Advertise on Bikeforums.net



User Tag List

View Poll Results: Helmet wearing habits?

Voters
1631. You may not vote on this poll
  • I've never worn a bike helmet

    173 10.61%
  • I used to wear a helmet, but have stopped

    93 5.70%
  • I've always worn a helmet

    637 39.06%
  • I didn't wear a helmet, but now do

    397 24.34%
  • I sometimes wear a helmet depending on the conditions

    331 20.29%
Page 215 of 345 FirstFirst ... 115165205213214215216217225265315 ... LastLast
Results 5,351 to 5,375 of 8615
  1. #5351
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Northern California
    My Bikes
    84 Eddy Merckx, 92 RB-1
    Posts
    98
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Yea we all know that it is just the illegal drugs that are bad. I mean, Vioxx, that killed my ex's father a few years back (yes the family won a lawsuit) certainly is a good drug given to you by your government.

    At this point all I hear is circus music ringing in my head. I really need to watch Idiocracy again tonight to have a good laugh at it all. When simple strings of logic are laid out and somebody comes back with pure off topic insanity, that is the time to bow out.

    Really, at this point I fell like I am just being trolled. On the other hand, the world must be filled with old men like rydabent, or else the world would not be the way it is...
    Last edited by Kidballistic; 05-27-13 at 12:00 PM. Reason: cause I wanted to

  2. #5352
    Senior Member ZmanKC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Overland Park, KS
    My Bikes
    1999 Giant TCR 2T 2009 Giant Cypress DX 2008 Giant Sedona
    Posts
    722
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by rydabent View Post
    sudo

    This of course is off topic, but since you challange me follow this logic. EVERYONE that use illegal drugs including weed are guilty of being an accessory to murder. All the murders to get fool illegal drug users their drugs can be laid at the doorstep of the users. Drug users will ***** a holler about this, but it is a fact, their use of durgs cause the murders!!! Simple logic no drug users, no drug pushers, no mexican drug cartel.
    That might be accurate if the only place "weed" came from was the Mexican cartels.

    [Edit] I see mconlonx beat me to it.
    Last edited by ZmanKC; 05-27-13 at 01:07 PM.
    1999 Giant TCR 2T
    2009 Giant Cypress DX
    2008 Giant Sedona

  3. #5353
    Banned.
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    5,098
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by rekmeyata View Post
    Right, so we should legalize all drugs, legalize hookers, legalize child sex too. America land of the free to do whatever we want.
    Some of the worst abused drugs in the USA right now are the legal ones. You'll need to patiently explain to me why opiates and cocaine are currently legal, but weed is not... Hookers are legal in some areas. What do either have to do with child sex?!?

    Quote Originally Posted by rydabent View Post
    IMHO ANYONE that uses illegal drugs has a weak mind. Why not spend their money on something of use. Just so the record is straight, I probably drink what amounts to a 6 pack of beer in a year, and have NEVER used or seen the need to use illegal drugs. Add to that my opinion that illegal drug users aid and abet drug dealer and drug cartel murders, using illegal drugs is just plain stupid!!!!
    Your opinion is completely, vastly incorrect.

    None of which has anything to do with helmets. Maybe ya'll would like to debate the War on Some Drug Users over in P&R...?

    Quote Originally Posted by rekmeyata View Post
    Actually you're wrong because you don't understand how gang and mafia work. If you take away their cash cow, drugs in this case, they will find another cash cow, thus legalize all the drugs to starve the gangs to death and they'll turn to other stuff such as child pornography. Get a clue.

  4. #5354
    Senior Member meanwhile's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,903
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    d by rydabent sudo

    When the terrorist set off the bomb in Boston, we blamed the terrorist not the bomb. So when someone with a twisted mind kills someone with a *** why blame the *** and not the shooter? I have NEVER know a *** to go out and kill someone by itself.
    Possibly this is because you are not smart enough to understand that no one DOES blame the ***? Blame implies moral agency, which inanimate objects do not have. What some people actually believe is the harder it is to kill someone, the fewer people will be murdered, and that guns are the quickest and easiest way of killing easily available.

