- Thread starter
- #31
- Jul 26, 2010
- 2,969
- 4
- 171
I think anything with sufficient energy-absorbing padding, will not have the slim outline of a cowboy hat or a top hat.
The one possibility is that some suffciently energy-absorbing material could be developed that would absorb energy enough to protect from a blow or axonal tear type injuries, and yet would still have a very slim outline.
I also think that a hat that covers the occipital area of the head and the temples low enough, couldn't have the same shape as a top hat or cowboy hat.
Many inexpensive crash helmets don't cover the sides of the head or the lower back part of the head; I think the Charles Owens helmets generally do, but I did see one 'skullcap' type Owens with no padding in it - just a shell - the so called track helmet.
I had a Caliente helmet (the first was 'the Caliente', and there were some copy brands - I had the original, LOL).
I had it for many years, this was the pebbly tan with leather harness type, that jockeys and eventers used to always wear. usually with a cover on it. Made with older materials than today's helmets, it was very hot and rather heavy. It got very sweaty, the forehead band crumbled, and the sweat would run down into my eyes, and I couldn't get a replacement anywhere. It was very hard to clean, and mice seemed to think it was their personal toilet. Still I kept using it, and screaming at the mice. If it didn't stay in my locker, I was likely to forget it and leave it at home.
The staff at the tack shop told me that after so many years, the energy absorbing material was brittle and far less effective and I needed to replace it right away.
I always thought the Caliente had super coverage on the sides and on the back of the head - I was rather surprised at how low in the back the Charles Owen model I just got goes!
Another shock was how light and comfortable it is. I wondered why I'd been using the old one for so long!!
I showed it to a neurosurgeon and he said, "That's a **** of a lot better than those ***************** plastic 'hair nets'", which absolutely stunned me. He explained that most of the severe injuries are to the side or lower back of the head, and that the newer designs have much more effective coverage.
He ALSO told me that helmets with large vents in them are not as effective - less structural rigidity to the helmet, and a lot less energy absorbing material. THAT also surprised me!
He drew an outline of a head and shaded the sides and back, and said, 'I don't care WHAT certification there is, get a helmet that substantially covers these areas!' He also went into the thickness of energy absorbing material and told me to avoid any 'skull caps' - helmets with thinner or little to no padding, just a hard shell.
So I did. That was the Charles Owens, but there are other brands that offer the same padding and side and back protection.
I never bought the 'The Man wants to wrap up everyone in cotton wool and protect them', because I don't view a helmet as cotton wool. I view it as Sports Equipment. For me, it's that simple. It's sports equipment.
And if I can do what I love, and still protect myself from injury, I'm happy to do it.
To me, THAT is freedom.
To me, sickness, injury and disability is enslavement. Jail. Prison you can never escape the entire time you
re alive.
I used to agree that it was only affecting the non wearer, and no one else if someone chose to go without a helmet.
The first thing that put a chink in that argument for me, was watching a couple people with Traumatic Brain Injuries, while their parents took care of them the rest of their lives, because they were too messed up to work, think, dress themselves, figure out what to eat for dinner, stuff like that.
When some eager number cruncher showed me how much their decisions affected my walllet, I started to think maybe I was on the wrong track.
Those who 'choose freedom' and get hurt, force all of us to pay for their care - through taxes and health insurance and health care and hospitalization cost increases.
Insurance companies as well as hospitals, are cheaper to run with fewer charity patients(hospitals) and payouts (insurance companies). It's that simple. The more people get hurt, the more health care costs everyone else.
Even so, I don't begrudge people their decisions to not wear a helmet, and I don't pressure them to change. They need to come to that decision themselves, or not.
But the way things are going, their choice will increasingly be, either compete and wear a helmet, or don't compete. People past competitive age may not care, but those who compete - they will have less and less choice as time goes on.
The one possibility is that some suffciently energy-absorbing material could be developed that would absorb energy enough to protect from a blow or axonal tear type injuries, and yet would still have a very slim outline.
I also think that a hat that covers the occipital area of the head and the temples low enough, couldn't have the same shape as a top hat or cowboy hat.
Many inexpensive crash helmets don't cover the sides of the head or the lower back part of the head; I think the Charles Owens helmets generally do, but I did see one 'skullcap' type Owens with no padding in it - just a shell - the so called track helmet.
I had a Caliente helmet (the first was 'the Caliente', and there were some copy brands - I had the original, LOL).
I had it for many years, this was the pebbly tan with leather harness type, that jockeys and eventers used to always wear. usually with a cover on it. Made with older materials than today's helmets, it was very hot and rather heavy. It got very sweaty, the forehead band crumbled, and the sweat would run down into my eyes, and I couldn't get a replacement anywhere. It was very hard to clean, and mice seemed to think it was their personal toilet. Still I kept using it, and screaming at the mice. If it didn't stay in my locker, I was likely to forget it and leave it at home.
The staff at the tack shop told me that after so many years, the energy absorbing material was brittle and far less effective and I needed to replace it right away.
I always thought the Caliente had super coverage on the sides and on the back of the head - I was rather surprised at how low in the back the Charles Owen model I just got goes!
Another shock was how light and comfortable it is. I wondered why I'd been using the old one for so long!!
I showed it to a neurosurgeon and he said, "That's a **** of a lot better than those ***************** plastic 'hair nets'", which absolutely stunned me. He explained that most of the severe injuries are to the side or lower back of the head, and that the newer designs have much more effective coverage.
He ALSO told me that helmets with large vents in them are not as effective - less structural rigidity to the helmet, and a lot less energy absorbing material. THAT also surprised me!
He drew an outline of a head and shaded the sides and back, and said, 'I don't care WHAT certification there is, get a helmet that substantially covers these areas!' He also went into the thickness of energy absorbing material and told me to avoid any 'skull caps' - helmets with thinner or little to no padding, just a hard shell.
So I did. That was the Charles Owens, but there are other brands that offer the same padding and side and back protection.
I never bought the 'The Man wants to wrap up everyone in cotton wool and protect them', because I don't view a helmet as cotton wool. I view it as Sports Equipment. For me, it's that simple. It's sports equipment.
And if I can do what I love, and still protect myself from injury, I'm happy to do it.
To me, THAT is freedom.
To me, sickness, injury and disability is enslavement. Jail. Prison you can never escape the entire time you
re alive.
I used to agree that it was only affecting the non wearer, and no one else if someone chose to go without a helmet.
The first thing that put a chink in that argument for me, was watching a couple people with Traumatic Brain Injuries, while their parents took care of them the rest of their lives, because they were too messed up to work, think, dress themselves, figure out what to eat for dinner, stuff like that.
When some eager number cruncher showed me how much their decisions affected my walllet, I started to think maybe I was on the wrong track.
Those who 'choose freedom' and get hurt, force all of us to pay for their care - through taxes and health insurance and health care and hospitalization cost increases.
Insurance companies as well as hospitals, are cheaper to run with fewer charity patients(hospitals) and payouts (insurance companies). It's that simple. The more people get hurt, the more health care costs everyone else.
Even so, I don't begrudge people their decisions to not wear a helmet, and I don't pressure them to change. They need to come to that decision themselves, or not.
But the way things are going, their choice will increasingly be, either compete and wear a helmet, or don't compete. People past competitive age may not care, but those who compete - they will have less and less choice as time goes on.
Last edited:
