View Poll Results: Helmet wearing habits?
I've never worn a bike helmet
178
10.66%
I used to wear a helmet, but have stopped
94
5.63%
I've always worn a helmet
648
38.80%
I didn't wear a helmet, but now do
408
24.43%
I sometimes wear a helmet depending on the conditions
342
20.48%
Voters: 1670. You may not vote on this poll
The helmet thread
11-16-11, 01:06 PM
#551
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: PNW
Posts: 181
Bikes: Ti Lite and a Vaya
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
FWIW I've voted twice against MHLs for motorcyclists. It's their head, I'll mind my own business. Mountain bike riding or racing, I've always worn a helmet, but touring along a hwy shoulder or beer runs on the grocery getter haven't ever struck me as particularly high risk activities. I think tail lights do more to protect me in both of those cases.
11-16-11, 01:13 PM
#552
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Virginia/DC
Posts: 1,454
Bikes: quite a few
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
So the question is: Do helmets do more harm than good, more good than harm, an equal amount of good and harm, or nothing at all? I'm particularly asking from the point of view of a city/utility cyclist. And again, I'm not looking for any new laws or rules one way or the other, just trying to figure out if I'm baking my head for no good reason.
all the information on this is in the paper I linked but to boil things down in a very simple way, it's the movement of the brain within the skull that causes DAI (concussion is the mildest, and most common form of DAI).
Any kind of jarring motion (such as whiplash, or what happens in "Shaken Baby Syndrome" can cause this movement.
Helmets are designed to adress only linear impacts and not the oblique impacts that cause so much trouble, thus the quote from the linked paper...
Any kind of jarring motion (such as whiplash, or what happens in "Shaken Baby Syndrome" can cause this movement.
Helmets are designed to adress only linear impacts and not the oblique impacts that cause so much trouble, thus the quote from the linked paper...
11-16-11, 01:14 PM
#553
Senior Member
I learned to ride in the 1950s, and naturally didn't wear a helmet. A friend of mine was killed when we were both 18 years old - he was riding pretty slowly, in city traffic, and the taxi in front of him stopped short, and he went over the handlebars and hit his head. (I know, I know, ... it isn't the point that he shouldn't have been following that closely, or he should have been paying more attention, ...) This was 1969, so of course, no helmet. He was dead by the next morning. There's no way to know for sure, but it seems like that situation is exactly what helmets were made for.
The seat belt comparison is often used with helmets but they are completely different items that work on a different theory and have much different records of efficacy.
11-16-11, 01:18 PM
#554
Senior Member
Because of the way the head is positioned on the neck, and the usual movement a cyclist is making, the manner in which most cyclists hit their heads involves a twisting motion that can (but not always does) rotate the brain within the skull
11-16-11, 01:23 PM
#555
Tortoise Wins by a Hare!
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Looney Tunes, IL
Posts: 7,398
Bikes: Wabi Special FG, Raleigh Roper, Nashbar AL-1, Miyata One Hundred, '70 Schwinn Lemonator and More!!
Mentioned: 22 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1549 Post(s)
Liked 941 Times
in
504 Posts
Not wearing a seat belt when you are accustomed to one feels weird because they give the wearer a feeling of restraint... helmets don’t. I think you’d be surprised at how quickly you’d feel normal without one. I alternate with/without and honestly don’t “feel weird” either way.
11-16-11, 01:39 PM
#557
Senior Member
So the question is: Do helmets do more harm than good, more good than harm, an equal amount of good and harm, or nothing at all? I'm particularly asking from the point of view of a city/utility cyclist. And again, I'm not looking for any new laws or rules one way or the other, just trying to figure out if I'm baking my head for no good reason.
One harmful point is in the prioritization of helmet use over safe riding and driving behavior, another is wearing a helmet is signaling cycling as dangerous and risky, something it is not.
11-16-11, 01:45 PM
#558
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Northeastern NJ - NYC Metro Area
Posts: 795
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
After wearing a helmet for 21 years and giving it up, it seems weird to me to wear a helmet. Sort of like an admission riding a bike is dangerous and likely to result in injuring myself.
But I'm not a cycling advocate - I really don't care what other people do, other than it would be nice if there were fewer cars on the road around here. (A futile dream...) The seat belt comparison is often used with helmets but they are completely different items that work on a different theory and have much different records of efficacy.
11-16-11, 01:52 PM
#559
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Northeastern NJ - NYC Metro Area
Posts: 795
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
One harmful point is in the prioritization of helmet use over safe riding and driving behavior, another is wearing a helmet is signaling cycling as dangerous and risky, something it is not.
For the latter, as I said previously, I'm not riding to send signals of one kind or another. I'm just enjoying myself. This isn't a political or philosophical activity for me. Just (hopefully healthy) fun.
11-16-11, 02:05 PM
#560
Senior Member
Risk compensation. Not only does it apply to cyclists, it applies to the behavior of motorists driving near cyclists
even if you're not a cycling advocate, your environment can change based on whether others think cycling is dangerous because it's been shown that more cyclists on the streets means the streets are safer for cyclists. If people thik cycling is dangerous, they're less prone to cycle.
I'm saying the likelyhood of a head injury while riding runs equal to that of receiving one while walking and the standards to which helmets are made mean helmets can offer the same (or even better) protection to pedestrians
I understand what you're saying. I'm not making any sort of statement with my bike. I will admit to being a little amused by the looks that I get when people see this old, short, fat Italian guy with 40 lbs of groceries loaded on his bike. But I'm not a cycling advocate - I really don't care what other people do, other than it would be nice if there were fewer cars on the road around here. (A futile dream...)
But I'm not a cycling advocate - I really don't care what other people do, other than it would be nice if there were fewer cars on the road around here. (A futile dream...)Yeah - the efficacy thing is really what I'm trying to assess. Also - are you saying that the likelihood of getting a head injury of the kind that a helmet would mitigate is the same for walking as for riding a bike? Or just that there is some non-zero probability that you will?
Last edited by closetbiker; 11-16-11 at 02:18 PM.
11-16-11, 02:07 PM
#561
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Warwick, UK
Posts: 1,049
Bikes: 2000-something 3 speed commuter, 1990-something Raleigh Scorpion
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
It's the idea that wearing a helmet can cause people to take risks they wouldn't otherwise, due to an ill-placed faith in their helmet's ability to prevent injury. People seem to note that drivers tend to pass a helmeted cyclist closer than a bare-headed one.
That's basically it. Riding a bicycle on the road in a safe and predictable manner is not an inherently dangerous activity. Injuries from simple falls, which could be mitigated by the use of a helmet, are just as likely if not more so when walking on uneven footpaths, climbing a ladder, wandering home drunk, or simply being old and frail. Yet no one ever considers the use of a walking helmet, ladder helmet, drinking helmet or old-age helmet. It's entirely unlike the use of seatbelts in cars, which are proven to reduce injuries. For cycling helmets, when helmet use goes up, there isn't a clear reduction in head injuries.
The difference with cycling is that injuries are far more likely to occur during an accident involving a motor vehicle or a high-speed crash. The forces involved here simply overwhelm a bicycle helmet. In competetive road cycling, mountain biking or riding in snow for example, simple falls and/or crashes involving another cyclist are far more likely, so a helmet is a wise choice here.
No one is going to tell you not to wear a cycling helmet if you want to- it's your choice. However, the bare-headed sector of this forum generally dislikes being told to wear a helmet of dubious practical benefit based on an anecdote ('it saved my life' etc- you just can't tell one way or the other) nor being told they're stupid for making an informed decision not to.
The difference with cycling is that injuries are far more likely to occur during an accident involving a motor vehicle or a high-speed crash. The forces involved here simply overwhelm a bicycle helmet. In competetive road cycling, mountain biking or riding in snow for example, simple falls and/or crashes involving another cyclist are far more likely, so a helmet is a wise choice here.
No one is going to tell you not to wear a cycling helmet if you want to- it's your choice. However, the bare-headed sector of this forum generally dislikes being told to wear a helmet of dubious practical benefit based on an anecdote ('it saved my life' etc- you just can't tell one way or the other) nor being told they're stupid for making an informed decision not to.
11-16-11, 02:09 PM
#562
Senior Member
I speak only for myself in saying that policy is irrelevant to me. I will ride the way that I ride, helmet or not. I don't believe that I've ever taken any additional chances because the helmet made me feel safer. Similarly, I agree that learning to ride and drive safely are extremely important.
11-16-11, 02:29 PM
#563
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Northeastern NJ - NYC Metro Area
Posts: 795
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
That's really interesting. I live/ride in "Sopranos Country" (I don't know if you got the TV show in BC, so you may not get the reference. It was a show about a Mafia family that operated around my town, and gave a unique but not totally inaccurate portrayal of life around here.) I just figured the nasty driver attitude was part of their habitual approach to life - I didn't realize I was inviting it by wearing my helmet.
But are you really saying that the likelihood of running into a situation where my helmet would help me avoid injury on my bike is the same as that of running into it just walking around on the sidewalk? Are there references? If so, I will give up the helmet.
But are you really saying that the likelihood of running into a situation where my helmet would help me avoid injury on my bike is the same as that of running into it just walking around on the sidewalk? Are there references? If so, I will give up the helmet.
11-16-11, 02:45 PM
#565
Trek DS 8.4 Rider!
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 480
Bikes: 1991 Gt Avalanche, 2012 DS 8.4
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
I ran a poll on BF recently asking how many people believed they had had their lives saved by their helmets. More than half the respondents thought they had. We know the sport did not have a 50% fatality rate prior to helmets, so the obvious conclusion is that people are vastly overrating the dangers of cycling and vastly overrating the protective properties of helmets. So while it's possible your helmet really did save you from serious or fatal injuries, it's also quite likely that you're one of those "fifty percenters".
11-16-11, 02:55 PM
#566
Senior Member
That's really interesting. I live/ride in "Sopranos Country" (I don't know if you got the TV show in BC, so you may not get the reference. It was a show about a Mafia family that operated around my town, and gave a unique but not totally inaccurate portrayal of life around here.) I just figured the nasty driver attitude was part of their habitual approach to life - I didn't realize I was inviting it by wearing my helmet.
Six times as many pedestrians as cyclists are killed by motor traffic, yet travel surveys show annual mileage walked is only five times that cycled
(in my Canadian province pedestrians have a fatality rate 5 times greater than cyclists per collision with motor vehicle)
from the US
1.On a per-mile basis, the odds of being killed or sustaining a serious head injury while riding a bicycle are about the same as the odds of being killed or injured while out for a walk.
2. On a per-capita basis, the odds of being killed while riding a bicycle are nearly the same as the odds of being killed by a bolt of lightning
but I think if you use a helmet for minor injuries, it will not disappoint. If it's intended for serious injury or death prevention, it's bound to disappoint
Last edited by closetbiker; 11-16-11 at 03:00 PM.
11-16-11, 03:15 PM
#567
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Copenhagen
Posts: 1,832
Bikes: A load of ancient, old and semi-vintage bikes of divers sorts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
It's the idea that wearing a helmet can cause people to take risks they wouldn't otherwise, due to an ill-placed faith in their helmet's ability to prevent injury. People seem to note that drivers tend to pass a helmeted cyclist closer than a bare-headed one.
That's basically it. Riding a bicycle on the road in a safe and predictable manner is not an inherently dangerous activity. Injuries from simple falls, which could be mitigated by the use of a helmet, are just as likely if not more so when walking on uneven footpaths, climbing a ladder, wandering home drunk, or simply being old and frail. Yet no one ever considers the use of a walking helmet, ladder helmet, drinking helmet or old-age helmet. It's entirely unlike the use of seatbelts in cars, which are proven to reduce injuries. For cycling helmets, when helmet use goes up, there isn't a clear reduction in head injuries.
The difference with cycling is that injuries are far more likely to occur during an accident involving a motor vehicle or a high-speed crash. The forces involved here simply overwhelm a bicycle helmet. In competetive road cycling, mountain biking or riding in snow for example, simple falls and/or crashes involving another cyclist are far more likely, so a helmet is a wise choice here.
No one is going to tell you not to wear a cycling helmet if you want to- it's your choice. However, the bare-headed sector of this forum generally dislikes being told to wear a helmet of dubious practical benefit based on an anecdote ('it saved my life' etc- you just can't tell one way or the other) nor being told they're stupid for making an informed decision not to.
That's basically it. Riding a bicycle on the road in a safe and predictable manner is not an inherently dangerous activity. Injuries from simple falls, which could be mitigated by the use of a helmet, are just as likely if not more so when walking on uneven footpaths, climbing a ladder, wandering home drunk, or simply being old and frail. Yet no one ever considers the use of a walking helmet, ladder helmet, drinking helmet or old-age helmet. It's entirely unlike the use of seatbelts in cars, which are proven to reduce injuries. For cycling helmets, when helmet use goes up, there isn't a clear reduction in head injuries.
The difference with cycling is that injuries are far more likely to occur during an accident involving a motor vehicle or a high-speed crash. The forces involved here simply overwhelm a bicycle helmet. In competetive road cycling, mountain biking or riding in snow for example, simple falls and/or crashes involving another cyclist are far more likely, so a helmet is a wise choice here.
No one is going to tell you not to wear a cycling helmet if you want to- it's your choice. However, the bare-headed sector of this forum generally dislikes being told to wear a helmet of dubious practical benefit based on an anecdote ('it saved my life' etc- you just can't tell one way or the other) nor being told they're stupid for making an informed decision not to.
11-16-11, 03:23 PM
#568
Senior Member
Not if the accidents involve impacts beyond a helmets abilities, or involve injuries other than ones to the head.
It's also most preferable to avoid accidents/falls/collisions on the first place. If wearing a helmet means an accident is more likely to happen, it's the less safe option to peruse.
It's also most preferable to avoid accidents/falls/collisions on the first place. If wearing a helmet means an accident is more likely to happen, it's the less safe option to peruse.
Last edited by closetbiker; 11-16-11 at 04:39 PM.
11-16-11, 03:30 PM
#569
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Lincoln Ne
Posts: 9,924
Bikes: RANS Stratus TerraTrike Tour II
Mentioned: 46 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3352 Post(s)
Liked 1,056 Times
in
635 Posts
A large number of people here including myself have posted the fact that a helmet has saved them from at least injury. Of course the anti helmet trolls immediately attack them as ignorant. But they are still here and able to post.
On the other hand damned few helmetless dead people have posted their right to ride without a helmet. But then of course we could maybe hear from a dead democrat from Chicago.
On the other hand damned few helmetless dead people have posted their right to ride without a helmet. But then of course we could maybe hear from a dead democrat from Chicago.
11-16-11, 03:36 PM
#570
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Northeastern NJ - NYC Metro Area
Posts: 795
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
From the UK
Six times as many pedestrians as cyclists are killed by motor traffic, yet travel surveys show annual mileage walked is only five times that cycled
(in my Canadian province pedestrians have a fatality rate 5 times greater than cyclists per collision with motor vehicle)
but I think if you use a helmet for minor injuries, it will not disappoint. If it's intended for serious injury or death prevention, it's bound to disappoint
I've done a little googling this afternoon, and I'm amazed at the lack of objective presentation on either side of this. That's the problem when an issue that shouldn't be emotional, becomes driven by passion and ideology.