    You might not accept that argument, but at least you now hopefully understand it and won't substitute a nonsensical strawman that makes you like ridiculous, yes?

  5. #5355
    Senior Member meanwhile's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,903
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by SwampDude View Post
    I haven't read this entire thread, because its too long at this point. The helmet issue is, in my opinion, an important one because there are situations where head gear somewhat mitigates the risk of serious injury.

    I voted in the category of wearing a helmet sometimes, depending on the riding conditions. My reasoning isn't sophisticated or supported by studies; its just an old peckerwood's logic after 60+ years of riding and one brain-shaking cycling accident. You might call me a proponent of 'informal accident probability theory' when it comes to helmet use.

    In all of my years on a bike, I've had only one serious accident. My road bike front tire dropped into a narrow crack in the street and I was catapulted into the curb head first. Because I was riding on busy, unfamiliar streets that day, I was wearing my helmet; the foam liner split cleanly in the temple area where I contacted concrete. I was scraped and bloodied on my arm and one leg, but my head survived nicely. The bike shop owner who sold me the helmet was amazed I walked away without a concussion, or worse, because the helmet damage was obvious; he sent it to Giro and gave me another one.
    Yes, what you write ***seems*** reasonable - however it is utter nonsense. This is because life is complicated and what seemingly reasonable is often wrong.

    First of all, your helment had no effect. We know this because it slip - helmets that work maintain shell integrity and have compacted foam in an intact shell. When shells fail they do so before liner compression, and so no energy is aborbed.

    Secondly, Bike Store Man is not an expert of concussion or on accidents! People have accidents that leave them with grazed arms and withput concussion pretty dam frequently. In fact, no current road helmet can absorb the impact energy that is usually required to create a concussion.

    Thirdly, the main cause of serious brain damage is rotational injury.. which current helmets make worse.

  6. #5356
    Senior Member meanwhile's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,903
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Wrong. ONE LAW FIRM IN TEXAS WILL TELL YOU THIS.

    For a non-helmet wearer, besides the hole in your head and the concussion, or worse, you will likely get short shrift in pressing for injury compensation.
    You have shown no evidence for "likely" - in fact, this concept has been repeatedly rejected in legislation, because the amount of energy absorbed by a cycling helmet is much too small to have any benefit in a real accident.

  7. #5357
    Senior Member meanwhile's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,903
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by rekmeyata View Post
    If you don't wear a helmet there is a possibility you could become weak minded.
    ..But the helmet has to be made of tinfoil at least 1/16 of an inch thick. Now mind me boy - that mustn't be one of them European metric tinfoil helmets you measure in millimetres! And you go using Chinese foil either!

  8. #5358
    Senior Member meanwhile's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,903
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by rydabent View Post
    Gee-------------no tons of posts so far from people that have been convinced to quit wearing helmets. I can only conclued that the anti hemlet crowd are just wasting their time peeing into the wind.
    Yes, but could that because you are a bit of a hypocrite and not very smart?

    Firstly, you didn't ask if YOU had convinced anyone to START wearing a helmet

    Secondly, the reason that intelligent people contribute head is not because they think many people read it real time - very few will have read it between your two posts - but to influence google searches.

  9. #5359
    Senior Member meanwhile's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,903
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Paramount1973 View Post
    Helmets are good at preventing severe brain injury And death. No surprise here. "The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that all cyclists wear helmets that fit properly for each ride, and supports legislation that requires all cyclists to wear helmets."
    The problem with this post is that it shows that you have no grasp of the issues...

    - Cycling helmets are designed and specced to prevent just one type of injury - one possible only for children with "soft" skulls that are still growing. This is the ONLY type of serious injury the amount of energy absorbed by a helmet can prevent

    - When helmets were marketed to adults this same low energy level becaume the stanard. Helmet kaers knew it would be useless, but people won't wear heavy helmets - and many people are stupid, lazy and easily influenced, so you don't need a real benefit to influence them

    - Then helmet standards were softened again to make them easier to sell and cheaper to make...

    So, yes, it's very possiblt that a study might show benefits for children (although I would be cautious, because in the past such studies have been helmet maker funded and rather bend the rules of science) - but this has nothing to do with the potential benefits for adults.

  10. #5360
    Banned.
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    5,098
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by meanwhile View Post
    First of all, your helment had no effect. We know this because it slip - helmets that work maintain shell integrity and have compacted foam in an intact shell. When shells fail they do so before liner compression, and so no energy is aborbed.

    Secondly, Bike Store Man is not an expert of concussion or on accidents! People have accidents that leave them with grazed arms and without concussion pretty dam frequently. In fact, no current road helmet can absorb the impact energy that is usually required to create a concussion.

    Thirdly, the main cause of serious brain damage is rotational injury.. which current helmets make worse.
    First: you have no idea if his helmet had any effect. A split in the shell can occur after foam compression occurs, after some energy has been dissipated.

    Second: You make an assumption that the bike shop guy said the helmet prevented a concussion, when the accident victim claimed no such thing.

    Third: Some current helmets are designed to mitigate rotational injury. And since measure of such is not part of helmet testing, others may provide some degree of mitigation, but we just don't know.

    Quote Originally Posted by meanwhile View Post
    The problem with this post is that it shows that you have no grasp of the issues...

    - Cycling helmets are designed and specced to prevent just one type of injury - one possible only for children with "soft" skulls that are still growing. This is the ONLY type of serious injury the amount of energy absorbed by a helmet can prevent

    - When helmets were marketed to adults this same low energy level becaume the stanard. Helmet kaers knew it would be useless, but people won't wear heavy helmets - and many people are stupid, lazy and easily influenced, so you don't need a real benefit to influence them

    - Then helmet standards were softened again to make them easier to sell and cheaper to make...

    So, yes, it's very possiblt that a study might show benefits for children (although I would be cautious, because in the past such studies have been helmet maker funded and rather bend the rules of science) - but this has nothing to do with the potential benefits for adults.
    While I disagree with Paramount1973's statements, conclusions, and find the study cited useless and chock-filled with inconsistencies and nonsense -- "We support MHLs because that will make parents make more kids wear helmets, but we have no idea if it will actually make cyclists safer in general." -- once again, you delve into conjecture and assumptions:

    - Just because helmets are designed to pass a minimum test for one type of impact, they can and do prevent/mitigate all kinds of injury. Just not serious injury.

    - Helmets are not useless and provide real benefits.

    You're just as off-base, your comments as useless, as those you seek to castigate for their helmet advocacy.

  11. #5361
    BF Avatar Zombie Hunter Jseis's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    SW Washington state on the ocean!
    My Bikes
    1973 Motobecane Grand Jubilee, 1981 Centurion Super LeMans, 2010 Gary Fisher Wahoo, '03 Colnago Dream Lux, several older family Treks
    Posts
    1,048
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I suspect a data discrepancy between reported and unreported accidents and in particular an analysis of speed, severity of injury, concussion. It might that NFL research into helmet collisions (particularly if helmets are fitted with accelerometers) might be revealing across a full gamut of head strikes. I'd estimate that (with exception for high speed wrecks) most cycling accidents are within (inside) the range of NFL hits. Furthermore NFL players don't want to wear heavy helmets but want G force protection. Cyclist helmet design and efficacy might be the beneficiary of data.

