You must log in or register to comment.

Spiritual_Jaguar4685 t1_j9ofou1 wrote

Dumb reason # 1- bike helmets don't keep your head and ears warm. Ski helmets should not be worn with a hat, so they have built in "hat" materials to keep your head warm. Biking helmets are usually designed with the opposite intent, to provide airflow and keep your head cool.

More Sciencey Reason - If you look at how a person falls and their head hits things on a bike vs. sking you'll see different patterns. Bonking your noggin' doesn't equal bonking your noggin in all cases. Specifically, snow sports usually involve sideways hits and biking involves front on hits. So the whole design is slightly different.


Mental_Cut8290 t1_j9og3vi wrote

I hadn't considered the heat, but was going to say the second part.

Different helmets for different falls.

BMX / skateboard helmets are also very different from road-bike helmets.


didhestealtheraisins t1_j9okwdj wrote

And then mountain biking also has different helmets.


buildyourown t1_j9or3l4 wrote

That really is a style thing. I'm guilty of it. Road is aero. Dirt gets a visor. The visor does almost nothing but you look pretty silly without one.


BRXF1 t1_j9p1l2v wrote

The visor deals with branches before they smack you in the mask/eyes.


thespiderghosts t1_j9ozbwh wrote

Most mountain bike helmets have greater rear coverage. Also variants with removable full-face components, etc.


LikesTheTunaHere t1_j9stwam wrote

Removable fullface unless its changed in the past few years is a gimmick and should be avoided unless your doing it for looks or JUST tree branch strikes.


silas0069 t1_j9r6l28 wrote

I've retrieved a small live fly from inside my eye socket after a scooter drive. Get a visor or glasses.


LikesTheTunaHere t1_j9stuf7 wrote

Not just a style thing.

The visor for dirt does a FUCKTON if you are doing downhill, you can cover it with dirt or with tree branch hits.

Also, downhill helmets are full faced and extra beefy for a reason since going ass over tea kettle or into a tree\rock at 20mph on the slow side is a bit painful.


coinpile t1_j9qvhof wrote

And climbing also has different helmets.


krovek42 t1_j9p541k wrote

Plus ski helmets with airflow vents usually have a way to close them with a little sliding switch, so you can get more airflow on a warm day but cut it off on a colder day.


Vakulum t1_j9omhyn wrote

Second that. Always get the urge to roll my eyes a little when parents buy kids skateboard helmets for use on a bike because they "look cooler".

It's 100% better than no helmet but it is not designed for optional protection in most bike accident patterns


brownlawn t1_j9ovt7f wrote

With kids it’s almost always about look. Helmet with a Mohawk is better than fighting the kids for an hour to wear an aero roadbike helmet. Both protect their heads.


Santasbodyguar t1_j9qrjgz wrote

The Mohawk might provide a lot of cushion actually ( if they land upside down that is )


eeeeemil t1_j9t6xc3 wrote

Certification requirments are the same. Looks and ventilation is only difference.


pneurotic t1_j9qunuc wrote

BMX racing and downhill MTB helmets are full face and DOT/SNELL approved


Renaissance_Slacker t1_j9q22kj wrote

Fluffy snow vs. asphalt/trail


Boagster t1_j9qi2pm wrote

If you think your only concern when skiing (or snowboarding) is fluffy snow, you either never skied or only skied high-end western US, European alpine, or some sort of 'exotic' mountain, all during prime conditions. Ice is a mainstay of pretty much any high-traffic mountain that isn't wide-open (such as all mountains in the eastern US, where you are almost exclusively regulated to established trails). Trees, rocks, and ski lift structures are also significant concerns on many mountains, as well. Some mountains even have condos right alongside some trails, meaning if you lose control, you could end up hitting a building or someone's vehicle.


LikesTheTunaHere t1_j9su6rr wrote

Not a skier but Ive down downhill mtb.