11-16-11, 04:05 PM
#571
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Warwick, UK
Posts: 1,049
Bikes: 2000-something 3 speed commuter, 1990-something Raleigh Scorpion
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
A large number of people here including myself have posted the fact that a helmet has saved them from at least injury. Of course the anti helmet trolls immediately attack them as ignorant. But they are still here and able to post.
On the other hand damned few helmetless dead people have posted their right to ride without a helmet. But then of course we could maybe hear from a dead democrat from Chicago.
On the other hand damned few helmetless dead people have posted their right to ride without a helmet. But then of course we could maybe hear from a dead democrat from Chicago.
Few helmeted dead cyclists have posted either to say how their helmet didn't help them- what's your point.
11-16-11, 04:12 PM
#572
Senior Member
You haven't read all 22 pages?!? Nor the hundreds of pages from previous threads of this nature?!? Blasphemer! How can you hope to have even close to an intelligent conversation regarding helmet use without knowing the background...
11-16-11, 04:20 PM
#573
Senior Member
even if you don't feel you change your behavior when wearing a helmet (risk compensation) Dr. Walker's research showed the drivers with whom they share the road certainly change theirs
If safety is your priority regarding how close cars pass, a wig would be better protection than a helmet...
11-16-11, 04:28 PM
#574
Senior Member
Thread link summary:
A far more realistic site that addresses the helmet issue is the first one I provided on this new version of the thread,
https://bicyclesafe.com
If one is interested in studies and analysis, far more qualified anaylsis and opinions can be found at https://cyclehelmets.org/
------------------------------
a worthwhile read is the wiki entry
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_helmet <-- Grand-daddy/mommy mother/fatherlode of helmet study linkage in the text and references at the bottom
I'm going to try to keep this updated and posted every five pages or so. Previous posts will not reflect current changes.
Have you tried this? I know many will not regard it as neutral because it is very clear about the flaws in the pro-helmet position, but it does offer a fairly dispassionate analysis of the available evidence.
If you insist...
Head injuries and bicycle helmet laws
D. L. Robinson
AGBU, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia
Accepted 6 February 1996. ; Available online 26 February 1999.
Abstract
The first year of the mandatory bicycle helmet laws in Australia saw increased helmet wearing from 31% to 75% of cyclists in Victoria and from 31% of children and 26% of adults in New South Wales (NSW) to 76% and 85%. However, the two major surveys using matched before and after samples in Melbourne (Finch et al. 1993; Report No. 45, Monash Univ. Accident Research Centre) and throughout NSW (Smith and Milthorpe 1993; Roads and Traffic Authority) observed reductions in numbers of child cyclists 15 and 2.2 times greater than the increase in numbers of children wearing helmets. This suggests the greatest effect of the helmet law was not to encourage cyclists to wear helmets, but to discourage cycling.
Author Keywords: Bicycle; Head injury; Helmet; Legislation
D. L. Robinson
AGBU, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia
Accepted 6 February 1996. ; Available online 26 February 1999.
Abstract
The first year of the mandatory bicycle helmet laws in Australia saw increased helmet wearing from 31% to 75% of cyclists in Victoria and from 31% of children and 26% of adults in New South Wales (NSW) to 76% and 85%. However, the two major surveys using matched before and after samples in Melbourne (Finch et al. 1993; Report No. 45, Monash Univ. Accident Research Centre) and throughout NSW (Smith and Milthorpe 1993; Roads and Traffic Authority) observed reductions in numbers of child cyclists 15 and 2.2 times greater than the increase in numbers of children wearing helmets. This suggests the greatest effect of the helmet law was not to encourage cyclists to wear helmets, but to discourage cycling.