    Data mining hospital records is giving us gross probability data that in turn used for arguments (pro-con) but not the real stuff, particularly on concussions. I wore a Snell cert. helmet in the '70's and it was on my head in 3 wrecks (more like lay downs)...but to this day I can't say what the helmet did (face shield shattering probably saved my face in one accident).

    i wear my bike helmet all the time but only started wearing one after a real nasty wreck (no helmet) years ago. My reasons for not wearing was it was hot and l was vain about it. But to this day I've no way to measure how that or subsequent helmets prevented injury (I'm opinionated on it...but no "data"). Same goes for seat belts, airbags, frontal crash protection, crumple zones or (off topic) GFI's, safety glass, speed limits, FAA 777 certification, etc. and etc.

    Those that don't want to wear helmets can ('cept sanctioned events & kids) but of course...on public rights of way...that "right"can change at a drop of a helmet...so to speak.
    Amerika, Land of the Very Brief.

  12. #5362
    BF Avatar Zombie Hunter Jseis's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    SW Washington state on the ocean!
    My Bikes
    1973 Motobecane Grand Jubilee, 1981 Centurion Super LeMans, 2010 Gary Fisher Wahoo, '03 Colnago Dream Lux, several older family Treks
    Posts
    1,048
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    The helmet thread

    Last edited by Jseis; 05-28-13 at 11:05 AM.
    Amerika, Land of the Very Brief.

  13. #5363
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Canada, PG BC
    My Bikes
    27 speed oryx
    Posts
    856
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by mconlonx View Post
    First: you have no idea if his helmet had any effect. A split in the shell can occur after foam compression occurs, after some energy has been dissipated.

    Second: You make an assumption that the bike shop guy said the helmet prevented a concussion, when the accident victim claimed no such thing.

    Third: Some current helmets are designed to mitigate rotational injury. And since measure of such is not part of helmet testing, others may provide some degree of mitigation, but we just don't know.



    While I disagree with Paramount1973's statements, conclusions, and find the study cited useless and chock-filled with inconsistencies and nonsense -- "We support MHLs because that will make parents make more kids wear helmets, but we have no idea if it will actually make cyclists safer in general." -- once again, you delve into conjecture and assumptions:

    - Just because helmets are designed to pass a minimum test for one type of impact, they can and do prevent/mitigate all kinds of injury. Just not serious injury.

    - Helmets are not useless and provide real benefits.

    You're just as off-base, your comments as useless, as those you seek to castigate for their helmet advocacy.
    That's the bottom line, they may not be as good as most people think, but they are CERTAINLY BETTER than no helmet at all despite all the non helmet wearers nay-saying and "statistics"... ATT00112.jpg
    Last edited by 350htrr; 05-27-13 at 08:51 PM.
    He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts...for support rather than illumination. I do like my beer, so sometimes I do end up leaning on the lamp-post...

  14. #5364
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    5,855
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by 350htrr View Post
    That's the bottom line, they may not be as good as most people think, but they are CERTAINLY BETTER than no helmet at all despite all the non helmet wearers nay-saying and "statistics"...
    Neither you nor any other helmeteer has ever adequately addressed the point that the above argument is as valid for just about any other activity as it is for cycling.

    Look, if I am going to fall over and hit my head, I'd like to have a helmet on. But for all my activities - cycling included - I am so unlikely to fall over and hit my head that there is no rational reason to try to protect myself from it. Why is that so goddamned hard for you lot to understand?

  15. #5365
    Senior Member elcruxio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    mordor
    My Bikes
    2011 Specialized crux comp, 2013 Specialized Rockhopper Pro
    Posts
    689
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by 350htrr View Post
    That's the bottom line, they may not be as good as most people think, but they are CERTAINLY BETTER than no helmet at all despite all the non helmet wearers nay-saying and "statistics"... ATT00112.jpg
    A thick woolen cap is better than no protection at all...

  16. #5366
    Bicikli Huszár sudo bike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fresno, CA
    My Bikes
    '95 Novara Randonee
    Posts
    2,116
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by 350htrr View Post
    That's the bottom line, they may not be as good as most people think, but they are CERTAINLY BETTER than no helmet at all despite all the non helmet wearers nay-saying and "statistics"...
    Yes. A helmet is capable of mitigating some less serious injuries. This is true if you're cycling, walking, jogging, driving, hopping around on a pogo stick... (actually, the latter probably makes the most sense).
    "The bicycle is the noblest invention of mankind. I love the bicycle. I always have. I can think of no sincere, decent human being, male or female, young or old, saint or sinner, who can resist the bicycle."