Do they not do ski helmets the way they do mtb bike helmets and different ones have different levels of protection? Or is it fairly minimal in terms of different levels, I know different brands will differ but I mean is there a "high speed\high impact" style compared to a groomed trail style?

I know there isn't face guards like downhill mtb helmets but maybe more rear protection or less venting and more surface area for padding?

maybe Multi impact helmets like skateboarding helmets vs one time use like bike helmets?


Boagster t1_ja4dp4s wrote

AFAIK, your choices, as far as "general impact resistance", are either in-mold or injected foam - basically, one-time-hit that doesn't do much for small hits but takes a hard hit well versus meant to the small hits regularly but doesn't do as well in a hard hit.

You toss both after a good hit, but the former is lighter and meant for those riding in ways that don't expect a fall but want protection in case of the worst, while the other is for skiers expecting to fall, like air or pipe skiers/snowboarders.


Renaissance_Slacker t1_j9tiwta wrote

You’re 100% correct, there’s plenty of hard unmoving objects that necessitate ski helmets. When I was in my 20’s I hit an ice patch while skiing and went into a tree sideways, hitting so hard I almost severed my quadriceps without breaking the skin. A ski patrol saw the incident and assumed my leg was broken, they were dumbfounded when I stood up, waved them off and skiied away. It wasn’t until the next day when I got out of bed and face-planted that I realized how bad it was. Was on crutches for over a year. Helmets, kids.


LTVOLT t1_j9prwzh wrote

this is sort of a dumb question to be honest. "why do people were a different helmet for a motorcycle versus playing hockey?" or any other random helmets


scavengercat t1_j9pzbj0 wrote

No genuine question is ever dumb. If someone legitimately doesn't understand something and is trying to learn, then we can help them learn. We don't chastise people because they weren't exposed to information we've already learned.


Pescodar189 t1_j9q42ae wrote

I know some of this, but not the whole answer.

One really important thing for helmets, carseats, etc is whether the material is multi-use or one-use.

One-use materials are generally far lighter for the same level of protection (protection itself a multi-faceted concept but I’m sticking with simplicity here).

Hockey helmets are generally lined with vinyl nitrile or polypropylene foam. Vinyl nitrile is the same stuff thats in HVAC gaskets, yoga mats, and all sorts of seals. It returns to its previous shape when you are done squishing it.

The inner foam of a motorcycle helmet is typically expanded polystyrene. It is designed to collapse and absorb force in an impact. Polystyrene foam is what many foam cups are made of (though obviously very different in structure in a helmet than a cheap cup). That foam has a bit of bounce and flex, but it is designed to permanently crush/collapse when it gets hit.

Both helmets have an outer shell that is designed to spread an impact over a large area.

But overall: multi-use vs one-use. Skateboard and hockey and snowboard helmets are multi-use (and weigh more for the same level of protection). You replace them when you take a massive hit that cracks the shell or sometimes after you use them a ton over time. Bike and motorcycle helmets and car-seats have to be replaced once they do their job - that foam does not work twice, but it’s much lighter for the same level of protection and used in applications where you don’t ever plan to actually need it.


Mental_Cut8290 t1_j9q4vcn wrote

Honestly a fair question since all helmets are designed for hits to the head.

They all protect for a specific type of hit to the head. Simplifying your example to a bicycle helmet vs. hockey helmet: A bike helmet is likely to be hit directly from the front, it is lightweight for ease of riding, and it will sacrifice itself to absorb as much impact as possible, making it single use only. Hockey helmets are designed for multiple hits, and protection from a projectile. H hockey puck might punch a hole through a bike helmet.


augustuen t1_j9qg6y0 wrote

Motorcycle helmets are relatively big. Any worth buying will cover your entire head, including your face and eyes. The good ones will even extend down and squeeze your neck to create a good seal. This is good when riding a motorcycle because it makes for a quieter helmet. But for sports this means that your head is trapped in this almost air-tight hot box. Of course this affects motorcycle racers as well, but they've got the benefit of > 100 km/h winds entering the air channels and cooling them. Hockey players don't.