Author Keywords: Bicycle; Head injury; Helmet; Legislation
A far more realistic site that addresses the helmet issue is the first one I provided on this new version of the thread,
https://bicyclesafe.com
If one is interested in studies and analysis, far more qualified anaylsis and opinions can be found at https://cyclehelmets.org/
------------------------------
a worthwhile read is the wiki entry
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_helmet <-- Grand-daddy/mommy mother/fatherlode of helmet study linkage in the text and references at the bottom
...I would suggest going to this site, which provides objectively collected data, some pro-helmet interpretations and links to sites which counter their views:
https://www.bhsi.org
For researched rational responses to many of the negatives about helmets I would suggest this site:
https://www.bhsi.org/negativs.htm
https://www.bhsi.org
For researched rational responses to many of the negatives about helmets I would suggest this site:
https://www.bhsi.org/negativs.htm
It's not common to receive head injuries on bikes any more than it is to receive them off a bike, which is, not not common.
Here's another link....
Here's another link....
[helmets/helmet advocates] promote injury.
If the scalp helps reduce rotational injury to the brain by helping the head slide along pavement rather than catch, and a helmet reduced this effect, doesn't it stand to reason that at least in these sorts of accidents a helmet mitigates the effect of the scalp?
Again, why do you think they are now trying to replicate this "scalp effect" in new helmets? What would be the purpose if it were not effective?
"It has been suggested that the major causes of permanent intellectual disablement and death after head injury may be torsional forces leading to diffuse axonal injury (DAI), a form of injury which usual helmets cannot mitigate and may make worse.[68]"
"A bicycle helmet with its own synthetic "scalp" has been designed with the aim of mitigating rotational injury.[71]"
Again, why do you think they are now trying to replicate this "scalp effect" in new helmets? What would be the purpose if it were not effective?
"It has been suggested that the major causes of permanent intellectual disablement and death after head injury may be torsional forces leading to diffuse axonal injury (DAI), a form of injury which usual helmets cannot mitigate and may make worse.[68]"
"A bicycle helmet with its own synthetic "scalp" has been designed with the aim of mitigating rotational injury.[71]"
...read the links I provided: Focusing on helmets distracts people from what's more likely to actually save their lives: Learning how to ride safely. It's not that I'm against helmets, I'm against all the attention placed on helmets at the expense of safe riding skills.
Here's another link for you to read and consider...
one of the most powerful laws in the universe is the law of unintended consequences
Here's another link for you to read and consider...
one of the most powerful laws in the universe is the law of unintended consequences
...an Australian judge sided against a helmet law and with a cyclist who argued wearing a helmet caused more harm than it prevented
''Having read all the material, I think I would fall down on your side of the ledger,'' the judge told Ms Abbott after she had spelt out her case against the laws that exist in few countries other than Australia and New Zealand.
''I frankly don't think there is anything advantageous and there may well be a disadvantage in situations to have a helmet - and it seems to me that it's one of those areas where it ought to be a matter of choice.''
He found Ms Abbott had ''an honestly held and not unreasonable belief as to the danger associated with the use of a helmet by cyclists'', and quashed her conviction...
''Having read all the material, I think I would fall down on your side of the ledger,'' the judge told Ms Abbott after she had spelt out her case against the laws that exist in few countries other than Australia and New Zealand.
''I frankly don't think there is anything advantageous and there may well be a disadvantage in situations to have a helmet - and it seems to me that it's one of those areas where it ought to be a matter of choice.''
He found Ms Abbott had ''an honestly held and not unreasonable belief as to the danger associated with the use of a helmet by cyclists'', and quashed her conviction...
don't forget the paper the Australian judge read prior to rendering a decision:
The testing and design of standard helmets continue to reflect the discredited theory that linear acceleration is the dominant cause of brain injury and to neglect rotation.
and another study examining a vital lack of coverage by the bicycle helmet
The common designs of commercially available bicycle helmets do not prevent direct contact loading on the temporal and zygomatic arch region and this contact loading is potentially harmful.
has been shown in court to be common knowledge in the helmet industry
It has been known for years by the helmet industry that the majority of head impacts occur below the "test line," and that the majority of injurious impacts are concentrated in the front or temporal region.
but this issue of protection (or lack thereof) may be completely moot because
1) On a per-mile basis, the odds of being killed or sustaining a serious head injury while riding a bicycle are about the same as the odds of being killed or injured while out for a walk.