    - William Saroyan

  17. #5367
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Canada, PG BC
    My Bikes
    27 speed oryx
    Posts
    856
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    [QUOTE=Six jours;15674565]Neither you nor any other helmeteer has ever adequately addressed the point that the above argument is as valid for just about any other activity as it is for cycling.

    Look, if I am going to fall over and hit my head, I'd like to have a helmet on. But for all my activities - cycling included - I am so unlikely to fall over and hit my head that there is no rational reason to try to protect myself from it. Why is that so goddamned hard for you lot to understand?[/QUOTE]

    I understand... My thinking is, it's better to have and not need, than not have and need. Why is that so Goddamned hard for you to understand?
    He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts...for support rather than illumination. I do like my beer, so sometimes I do end up leaning on the lamp-post...

  18. #5368
    Senior Member meanwhile's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,903
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by mconlonx View Post
    First: you have no idea if his helmet had any effect. A split in the shell can occur after foam compression occurs, after some energy has been dissipated.
    With current helmets, this is pratically impossible. The shells are extremely thin and - to point out the obvious - THEY ARE ON THE OUTSIDE. In fact, in independent studies of helmets recovered after accidents, liner compression was found to have occurred only something like 10% of the time. (Although to be fair, this might be because very few people wear helmets correctly.)

    Second: You make an assumption that the bike shop guy said the helmet prevented a concussion, when the accident victim claimed no such thing.
    Ahem:

    The bike shop owner who sold me the helmet was amazed I walked away without a concussion, or worse
    ...the poster attributed this to the helmet and in the context he wrote that it was clearly presented an endorsement of that view.

    Third: Some current helmets are designed to mitigate rotational injury.
    No road cycling helmet is. Are we supposed to believe that the poster was wearing a heavy full face downhill helmet costing $500, of a type that makes up a fraction of a per cent of helmet sales, and that he forgot to inform us of this????

    And since measure of such is not part of helmet testing, others may provide some degree of mitigation, but we just don't know.
    You don't know: I do. A good sample of helmets have been tested and we have the opinion of helmet engineers that current helmets make rotation WORSE - which you'd expect if you had mastered high school physics.



    While I disagree with Paramount1973's statements, conclusions, and find the study cited useless and chock-filled with inconsistencies and nonsense -- "We support MHLs because that will make parents make more kids wear helmets, but we have no idea if it will actually make cyclists safer in general." -- once again, you delve into conjecture and assumptions:

    - Just because helmets are designed to pass a minimum test for one type of impact, they can and do prevent/mitigate all kinds of injury. Just not serious injury.
    THis is grammatical nonsense. And it is semantically meaningless because you haven't defined "serious" injury - is it before or after the energy level for concussion???

    - Helmets are not useless and provide real benefits.
    Yes, they do - they are great at preventing extremely minor injuries. Exactly the same ones you risk while walking or jogging or taking a shower, no more.
    Last edited by meanwhile; 05-28-13 at 08:25 AM.

  19. #5369
    Senior Member meanwhile's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,903
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    [QUOTE=350htrr;15675447]
    Quote Originally Posted by Six jours View Post
    Neither you nor any other helmeteer has ever adequately addressed the point that the above argument is as valid for just about any other activity as it is for cycling.

    Look, if I am going to fall over and hit my head, I'd like to have a helmet on. But for all my activities - cycling included - I am so unlikely to fall over and hit my head that there is no rational reason to try to protect myself from it. Why is that so goddamned hard for you lot to understand?[/QUOTE]

    I understand... My thinking is, it's better to have and not need, than not have and need. Why is that so Goddamned hard for you to understand?
    Because that is not your thinking. If it was, you'd wear a helmet for walking, driving a car, jogging, etc. Because cycling helmets can only protect you from the energy level of impact involved in stumbling, not that associated with dangerous cycling accidents.