Motorcycle helmets are also considered one-and-done deals. (although this is heavily debated within the community) They've got a great, thick layer of impact absorbing material, but once that material has been hit, it loses its effectiveness.

TLDR: motorcycle helmets are bulky, heavy, and are designed to cover the user in a way that's detrimental to playing hockey. Playing a physical sport in one would be horrible. And their materials may not be suited for the use.


whiskeyriver0987 t1_j9pn1e5 wrote

Ski helmets are also generally meant to take a lot of smaller hits, bike helmets take 1 big one and are meant to be replaced.


surmatt t1_j9p4dk0 wrote

Also... airflow and aerodynamic drag is a priority in helmet design for amateur and competitive road cyclists.


Broomstick73 t1_j9pvr6x wrote

I wish I had a free award to give you for the phrase “bonking your noggin”


Adversement t1_j9pl3sw wrote

Any source for actual difference in offered protection design? (There are helmets approved for both, given that the actual test requirements for the head protection are nearly identical. To project with the impact from about head-height to the solid ground below. That is, a fall.)

The cooling of the head, or keeping it warm, is the obvious difference in design. Most bike helmets are perforated nearly to oblivion resulting in very lightweight helmets. The helmets that suit both for both are too warm for sportive cycling, work decently for leisurely commuting with an upright bicycle, and excel as a winter helmet for such cycling.


Whydun t1_j9qtow6 wrote

The proof is in looking at the thing. Bike helmets offer a much reduced rear of head coverage. Test requirements such as what you mention just cover testing the materials for impact durability, not the impact locations.


sirbearus t1_j9ofw5r wrote

They wear different types of helmets because the risk of injury to the skull comes from different types of injuries.

Bicycle sheets are designed to protect a rider from impact with the pavement and motor vehicles. These injuries often occur from side and top impact to the head.

Skiing injuries are usually from impacts with trees. These injuries occur from impact while forward facing.

American football helmets are another type of helmet with different priorities.

Bicycle and skiing helmets also prioritize hearing differently. Bicycling safety requires hearing skiing doesn't.


Adversement t1_j9pkhf1 wrote

Any sources for the different protection design? (I have a strong impression that both bicycling and skiing helmets are designed and tested for a very similar crash. An impact of the head with the ground, with a velocity corresponding to a fall from about head-height of a tall person. There are also helmets that are rated for both activities, but which only suit leisurely cycling for the reason underlined below. They are, however, excellent for winter cycling at a slow or a moderate pace.)

The main difference is in the need for cooling (a bicycle helmet needs to keep your head cool whilst exercising). The skiing helmet needs to keep your head warm against the windchill of going fast in the colder winter weather.

I have also a very strong impression that no bicycle helmet is designed in particular for an impact with a motor vehicle. The required test is to protect against the head hitting the solid ground from the height of an person cycling.


neksys t1_j9r3pqi wrote

While we're at it, I've always wondered why hockey helmets are so different from football helmets. Both are very full contact sports, but hockey has more potential head injury hazards, between the boards, the ice, sticks and pucks -- all at a much higher speeds. Yet hockey helmets are pretty small and flimsy in comparison to football helmets.


LikesTheTunaHere t1_j9suhs0 wrote

Id guess because of time spent on the ice using it is longer and you have to keep your head on a swivel more compared to in football?

Talking out of my ass, but id have to have a heavier helmet and play hockey.


khyoohoo t1_j9oxs60 wrote

Thoughts on MOUNTAIN biking helmets versus ski helmets? Both sports see high speeds and crashes into trees.


Anon-8148400 t1_j9pda2s wrote

Mountain biking. is typically done when the weather is warm so you wouldn’t want to wear a ski helmet because ski helmets have a lot of built in insulation.