2) On a per-capita basis, the odds of being killed while riding a bicycle are nearly the same as the odds of being killed by a bolt of lightning (this author has, in fact, been struck by lightning -- albeit indirectly -- so he is well aware that "extremely improbable" is not quite the same as "impossible"); the odds of sustaining a serious head injury while riding a bicycle are about half the odds of sustaining a serious injury while out for a walk.
The testing and design of standard helmets continue to reflect the discredited theory that linear acceleration is the dominant cause of brain injury and to neglect rotation.
and another study examining a vital lack of coverage by the bicycle helmet
The common designs of commercially available bicycle helmets do not prevent direct contact loading on the temporal and zygomatic arch region and this contact loading is potentially harmful.
has been shown in court to be common knowledge in the helmet industry
It has been known for years by the helmet industry that the majority of head impacts occur below the "test line," and that the majority of injurious impacts are concentrated in the front or temporal region.
but this issue of protection (or lack thereof) may be completely moot because
1) On a per-mile basis, the odds of being killed or sustaining a serious head injury while riding a bicycle are about the same as the odds of being killed or injured while out for a walk.
2) On a per-capita basis, the odds of being killed while riding a bicycle are nearly the same as the odds of being killed by a bolt of lightning (this author has, in fact, been struck by lightning -- albeit indirectly -- so he is well aware that "extremely improbable" is not quite the same as "impossible"); the odds of sustaining a serious head injury while riding a bicycle are about half the odds of sustaining a serious injury while out for a walk.
if you continue to be worried about hurting your head from falling over, you may want to wear your helmet while walking as well because,
The tests that cycle helmets currently go through mean that they should offer similar protection to a pedestrian who trips and falls to the ground.
The tests that cycle helmets currently go through mean that they should offer similar protection to a pedestrian who trips and falls to the ground.
If protection from being hit by a car is your concern, a helmet might be a good choice if it was designed to provide such protection, but it is not.
"bicycle helmets are not designed to withstand the impact of collisions with motor vehicles"
"The tests cycle helmets currently go through mean that they should offer similar protection to a pedestrian who trips and falls to the ground... helmets protect in falls without any involvement with motor vehicles...in todays road traffic accidents, it's not unlikely for a cycle helmet to be subjected to severity loads far greater than it was designed to cope with"
"bicycle helmets are not designed to withstand the impact of collisions with motor vehicles"
"The tests cycle helmets currently go through mean that they should offer similar protection to a pedestrian who trips and falls to the ground... helmets protect in falls without any involvement with motor vehicles...in todays road traffic accidents, it's not unlikely for a cycle helmet to be subjected to severity loads far greater than it was designed to cope with"
[regarding motor-vehicle/bicycle collisions as it pertains to the utility of helmets in such]
"The tests cycle helmets currently go through mean that they should offer similar protection to a pedestrian who trips and falls to the ground... helmets protect in falls without any involvement with motor vehicles...in todays road traffic accidents, it's not unlikely for a cycle helmet to be subjected to severity loads far greater than it was designed to cope with"
"The tests cycle helmets currently go through mean that they should offer similar protection to a pedestrian who trips and falls to the ground... helmets protect in falls without any involvement with motor vehicles...in todays road traffic accidents, it's not unlikely for a cycle helmet to be subjected to severity loads far greater than it was designed to cope with"
a bicycle helmet is not designed for impacts with other vehicles.
