likes
davel wrote:

If I put forward a study, you'll fixate on why that study isn't perfect.

So do us both a favour. Google 'Risk compensation in sports' and you can pick your own study from the many it turns up.

And for supporting my hypothesis - well, where we have similar populations with more cycling uptake than the UK, helmet use is lower and yet cycling is safer. That suggests to anyone sane that where cycling is less safe, helmets are fixated on as part of the solution, as opposed to focusing on actual solutions. That's what happens with PPE and people who don't understand cause and effect. Again, Google your own stats - there are loads of them.

Pot meet kettle.

Risk compensation is a lovely theory and it might be relevant in competitive sport where the aim will always be to push the limits of yourself and your equipment.

There's no evidence it applies to day to day life. Cycling accident statistics don't support it. Motoring accident statistics don't support it.

If risk compensation had a significant effect then it would show up clearly in the accident statistics.

It doesn't.

Avatar
Rich_cb [850 posts] 5 months ago
0 likes
hawkinspeter wrote:

Have you got a link to the UK data?

I don't have them to hand but the KSI data is produced by the ONS and the helmet wearing data was produced by the TRL (Transport Research Laboratory).

Avatar
davel [2718 posts] 5 months ago
2 likes
Rich_cb wrote:
davel wrote:

If I put forward a study, you'll fixate on why that study isn't perfect.

So do us both a favour. Google 'Risk compensation in sports' and you can pick your own study from the many it turns up.

And for supporting my hypothesis - well, where we have similar populations with more cycling uptake than the UK, helmet use is lower and yet cycling is safer. That suggests to anyone sane that where cycling is less safe, helmets are fixated on as part of the solution, as opposed to focusing on actual solutions. That's what happens with PPE and people who don't understand cause and effect. Again, Google your own stats - there are loads of them.

Pot meet kettle. Risk compensation is a lovely theory and it might be relevant in competitive sport where the aim will always be to push the limits of yourself and your equipment. There's no evidence it applies to day to day life. Cycling accident statistics don't support it. Motoring accident statistics don't support it. If risk compensation had a significant effect then it would show up clearly in the accident statistics. It doesn't.

Nah, honestly, it's Friday and I can't think of anything more depressing than googling some valid studies only for you to disappear down a rabbit hole about font size or something.

A quick 'risk compensation motoring' turns up wikipedia citing studies. I know, wikipedia, but on the other hand, Rich_cb. You're comically biased on this. Have a good weekend, and don't forget your helmet. 

Avatar
Rich_cb [850 posts] 5 months ago
0 likes
davel wrote:

Nah, honestly, it's Friday and I can't think of anything more depressing than googling some valid studies only for you to disappear down a rabbit hole about font size or something.

A quick 'risk compensation motoring' turns up wikipedia citing studies. I know, wikipedia, but on the other hand, Rich_cb. You're comically biased on this. Have a good weekend, and don't forget your helmet. 

Well even though it's Friday I decided to have a look at the Wikipedia page as you suggested.

I particularly enjoyed this bit.

"The idea of risk homeostasis is disputed. One author claimed that it received "little support",[n 9] another suggested that it "commands about as much credence as the flat earth hypothesis""

Avatar
Giles Pargiter [80 posts] 5 months ago
0 likes

Just another reveiw in which road cc colaborates with the implication that this "funny hat" has implications for safety.

This implication (in the absence of peer reviewed evidence) is contrary to the trade description act. I hope road cc will qualify this illegal over sight and point out that it is merely a hat for the paranoid and neurotic.

After all if you are really concerned on an evidenced basis with preventing head injuries you will without fail wear an approved - such as motorcycle helmet - in the bath or shower and without doubt when riding in a motor vehicle, which are both far more dangerous than cycling.

Avatar
hawkinspeter [3272 posts] 5 months ago
3 likes
Giles Pargiter wrote:

Just another reveiw in which road cc colaborates with the implication that this "funny hat" has implications for safety.

This implication (in the absence of peer reviewed evidence) is contrary to the trade description act. I hope road cc will qualify this illegal over sight and point out that it is merely a hat for the paranoid and neurotic.

After all if you are really concerned on an evidenced basis with preventing head injuries you will without fail wear an approved - such as motorcycle helmet - in the bath or shower and without doubt when riding in a motor vehicle, which are both far more dangerous than cycling.

I don't think Road.cc is the main problem here. A lot of cyclists wear helmets, so it makes sense to review them and as far as I can remember, the safety claims are usually straight from the manufacturer.

The real problem is with other "news" websites pushing helmet propaganda *cough*BBC*cough* and pretending that helmets are a solution.

Disclaimer: I wear a helmet whilst cycling for noise reduction (from the wife).

Avatar
madcarew [988 posts] 5 months ago
1 like

Here's the thing. Today I was in a race, and a guy up in front of me hit a bump, clipped the wheel of the guy in front of him and went down at about 40 mph. He largely fell sideways, struk his head on the road and then slid some distance with his helmet rubbing hard against the road, and thenhe rolled till he was face down and scraped face first along the coarse chip road. He seemed also to have been knocked out for the duration of his fairly lengthy slide. When he came to rest, with a broken shouder, his helmet was deeply grooved and scored from the abrasion on the road. His nose and chin required a number of stitches, but his scalp was entirely intact. I was close enough to see the effect of the crash in detail. Had he not been wearing a helmet his scalp would have got the same treatment as his face and would have required a huge number of stitches.

How about instead of saying helmets are for safety (whatever that might be) how about we concede they're about injury reduction.... reducing the severity and incidence of injury?  I have had a number of offs where my helmet has sustained damage that would have almost certainly been evident in my skin had I not been wearing a 'plastic lid'.

Avatar
alotronic [615 posts] 5 months ago
0 likes
madcarew wrote:

Here's the thing. Today I was in a race, and a guy up in front of me hit a bump, clipped the wheel of the guy in front of him and went down at about 40 mph. He largely fell sideways, struk his head on the road and then slid some distance with his helmet rubbing hard against the road, and thenhe rolled till he was face down and scraped face first along the coarse chip road. He seemed also to have been knocked out for the duration of his fairly lengthy slide. When he came to rest, with a broken shouder, his helmet was deeply grooved and scored from the abrasion on the road. His nose and chin required a number of stitches, but his scalp was entirely intact. I was close enough to see the effect of the crash in detail. Had he not been wearing a helmet his scalp would have got the same treatment as his face and would have required a huge number of stitches.

How about instead of saying helmets are for safety (whatever that might be) how about we concede they're about injury reduction.... reducing the severity and incidence of injury?  I have had a number of offs where my helmet has sustained damage that would have almost certainly been evident in my skin had I not been wearing a 'plastic lid'.

 

Indeed, the times a helmet has been most useful (thus far....) rash events and slides, branches while mountian biking, headbutting a car in frustration, once I fell off and hit my head on the chainstay as I descended and saved myself a bruise.... it's a multi-modal micro-medium impact device.  I do recall wearing those hair net helmets when racing in the 80s, now that was a waste of time and just kept the parents vaguely happy.

Pages