PaulRudin t1_j9og5jc wrote

Apart from injury mitigation considerations; when you're skiing getting cold is often a concern; whereas for cycling you're normally too hot.

Skiing typically involves higher speeds than cycling, so ski helmets tend to be stronger. Cycle helmets are not designed for high speed impacts, rather to mitigate the kind of thing that you might expect when fall off your bike - i.e. the speed your head picks up as you drop vertically off a bike.

Incidentally - as far as I know there's no good quality evidence that the wearing of cycle helmets actually makes any statistical difference to the likelihood of death or serious injury.


julie78787 t1_j9oh794 wrote

I've not seen the data in years, but it is out there.

Bicycle helmets - To wear or not to wear? A meta-analyses of the effects of bicycle helmets on injuries

This article points out that cervical spine injuries aren't reduced, and as many bicyclists will tell you, there are plenty of other bones left to break. However, when it comes to protecting your skull, a bicycle helmet will do that better than no helmet.


PaulRudin t1_j9oiagj wrote

Right, but even if we we're to accept those results at face value*; they don't necessary contradict what I said. The study is "among crash involved cyclists". There's evidence that motorists drive closer to cyclists wearing helmets, so it wouldn't be a stretch to imagine that wearing a helmet increases the risk of being involved in a crash in the first place.

If you're looking for the risk of KSI with or without helmets; then that's the thing you need look at amongst all cyclists... not restricting it to the population of "crash involved cyclists".


* which I don't necessarily - for some papers at least you can show that using the methodology in the paper it follows that wearing a helmet reduces the risk of leg injuries...


julie78787 t1_j9olzhc wrote

I've seen all manner of arguments against using helmets which have nothing to do with injuries among "crash involved cyclists".

In a typical year I like to bike about 5,000 miles. Cars have close-passed me, tried to run me off the road, cut me off, yelled, spit, cursed, you name it. I've had drivers mad at me for going the speed limit, not going the speed limit, being in a bike lane, being within 3' of the curb, pretty much all of it. I used to have a bus driver who hated to let me ever get around him because once I got in front of him I'd slowly gain distance because he had to stop to pick up and let off people.

What I care about is what happens if or when my head hits something.


Joaquin_Portland t1_j9p8sdv wrote

I wear a helmet for two reasons:

I don’t always see low hanging tree branches

If I am injured or killed by being struck by someone driving a car, I don’t want the damages to me or my family reduced because I wasn’t wearing a helmet.

That’s also the reason why I don’t run stop signs or red lights.


julie78787 t1_j9tpvzo wrote

I wear a bicycle helmet because I'm convinced by what I've read that they reduce brain injuries. I could handle major issues with limbs. I couldn't handle a TBI that screwed up my ability to think or reason or function.

I don't think they make me invincible, which I suspect is a confounding factor for overall injuries. 35 years ago I decided to keep my speed down because descending at 55mph was scary as could be. I've not been much over 35mph in the last 5 years and even 30mph is starting to be scary as I get older.


Northwindlowlander t1_j9ophti wrote

Some of the evidence is glorious- Dr Ian Walker, serious scientist and researcher, wearing a wig and riding along while intentionally wobbling.

The fun part is when you throw in the impact of NOT cycling- ie, people being deterred from exercising, because they think it's dangerous, or the helmet is too expensive, or because it looks stupid. Australia's helmet mandate laws almost certainly caused more negative health impacts than positive, partly because people exercise less and partly because the reduced number of cyclists make it more dangerous for the remaining cyclists.

I totally believe there are net safety benefits to wearing a helmet, personally. But I also totally believe that they're pretty trivial statistically. Serious head injuries are relatively uncommon and, as a complicating factor in road accidents, often come along with other injuries. Minor head injuries are also worth protecting against though!


bingybunny t1_j9sqkjx wrote

sure the helmet protects your head when you're biking. but what about going up on a ladder? the roller rink? sprinting at 16 mph? getting out of a bathtub. 30,000 people die in cars every year, but no crash helmets for drivers?

People don't wear a helmet for lots of activities. if you need one for riding a dutch bike you should just wear one all the time, like when driving a convertible or walking in winter or descending a long flight of stairs

if you're racing or doing bmx or downhill dirt jumping, sure, wear a helmet, it's not going to prevent a spine injury tho


Northwindlowlander t1_j9uku3y wrote

>30,000 people die in cars every year, but no crash helmets for drivers?

That is really not a good argument- cars are built from the ground up for safety, you are wearing the helmet and also about 10 other helmets.

Agree with everything else though, pretty much.


imdb_shenanigans t1_j9pp946 wrote

This was the moment when a simple explanation ended the thread. But you like to dig over-analytical holes when none is needed. This is what happens when you get too much into data that it just becomes something to prove a point across no matter what.


femmestem t1_j9optzl wrote

Helmet design for motorcycles vs driving cars (e.g. racing) also differ this way based on type of impact. Car helmets are more resistant to crushing force impact. Motorcycles and bikes are designed for repeated, low crush force impact, as would happen when your body is thrown from the bike and head is skipping across the pavement.


corrado33 t1_j9ostcj wrote

> Skiing typically involves higher speeds than cycling

Really? I would not have thought that. Coming from a mountain and road biker who very often bikes above 20 mph, but very often bikes much slower than that as well. That said, most of us don't wear helmets on the way UP the mountain. In montana the way up is basically just up for a couple hours till you reach the top. You're going, at max, a few MPH and the worst thing you'll do is fall off (while stopped) and hit your head on a rock, which is easily enough avoided.

Down though, yeah, most of us wore full faced helmets (which was another reason why we didn't wear them on the way up. Wayyy too hot.)

I had a convertible helmet that had a strap on lower half so I could wear the upper half while climbing and I'd strap on the lower half for descending. It was nice. Not cheap, but nice.


Otherwise-Way-1176 t1_j9swqur wrote

>I would not have thought that. Coming from a mountain and road biker who very often bikes above 20 mph, but very often bikes much slower than that as well.

Downhill skiing (as opposed to cross country skiing) is done going only downhill. So the speeds will tend to be higher than an average for cycling that includes flat and uphill regions.

I’m a casual skier, and I know I’ve hit 50 mph for short stretches. It’s very easy to pick up a lot of speed under the right circumstances. In contrast, when I cycle it’s on flat ground at a pace that evidently is slower than Google maps expects, so presumably quite a lot slower than my skiing speed.


ivanvector t1_j9pif0e wrote

They're designed to protect against different injuries more common to each of the activities.

Bike helmets are generally designed to protect against low-speed blunt collisions (I've read about 4m/s), such as falling off your bike and hitting your head on the ground, or a small inclined object like a curb. They're also designed so that if you do hit your head your spine won't rotate, which can cause very serious injury or even instant death.

I know less about ski helmets, but they have to protect against higher-speed collisions with upright stationary objects (such as trees), and they also protect the user's face and eyes from cold weather while maintaining visibility, which bike helmets don't have to do.


LucasUnited OP t1_j9pnub4 wrote

I get the point, however, I live in Denmark where 60% rides their bike to work, and most of them are easily going 20-25 mph, so it just doesn't make sense for me


ivanvector t1_j9pxmuk wrote

They're designed for the vertical speed you pick up falling off a bike, not really for moving collisions or collisions with moving objects. They're better than nothing, but you would need a much more robust helmet to protect you from the sorts of injuries sustained in motor vehicle collisions.


bruk_out t1_j9oidgt wrote

In addition to the reasons mentioned already, ski helmets are designed to take multiple hits, but you toss a bike helmet after it takes one.


femmestem t1_j9op4ec wrote

Ski/Snowboard helmets are also supposed to be tossed after one hit. There are helmets with special material that allow multiple hits, which is manufactured for both bikes and snow sports, but it's not interent to ski helmets.


JoushMark t1_j9oqoy1 wrote

Good point! Any helmet that takes a hit, or even gets dropped hard, should be carefully inspected to make sure the shell is intact and the interior materials aren't compromised. Buying a new helmet is much, much cheaper then treating a head injury.


femmestem t1_j9orgdb wrote

>Buying a new helmet is much, much cheaper then treating a head injury.

This was a convincing argument for me to stop acting dumb about safety. I crashed while using a brand new helmet and was put out about having to shell out over $100 in the same season. I had to be reminded that it's expensive because it protects my friggin brain!


FowlOnTheHill t1_j9p3hjk wrote

Your friggin brain is still working well, that’s good news!


LucasUnited OP t1_j9pcyao wrote

Thank you for all the answers!


Adversement t1_j9pjbp5 wrote

First, we can note that both types helmets have essentially identical requirements for attenuating impacts (and nearly identical tests to validate their performance on crashes). So, there is no crash-safety reason for the difference. (Like, a bike helmet is not particularly designed to protect against an impact with a car.)

Thus, the main reason is due to different needs for ability to cool of ones head. A person driving a bicycle needs much better cooling (two reasons: typically warmer weather and the act of cycling itself). Thus, a bike helmet has plenty of cooling holes. The skiing helmet does not need these, thus, one can use a shell with far less ventilation (resulting in a helmet that is a bit more robust against wear and tear, in addition to a nice smoother look of helmet).

There are, however, helmets that can be used for both; and which are sold for both. These are clearly in between the fully smooth skiing helmet and the highly perforated bicycling helmet. A few holes, sometimes with adjustments. (Though, given the limited maximum ventilation, such helmets only suit leisurely cycling. A such, they are also excellent for winter cycling, especially if done at leisurely pace, say, to commute at a pace where one does not need to shower or even change clothes at destination.)


Sad_Veterinarian714 t1_j9pu076 wrote

Ski helmets also assume you'll be traveling much faster than you would be on a bike. If memory serves the basic helmets we sell where I work assume you may be traveling upwards of 40 mph. And apparently ski race helmets assume you'll be going as fast as 80 mph if not faster


imisstheoldreddit69 t1_j9ris0l wrote

Not exactly an ELI5, but here’s an ELI15. I used to be test engineer for one of the world’s largest helmet manufacturers. We made helmets for bike, snow, and moto. Ultimately, I was the one who understood the test standards and requirements for each type of helmet, and made sure we were passing those requirements with new models we developed.

The primary reason why different helmets exist for bike and snow is due to differences in the impacts that occur in both activities. Bike helmets are designed to meet the relevant test standards for bike helmets, which are based on real world scenarios involving typical cycling speeds and impact surfaces. For example, the CPSC standard for US/North America requires impacts on flat, curb, and hemispherical anvils, all of which imitate surfaces that might be impacted when crashing on a bike and at typical speeds seen when cycling. This standard also requires helmets to be tested in ambient, cold, hot, and wet conditions, to replicate different weather conditions and user choices.

The snow standard differs from this, and uses a different combination of speeds, anvils, and conditionings that are specific to snow sports. For example, there is no hot condition or curb anvil, but there is a penetration test where a metal spike is dropped on the helmet to imitate the impact of a broken tree branch or something similar. Different materials and construction are used to meet the different requirements for these standards.

A few other factors are head coverage, which is often defined by the test standard, and comfort. Snow helmets have full coverage and are designed to keep you warm, while bike helmets are generally designed to keep you cool and may sacrifice coverage for lighter weight and better aerodynamics.


druppolo t1_j9po2ft wrote

For snowboard you want a helmet with no holes, and ear protection, even when hot, snow will get in ears and is a pain, also snow melts so if it gets in holes it makes your helmet wet inside. Nice to have is a short one inch front ledge, if you are landing on your face that bit will hit the ground before your nose, I purposely turn my head into the fall to make it happen. Better a hit in the higher part of the face and helmet than landing jaw or nose first, is as bad as it sounds. It needs to be shaped in a way that doesn’t impede your goggles, no sun shader so you have a better field of view upward, in some jump tricks you need to look upward. Need to stop hits on ice at high speed and slide, smoother helmet surface is better. Hits come from any direction, including the rear of the neck, so the helmet cover the sides and the rear a lot. Finally it’s likely to be fitted with a plastic clip in the back to retain your goggles strap so when you hit hard goggles don’t fly away.

For bicicle you want a lot of holes to cool you down, nothing blocking your ears cause that’s where your sunglasses sticks go. Sticks go outside the helmet lace cause it harms less if you fall. Need big long sun shade so the sun won’t cause reflections on your sunglasses, you will not need to look upward aniway. But left-right it need a to give a good field of view. Need to stop car hits for life saving purposes, no need to protect the face as yo are not looking for continuous hits. Instead, it’s focused for the centerline hits, front, top, upper rear. Its way deeper in protection compared to a snowboard one.

For downhill bikes you want a full face helmet because tooth and face surgery is expensive. It needs to stop the big hits but also prevent the continuous face scratching done by tree branches, and light hits to the ground in light falls. It is generally designed to be connected to neck protection too.

To close it: street bike helmets can be one shot, you hit, you discard the helmet. This allows lighter and softer designs, and a in depth protection; that single hit will hurt less that in a reusable helmet. Most extreme sport helmets can retain shape after multiple light hits. If I had to replace the snow helmet every hit, I would be broke. This comes at the cost of the helmet being a bit more rigid, giving less comfortable, sharper hit feeling, and more weight.


LeLiterally420 t1_j9q9knu wrote

Have you ever hit 70kph when biking? Yeah me neither


Ape_Togetha_Strong t1_j9r5xw9 wrote

... yes? I hit 45mph literally every single fucking day on my bike going downhill.


Epcjay t1_j9qkvp0 wrote

Thanks that's why my daughter has 5 different helmets. 1. Hockey, 2, Bike, 3. Skateboard, 4. Equestrian, 5. Ski


Saltmetoast t1_j9qzwzx wrote

Each sport had very different requirements, even between water sports they don't translate across.

My parent got a concussion surfing, was wearing a kayaking helmet because that's what he has.

The kayak helmet is thicker than a surf helmet and contains more buoyancy.

When his head it the water it slowed down to quickly because the helmet couldn't penetrate fast enough.

Concussion was fairly serious and is still in recovery 4 years later.


OozeNAahz t1_j9r79zx wrote

Always thought ski helmets were a bit silly unless you were doing tricks or skiing through trees. Bought one on clearance because it was dirt cheap and wore it. Will never not wear one again. Keeps head toasty. Keeps goggles in place even when I put them on top of head. Has built in headphones. Amazing all the way around.


cool-likenature t1_j9rfk0h wrote

Don’t bicycle in snow so need a cold helmet. Ski in snow need warm helmet. Both stop head hurting when crashing.


Abraarukuk t1_j9s8otq wrote

because these activities have unique safety requirements. Skiing helmets are designed to protect against impacts from falls at high speeds and from collisions with other skiers or obstacles on the slopes. Bicycle helmets, on the other hand, are designed to protect against impacts from falls at lower speeds and from collisions with vehicles on the road. Both types of helmets are important for preventing head injuries, but they are specifically engineered to address the risks associated with their respective activities.


phenogrow t1_j9uy2lg wrote

for road racing, it's mostly venting and aerodynamics. after those two considerations then it's about who the sponsor is and aesthetics.


Extense7 t1_j9oxxzf wrote

Bicycle helmets are one-and-done, in that if you take one major hit with them they are meant to be discarded, it’s why they don’t really cover the side of your head, Ski helmets like Skate helmets cover your sides because they’re meant to take multiple hits.