  20. #5370
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Canada, PG BC
    My Bikes
    27 speed oryx
    Posts
    856
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by meanwhile View Post


    Because that is not your thinking. If it was, you'd wear a helmet for walking, driving a car, jogging, etc. Because cycling helmets can only protect you from the energy level of impact involved in stumbling, not that associated with dangerous cycling accidents.
    I don't wear a helmet while waking, jogging, taking a shower etc, for the same reason you/others don't wear a helmet while bicycling and doing all those other things too... I consider the risk low enough to not wear one, so I don't... But I do consider the risk high enough to wear a helmet while riding my bike, just my way of looking at risk I guess. And no I don't think a helmet would save my life in every situation, but I do think it can help reduce some damage that usually happens when said head bounces off the pavement...
    Last edited by 350htrr; 05-28-13 at 08:51 AM.
    He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts...for support rather than illumination. I do like my beer, so sometimes I do end up leaning on the lamp-post...

  21. #5371
    Senior Member meanwhile's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,903
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    This is from a site written by professional risk management scientists and edited by a director of the University of Michigan Risk Science Centre:

    In a recent survey, 92% of respondents reported that they are in favor of mandatory bicycle helmet laws for children, and 83% are in favor of helmet laws for all cyclists. Groups as disparate as the American Pediatric Association and various State Departments of Transportation recommend the usage of helmets for cyclists. And, on and on. Yet, they might all be wrong. Bicycle helmets might not protect cyclists much at all. And, in fact, in some cases, they might actually be more dangerous than going lidless.

    To begin, I would just like to point out some of the ridiculous nature of the whole concept. I doubt that this avenue of argument will convince many, but I hope you will at least think about it before continuing on to the more statistically focused ones. The idea that a 4000 pound steel box moving at 35 miles per hour would have limited effect against a plastic and Styrofoam bowl, that weighs less than a pound, is an ignorant one, at best. (Or, one that delights in sci-fi physics.) And yet, many people seem to have the idea that if you are a cyclist who wears a helmet, you are safe. (At this point, please reread the H. L. Mencken quote at the beginning of this piece.) Let’s look at the evidence, shall we.

    In a 2001 New York Times article, Julian Barnes noted that while rates of cycling had decreased between 1991 and 2001, head injuries had increased even though the use of helmets had skyrocketed throughout the 1990s. The risk of injury per cyclist had gone up by 51%. Several causes were postulated: antilock brakes, the risk-taking behavior that people do when wearing safety gear, etc. I hope that you will take a moment to read the article. Some of the quotes are precious. “We don’t know what’s going on,” said one political appointee who should know. Well, I’ll offer my idea. People accepted the idea that helmets work, and then created studies to “prove” that they do. But, let’s keep going.

    For my evidence on these matters, I could use many sources, but I will focus on the work of W. J. Curnow, who is a leading researcher in the field. He states that the most common form of testing done on helmets is of the linear impact variety. That is, imagine putting on a helmet, running at a wall, and measuring the decrease in impact. Modern bicycle helmets generally perform well at these tests, as they are designed to pass them. Curnow points out that these tests generally max out at 12.5 mph. This means, that up to this speed, in a linear impact situation, the helmet should have some increase in protection for the wearer. His own evidence backs this up. However, many accidents involving cyclists do not fall into this highly specific category.

    Most healthy cyclists, especially adults, regularly cycle faster than 12.5 mph. And, of course, cars go a lot faster than this, even in school zones. Also, Curnow points out that the most dangerous type of injury to the heads of cyclists are of the “rotational” or “torsional” variety. This takes place when the head and neck twist rapidly. These injuries can cause the brain to become detached from the connective tissue and the brain stem can be torn. It is these injuries that bicycle helmets make worse, and make happen when they normally wouldn’t. The thickness of the helmet causes the head to come into contact with surfaces that it would not in a person not wearing a helmet. Because of this, and the movement and sliding of a crashing cyclist, the helmet will “grab” the ground and cause the head to twist, leading to these extremely dangerous injuries to the brain.