Impacts with other vehicles introduces additional forces that were not designed for... 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,"
Impacts with other vehicles introduces additional forces that were not designed for... 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,"
according to the Canada Safety Council, it is more important to wear a helmet than text while cycling
Paying attention to riding and avoiding distractions from cellphones and music players ranks second on the Canada Safety Council's top tips for improving cycling safety — behind wearing a helmet
And people question helmet skeptics when they say helmet promotion reduces cycling safety?
Paying attention to riding and avoiding distractions from cellphones and music players ranks second on the Canada Safety Council's top tips for improving cycling safety — behind wearing a helmet
And people question helmet skeptics when they say helmet promotion reduces cycling safety?
[examples of pro-helmet groups citing discredited studies, which groups also push for MHL legislation, and which are supported by helmet manufacturers]
https://www.helmetssavelives.org/
The single most effective safety device available to reduce head injury and death from bicycle crashes is a helmet.
Bike Helmet: Difference of Life or Death
Paying attention to riding and avoiding distractions from cellphones and music players ranks second on the Canada Safety Council's top tips for improving cycling safety — behind wearing a helmet.
https://www.helmetssavelives.org/
The single most effective safety device available to reduce head injury and death from bicycle crashes is a helmet.
Bike Helmet: Difference of Life or Death
Paying attention to riding and avoiding distractions from cellphones and music players ranks second on the Canada Safety Council's top tips for improving cycling safety — behind wearing a helmet.
A good mount to be sure, but what if that tape negates the protective qualities of the helmet?
The solvent in the adhesive can attack helmet shells and weaken them unless you are sure of the compatibility of shell and tape. The best tapes are not available in normal consumer channels, because they would be too expensive. The adhesives used by 3M for consumer-grade Scotchlite tape are apparently compatible with many helmet shells, but not necessarily all.
The solvent in the adhesive can attack helmet shells and weaken them unless you are sure of the compatibility of shell and tape. The best tapes are not available in normal consumer channels, because they would be too expensive. The adhesives used by 3M for consumer-grade Scotchlite tape are apparently compatible with many helmet shells, but not necessarily all.
even if you're not a cycling advocate, your environment can change based on whether others think cycling is dangerous because it's been shown that more cyclists on the streets means the streets are safer for cyclists. If people thik cycling is dangerous, they're less prone to cycle.
No clear evidence from countries that have enforced the wearing of helmets
even if you don't feel you change your behavior when wearing a helmet (risk compensation) Dr. Walker's research showed the drivers with whom they share the road certainly change theirs
even if you don't feel you change your behavior when wearing a helmet (risk compensation) Dr. Walker's research showed the drivers with whom they share the road certainly change theirs
From the UK
Six times as many pedestrians as cyclists are killed by motor traffic, yet travel surveys show annual mileage walked is only five times that cycled
from the US
1.On a per-mile basis, the odds of being killed or sustaining a serious head injury while riding a bicycle are about the same as the odds of being killed or injured while out for a walk.
2. On a per-capita basis, the odds of being killed while riding a bicycle are nearly the same as the odds of being killed by a bolt of lightning
Six times as many pedestrians as cyclists are killed by motor traffic, yet travel surveys show annual mileage walked is only five times that cycled
from the US
1.On a per-mile basis, the odds of being killed or sustaining a serious head injury while riding a bicycle are about the same as the odds of being killed or injured while out for a walk.
2. On a per-capita basis, the odds of being killed while riding a bicycle are nearly the same as the odds of being killed by a bolt of lightning
11-16-11, 05:38 PM
#575
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Copenhagen
Posts: 1,832
Bikes: A load of ancient, old and semi-vintage bikes of divers sorts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Not if the accidents involve impacts beyond a helmets abilities, or involve injuries other than ones to the head.
It's also most preferable to avoid accidents/falls/collisions on the first place. If wearing a helmet means an accident is more likely to happen, it's the less safe option to peruse.
It's also most preferable to avoid accidents/falls/collisions on the first place. If wearing a helmet means an accident is more likely to happen, it's the less safe option to peruse.
