There's a big difference between not wearing a helmet and an airbag light on - helmets are more like not wearing a seatbelt.

Plus you can usually buy a new helmet for $25

Ok, I would still drive a car that had a defective seat belt until I could get it repaired...

helmets are nothing like seat belts.

Ahh, I see the mods are true to their word! Good show!

My apologies.

Why all the focus on her helmet, when her rear wheel was not even properly attached and the apparent cause of the crash?
She probably would have made it over the PVC just fine if she had her wheel properly tightened in place.

Well, there's one big difference between seat belts and bicycle helmets: seat belts are demonstrably effective at reducing mortality when used correctly.

Yup, and a lesson in the importance of proper maintenance has been lost because perception that helmets save lives changes the focus from prevention to mitigation.

This isn't the worst example of misdirection I've seen. I think the worst one I've seen is the one you posted back in April, where the cyclist was at fault rather than 3 motorist

I exchanged emails with the coroner and he said,

So, instead of letting people know helmets do not have the capacity to provide protection to a cyclist when hit by 3 successive cars, each traveling at 40 mph+, he tells them they can

I haven't got the foggiest idea if the claim is true, that she would have been a lot better off had she worn a helmet. Neither do most others, and probably not even the doctors. But it might be true. Just as it might be true that had I worn a helmet in my crash on May 17th last year, I would now be 6 feet under. There is ample reason to believe, both that in some cases helmets may save lives, and the opposite.

But you're right: Had her wheel been properly tightened, things might not have gone so amiss, perhaps. Maybe. Thing is, these discussions of anecdotes won't help us decide whether one ought to wear a helmet, whether it doesn't matter, or whether they're harmfull. Only research based on reliable statistics can tell us that. As far as I'm concerned, it seems to me that helmets aren't significantly relevant for general cyclist safety.

Folks, I'm pretty sure that they mean "slide out" as in "lost traction", not that the wheel fell out of the bicycle.

This.

Like much of the thread, forest is entirely obscured by the trees.

yeah, I'm sure you're right (maybe I was keen to this problem because one time, my rear wheel did come out of my frame). Still, my point remains the same; the perception that helmets save lives changes the focus from prevention to mitigation.

It's seemingly always about the lack of helmet, almost never about some very preventable circumstances and never about the reasonable limitations helmets naturally have

This was my impression as well. To me, this story shows, if anything, that there is no replacement for safe cycling.

As far as whether the helmet would have helped, those are some pretty sparse details. We don't know how she fell, if she hit a curb, etc. Who knows? Silly to speculate or imply that we should speculate that a helmet may have helped.

I agree. It always seems to be a case of 'He fell off and was injured because he wasn't wearing a helmet' vs 'He fell off and was injured despite wearing a helmet.' Never is the focus on safe cycling practice rather than whether the rider was or wasn't wearing a helmet. This is the issue I have with over-promotion of helmets: they distract from more important safety issues such as cycling predictably and following the rules of the road.

Anyone watch Spaceballs? Now there is the reason to wear a helmet!

Prevention v mitigation. I believe that becomes a smoke screen - any safety program involves both. Drive your care safely, obey the traffic laws, but wear a seatbelt and have airbags. Handle tools carefully, restrict access, but still have workers below you wear hard hats. On and on and on. We use the safety device just for the instance where we make a screwup. The lady certainly made an error by running over the pipe, but that isn't the issue! The issue is helmets. Would the helmet have helped? Might my helmet help me in a mishap?

Here is a clear instance where no X-thousand pound vehicle was involved. Speed didn't seem to be (yes, I said seem) the culprit. She possibly made an error in riding over the pipe. Might the helmet have helped? That is the question, NOT her riding skills. Prevention is a different discussion - parallel, but different.

By deflecting the discussion from the potential safety benefit (mitigation) of a helmet to focusing on riding skills, you defeat your own argument!! Because who else would better need a helmet than someone that might make a riding skills mistake? I certainly fit in that group, and I suspect most of us might...

The problem is that it's an impossible question to discuss intelligently. We know very few details. She could have hit a curb, or a rock, or a completely flat road.

That said, I'm absolutely willing to say, tentatively, that it's absolutely possible. Helmets do have uses, and can mitigate injury; nobody here is contesting that. All that is being contested is that a) they are life-savers (by design, not by fluke) and b) that they are necessary, or practically necessary, for safe cycling. Again, nobody is contesting that they mitigate injuries, only the degree to which they do so.

Thread link summary:

No it doesn't.

You seem to be claiming, with cited articles, that in an accident involving a motor vehicle and a bicycle, where the cyclist is wearing a helmet, and some impact is sustained by the helmeted head within those parameters for which the helmet is specifically designed to provide protection and injury mitigation, the helmet will not work as designed. I still contend that it quite possibly might provide the protection for which it as designed.

I couldn't find any indication otherwise in the articles you cited; one mentioned forces in excess of those sustained in grand prix racing, the other, acceleration of the rider due to motor vehicle contact.

but that's the point - a bicycle helmet is not designed for impacts with other vehicles.

Impacts with other vehicles introduces additional forces that were not designed for.

The first source gave you this basic information, the second source expanded this a bit by saying impacts with motor vehicles introduce an acceleration to the impact, and here's a third source that explains a bit more "when a cyclist is knocked off by another vehicle, this frequently results in the head being spun and subjected to torsional effects. One consequence of this is that they tend not to hit the ground as cleanly as children who are typically involved in low-impact, non-twisting injuries,"

I exchanged emails with Dr. Sheikh about his study and the injuries treated involved simple falls (what helmets are designed for) and not impacts with motor vehicles (which they are not).

and most helmet promotion focuses on use, not prevention of incidents.

It's about misplaced priorities and attitudes, the attitude that the most important factor in bicycle safety is helmet use, when it's not.

true. We know little, but we do know that serious injury from simple falls is a rarity. It may be that this poor woman is seriously injured, but if she is, it is not the norm by any stretch.

I just talked to someone the other day that had suffered a concussion when he tripped on a child's toy on their stairs. Please, please, everyone, wear a helmet on the stairs. The doctors say that he would have DIED if he hadn't been wearing a helmet.

yup it's true. The toll from stairs is far higher than from bikes.

It's about perspective and unless there's a push to wear helmets 24/7 for everyone, pushing them for cyclists just places the whole issue out of perspective

My view exactly. Cycling just isn't that dangerous when done properly, certainly a lot less risky that walking down stairs or stumbling home drunk. Nobody suggests stair helmets or drinking helmets, so why are they apparently required for cycling?