    So, what we have done is create a society that is absolutely certain that helmets work. However, the requirement to wear helmets has led people to stop cycling. This has contributed to the obesity problem that industrialized countries are facing. And, the people who are cycling with helmets are perhaps more at risk than they were before all of this started. Well done, everyone!

    ...At the end, it must be pointed out that cycling has a similar risk of death as being a pedestrian.
    I.e.

    - If you are wearing a helmet because you think that it reduces your chances of dying in a cycling accident, you are NOT being rational

    - If wear a helmet to cycle but not to walk, you are NOT being rational

    So why are you wearing a helmet? Either because you didn't know the facts, or because you are scared and the helmet has an irrationally great benefit for you psychologically. The problem with the second is that it indicates you are "risk compensating" - which means that you are taking risks that you wouldn't without the helmet. If you are scared riding in traffic, take a course or read a book like Robert Hursts and learn some survival skills that actually work.

  22. #5372
    Cycle Dallas MMACH 5's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Land of Gar, TX
    My Bikes
    Lucinda--2010 Jamis Aurora Elite & a few others
    Posts
    3,359
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by meanwhile View Post
    This is from a site written by professional risk management scientists and edited by a director of the University of Michigan Risk Science Centre:
    I.e.
    - If you are wearing a helmet because you think that it reduces your chances of dying in a cycling accident, you are NOT being rational

    - If wear a helmet to cycle but not to walk, you are NOT being rational

    So why are you wearing a helmet? Either because you didn't know the facts, or because you are scared and the helmet has an irrationally great benefit for you psychologically. The problem with the second is that it indicates you are "risk compensating" - which means that you are taking risks that you wouldn't without the helmet. If you are scared riding in traffic, take a course or read a book like Robert Hursts and learn some survival skills that actually work.
    I ride in the most dangerous city in the nation, maybe the world for cyclists (according to Bicycling Magazine). I've crashed once, solo and bounced my helmet on the pavement. Did the helmet mitigate my injury? Since the helmet cracked, and that is how it absorbs and dissipates force, I will say yes, it probably absorbed most of the energy that would have been transferred to my skull. It may have only kept me from tearing skin off my scalp. And that's good enough for me.
    I've been hit by cars, twice. One of those times, I have no doubt that the helmet reduced the level of my traumatic brain injury. I spent a month in a coma. The helmet now hangs on my wall, shattered and covered in my blood. This helmet shattering absorbed and dissipated a considerable amount of force. Did it save my life? I'll never know for sure, but physics says the energy that wasn't transferred likely helped.

    And, I've taken the LAB safety course. The first thing covered was, the 5 Layers of Bicycle Safety:
    Layer 1: Control your bike
    Layer 2: Know and follow the rules of the road
    Layer 3: Ride in the smartest lane position
    Layer 4: Manage hazards skillfully
    Layer 5: Utilize passive protection (i.e. - helmet, gloves, glasses)

    WHAT? But several members of the Bare-Head Brigade have told us to take a safety course instead of wearing a helmet. Yet, in the safety course, they tell us to wear a helmet. Clearly, this must be a mistake.

    I have yet to hit my head while walking. I have yet to hit my head in the shower. If that's what kills me, then please feel free to say "I told you so" at my funeral.

    We all mitigate risks as we deem necessary. I'll gladly take your label of not being rational.
    That's gonna leave a mark.

  23. #5373
    Banned.
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    5,098
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by meanwhile View Post
    With current helmets, this is pratically impossible. The shells are extremely thin and - to point out the obvious - THEY ARE ON THE OUTSIDE. In fact, in independent studies of helmets recovered after accidents, liner compression was found to have occurred only something like 10% of the time. (Although to be fair, this might be because very few people wear helmets correctly.)
    So you don't know if the wearer of this particular helmet got any injury mitigation benefit out of it or not. Got it.

    Quote Originally Posted by meanwhile View Post
    Ahem: ...the poster attributed this to the helmet and in the context he wrote that it was clearly presented an endorsement of that view.
    ...and unless you're reading with an agenda already in mind, it could simply be a statement that the crash was bad enough that the rider should very well have received a concussion, helmet or no. Especially if the shop person exclaiming about the situation is aware that helmets do little or nothing where concussion mitigation is concerned.

    Quote Originally Posted by meanwhile View Post
    No road cycling helmet is. Are we supposed to believe that the poster was wearing a heavy full face downhill helmet costing $500, of a type that makes up a fraction of a per cent of helmet sales, and that he forgot to inform us of this????
    POC, Lazer, and Scott are all manufacturing helmets with the licensed MIPS system. Chances are he was not wearing their offerings, but far cry from "No road cycling helmet is." The Poc offerings are $200-300.

    Quote Originally Posted by meanwhile View Post
    You don't know: I do. A good sample of helmets have been tested and we have the opinion of helmet engineers that current helmets make rotation WORSE - which you'd expect if you had mastered high school physics.
    I've seen differing opinion in the studies posted here along with some outright obfuscation and misrepresentation regarding the rotation issue... High school physics only barely touches on issues regarding rotational impact to the head in a bicycle crash.

    Quote Originally Posted by meanwhile View Post
    THis is grammatical nonsense. And it is semantically meaningless because you haven't defined "serious" injury - is it before or after the energy level for concussion???
    Who cares about energy levels for concussion? Helmets are not designed to mitigate such forces. I don't define "serious" injury; various studies do.

    Quote Originally Posted by meanwhile View Post
    Yes, they do - they are great at preventing extremely minor injuries. Exactly the same ones you risk while walking or jogging or taking a shower, no more.
    "Minor" to "moderate" types of head injury are where helmets actually do provide some protection. Thing is, what medical professionals describe as minor and moderate need to be taken in context with what they consider serious. Moderate but not serious injury could include laceration, abrasion, and impact damage that the recipient might find rather traumatic, but which an emergency room tech/doc would not classify as serious.

  24. #5374
    Senior Member robble's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Honolulu
    Posts
    231
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I just got back from a group ride where one of the guys had a pretty bad fall (i'm still in kit as I type this even). I was behind him as we were going downhill on a wet road about 25-30mph. He applied the brakes due to a sharp corner coming up. One of his tires locked up and the bike seemed to jump sideways out from under him.

    He slammed to the ground and skidded/rolled pretty darn far. Road rash all over his body, possible broken hip (he is 70 years old but super fit). front left of his helmet was broken. He couldn't remember anyone's names and kept asking to call his wife multiple times after we had already called her (and an ambulance). Definitely he has a concussion. Who knows how bad it would have been without his helmet.

    For anyone Oahu local who reads this it was Frank Smith - the owner if Island Triathlon and Bike.
    Trek 7.4FX

  25. #5375
    BF Avatar Zombie Hunter Jseis's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    SW Washington state on the ocean!
    My Bikes
    1973 Motobecane Grand Jubilee, 1981 Centurion Super LeMans, 2010 Gary Fisher Wahoo, '03 Colnago Dream Lux, several older family Treks
    Posts
    1,048
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Two recent reports.

    http://heapro.oxfordjournals.org/content/22/3/191.full


    http://www.iihs.org/research/topics/pdf/r1186.pdf

    One interesting conclusion you can make for yourself. The greatest positive reason for an adult to wear a helmet is training their young (<16 years) child/grandchild/niece/nephew to wear one in those high risk years. Of course...once teenage hormones kick in all bets are off. No one on this forum appears to be arguing that young children shouldn't wear helmets.
    Amerika, Land of the Very Brief.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •