Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Advocacy & Safety
Reload this Page >

The helmet thread

Notices
Advocacy & Safety Cyclists should expect and demand safe accommodation on every public road, just as do all other users. Discuss your bicycle advocacy and safety concerns here.
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

Old 01-22-12, 08:58 PM
  #1176  
Senior Member
 
closetbiker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 9,630
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Liked 18 Times in 6 Posts
Originally Posted by irishbill76
Unnecessary
Maybe it is, maybe it isn't but what we do know is that it's extremely rare for a cyclist to suffer a serious injury or death from a simple fall, something you have said was likely to happen had you not worn your helmet.

The likelyhood that you would have suffered a serious injury in the circumstances you described would parallel the same chances of your receiving the same injury while on foot, that is to say, very rare indeed
closetbiker is offline  
Old 01-23-12, 04:02 AM
  #1177  
Senior Member
 
irishbill76's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Bolton, UK
Posts: 68

Bikes: '11 Dawes Vantage

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
"but what we do know is that it's extremely rare for a cyclist to suffer a serious injury or death from a simple fall"

Based on what evidence? I would argue that most accidents involving any kind of injury to a cyclist aren't necessarily logged and reported. A simple fall could happen at 5mph or 30mph. I dont remember the speed I was doing when the accident happened, but it was far more than walking pace and from the dent in the helmet, I can assure you my head did not land on a flat surface.

As for helmet foam compressing easily, I don't about yours, but mine isn't made from jello. Helmets are designed to compress so that your head doesn't.
irishbill76 is offline  
Old 01-23-12, 04:22 AM
  #1178  
Senior Member
 
Monster Pete's Avatar
 
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
Mountain biking is one of the situations where I'd actually recommend wearing a helmet: the surface you're riding on tends to be loose or slippery, with the result that you're more likely to simply fall off. There are also things sticking out of the ground to bash your head on, as evidenced by the dent in your helmet. None of these apply on the road, however, where you're far more likely to get flattened by a bus than to simply fall over, and there don't tend to be jagged rocks sticking out of the road.
Monster Pete is offline  
Old 01-23-12, 07:43 AM
  #1179  
Senior Member
 
closetbiker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 9,630
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Liked 18 Times in 6 Posts
Originally Posted by irishbill76
"but what we do know is that it's extremely rare for a cyclist to suffer a serious injury or death from a simple fall"

Based on what evidence? I would argue that most accidents involving any kind of injury to a cyclist aren't necessarily logged and reported.
Based on hospital and fatality records. There are very few deaths to mountain bikers who had fallen on trails.

And those accidents cyclists have that aren't reported? They usually aren't reported because the resulting injuries (if any) are minor and require little to no treatment.

Don't get me wrong, cyclists do die and/or suffer serious injury from simple falls, but in over 90% of the cases where they do die, it's because they were hit by a motor vehicle at a speed far above what a helmet was made to help with. They also die from injuries other than head injuries (even when cause of death is listed as ahead injury)

Same thing with pedestrians. They fall over, hit their heads, and die too, but it's pretty rare. Most often when pedestrians die or suffer serious injury, they were hit by a car as well.


As for helmet foam compressing easily, I don't about yours, but mine isn't made from jello. Helmets are designed to compress so that your head doesn't.
EPS (the foam inside a helmet) is made to crush, and it crushes with far less force than a skull does. Just because it crushes, doesn't mean you avoided a serious injury, it could mean you avoided a minor injury.

THis doesn't mean a helmet is useless, it just means it has limitations, and you should consider these limitations when making claims of efectiveness

Last edited by closetbiker; 01-23-12 at 10:08 AM.
closetbiker is offline  
Old 01-23-12, 09:30 AM
  #1180  
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 1,054 Times in 634 Posts
The last few posts demonstrate what I say about the antihelmet trolls. A person writes in and says a hemlet helped prevent injury. Then all the well known anti helmet trolls pile on and give all sorts of reasons why the cyclist is wrong. Worst of all they end up saying this person shouldnt even be riding a bike!!!

Really pathetic trolls!!!
rydabent is offline  
Old 01-23-12, 09:37 AM
  #1181  
Senior Member
 
irishbill76's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Bolton, UK
Posts: 68

Bikes: '11 Dawes Vantage

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Unless I'm mistaken, closetbiker did say in an earlier post that he was pro-helmet. I do agree with his last post though. sorry .
irishbill76 is offline  
Old 01-23-12, 09:38 AM
  #1182  
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 1,054 Times in 634 Posts
I might also point out that the person the trolls trashed, and said shouldnt be riding a bike is a newcommer to this site. He has only posted 15 entrys. His being trashed so roundly by the anti helmet trolls may cause him to quit this site. That would be a shame. Again bad show trolls!!!!!!
rydabent is offline  
Old 01-23-12, 10:03 AM
  #1183  
Senior Member
 
closetbiker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 9,630
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Liked 18 Times in 6 Posts
Originally Posted by irishbill76
Unless I'm mistaken, closetbiker did say in an earlier post that he was pro-helmet. I do agree with his last post though. sorry .
I'm actually neutral on helmet use but against false information being spread about them.

I wore a helmet for over 20 years before I decided to remove it and I can respect anothers choice if they want to wear one.

I may have an argument with some of the reasonings people give for wearing helmets, but I wouldn't denigrate another just because I don't agree with them.

Denigrating others doesn't help people understand an issue; more often it fosters alienation, feeds ignorance, and makes things worse.

Last edited by closetbiker; 01-23-12 at 01:44 PM.
closetbiker is offline  
Old 01-23-12, 03:22 PM
  #1184  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Far beyond the pale horizon.
Posts: 14,241
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4222 Post(s)
Liked 1,322 Times in 916 Posts
Originally Posted by irishbill76
Unless I'm mistaken, closetbiker did say in an earlier post that he was pro-helmet.
That's an odd impression to have.

Originally Posted by closetbiker
I'm actually neutral on helmet use but against false information being spread about them.
This is a bit disingenuous. He appears to believe the "cons" outweigh the "pros" (overall) regarding helmets, which is OK. Calling that position "neutral" isn't.

Last edited by njkayaker; 01-23-12 at 03:29 PM.
njkayaker is online now  
Old 01-23-12, 05:30 PM
  #1185  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 6,401
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 13 Times in 13 Posts
Originally Posted by rydabent
Really pathetic trolls!!!
Originally Posted by rydabent
Again bad show trolls!!!!!!
Originally Posted by rydabent
Discuss the subject rather than attacking people that dont agree with you.
And he probably won't even see the irony.
Six jours is offline  
Old 01-23-12, 05:58 PM
  #1186  
Senior Member
 
Monster Pete's Avatar
 
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
Originally Posted by rydabent
The last few posts demonstrate what I say about the antihelmet trolls. A person writes in and says a hemlet helped prevent injury. Then all the well known anti helmet trolls pile on and give all sorts of reasons why the cyclist is wrong. Worst of all they end up saying this person shouldnt even be riding a bike!!!

Really pathetic trolls!!!
You'll note that I pointed out that helmets are useful for mountain biking, which is where the incident in question occured. That's right, I agreed with someone who claims a helmet reduced injury. I think there's only one troll here, and in an exercise in non-troll-feeding, I for one will be ignoring him from now on.

Last edited by Monster Pete; 01-23-12 at 06:01 PM.
Monster Pete is offline  
Old 01-23-12, 06:48 PM
  #1187  
Senior Member
 
mconlonx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,558
Mentioned: 47 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7148 Post(s)
Liked 134 Times in 92 Posts
Originally Posted by Six-Shooter
Those quotes don't all directly indicate a belief that a helmet can do more than it was designed for. In part because of their actual verbiage:
If you think I'm arguing against helmets, you are mistaken...
mconlonx is offline  
Old 01-23-12, 06:59 PM
  #1188  
Senior Member
 
mconlonx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,558
Mentioned: 47 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7148 Post(s)
Liked 134 Times in 92 Posts
Originally Posted by closetbiker
Maybe it is, maybe it isn't but what we do know is that it's extremely rare for a cyclist to suffer a serious injury or death from a simple fall, something you have said was likely to happen had you not worn your helmet.

The likelyhood that you would have suffered a serious injury in the circumstances you described would parallel the same chances of your receiving the same injury while on foot, that is to say, very rare indeed
You think loss of memory of getting home is not "serious" just because rider did not seek emergency services to classify it as such?!?

Six-shooter, this is typical of what I was pointing out previously, but just as the rider here can't really claim that their helmet saved them from more serious injury, the bare-head brigade can't say the helmet did not help in this particular situation. If they do, like some have in the past, they are as wrong as any helmeteer misstating the protective abilities of helmets.

Last edited by mconlonx; 01-23-12 at 07:12 PM.
mconlonx is offline  
Old 01-23-12, 07:01 PM
  #1189  
Senior Member
 
rando's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tempe, AZ
Posts: 2,968
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I think you don't need a helmet, but if people wear one I really don't care, but Like closetbiker I am against false information being spread about them.

I wore a helmet for years before I decided to remove it and I can respect anothers choice if they want to wear one.

I may have an argument with some of the reasoning people give for wearing helmets, but I wouldn't denigrate another just because I don't agree with them.

Denigrating others doesn't help people understand an issue; more often it fosters alienation, feeds ignorance, and makes things worse.
__________________
"Think of bicycles as rideable art that can just about save the world". ~Grant Petersen

Cyclists fare best when they recognize that there are times when acting vehicularly is not the best practice, and are flexible enough to do what is necessary as the situation warrants.--Me
rando is offline  
Old 01-23-12, 08:18 PM
  #1190  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 6,401
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 13 Times in 13 Posts
Originally Posted by rando
I think you don't need a helmet, but if people wear one I really don't care, but Like closetbiker I am against false information being spread about them.

I wore a helmet for years before I decided to remove it and I can respect anothers choice if they want to wear one.

I may have an argument with some of the reasoning people give for wearing helmets, but I wouldn't denigrate another just because I don't agree with them.

Denigrating others doesn't help people understand an issue; more often it fosters alienation, feeds ignorance, and makes things worse.
That's a good point.

Frankly, though, people posting things like (and I paraphrase here) "I'm likely to injure myself through incompetence, so I think helmets are great!" really yank my chain. I grew up racing in an era and place where cyclists were a rare and elitist bunch. We prided ourselves on being as thoroughly competent as we could and we worked hard on improving ourselves. Now cycling is a common activity, and the average cyclist is, well, pretty average. That in and of itself doesn't bother me too much, but when those folks start holding forth on how things should be done, I tend to forget what few manners I have.

Whether cyclists decide to wear or not wear helmets is truly none of my business, but there is a pretty fine line between "I wear a helmet because I think it's a good idea" and "so I think you should wear one too" - especially when posting on a thread like this one.
Six jours is offline  
Old 01-24-12, 06:51 AM
  #1191  
Senior Member
 
mconlonx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,558
Mentioned: 47 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7148 Post(s)
Liked 134 Times in 92 Posts
Originally Posted by Six jours
Whether cyclists decide to wear or not wear helmets is truly none of my business, but there is a pretty fine line between "I wear a helmet because I think it's a good idea" and "so I think you should wear one too" - especially when posting on a thread like this one.
There's the other fine line within this thread as well: "I don't wear a helmet for whatever personal reasons" and "you're stupid for wearing a helmet."
mconlonx is offline  
Old 01-24-12, 07:12 AM
  #1192  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 189
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by closetbiker
Based on hospital and fatality records. There are very few deaths to mountain bikers who had fallen on trails.

And those accidents cyclists have that aren't reported? They usually aren't reported because the resulting injuries (if any) are minor and require little to no treatment.

Don't get me wrong, cyclists do die and/or suffer serious injury from simple falls, but in over 90% of the cases where they do die, it's because they were hit by a motor vehicle at a speed far above what a helmet was made to help with. They also die from injuries other than head injuries (even when cause of death is listed as ahead injury)
Do you have a reliable source for that? Better, multiple sources?

Either way, your statement goes back to my post about helmet design/standards on the last page. What, precisely, is a "simple fall"? After all, unless you're an unusually talented person, you have to be moving at some speed to be cycling

Where do helmet companies or standards organizations explain precisely what this "simple fall" is or say that's all a helmet is designed to handle? Iirc, those standards I referenced don't discount the interaction of automobiles in a bike crash with a helmet.

OTOH, this standard (I could only find it quoted second hand), does make that distinction:

The foreword to BSI Standard
6863:1987 read as follows:
‘It (the standard) specifies
requirements for helmets
intended for use by pedal cyclists
on ordinary roads, particularly by
young riders in the 5 years to 14
years age group, but which may
also be suitable for off the road. It
is not intended for high-speed or
long distance cycling, or for riders
taking part in competitive events.
The level of protection offered is
less than that given by helmets for
motorcycle riders and is intended
to give protection in the kind
of accident in which the rider
falls onto the road without other
vehicles being involved.’
-- https://www.cyclehelmets.org/papers/c2023.pdf

But, according to BSI's web site, this standard has been subsequently withdrawn and revised multiple times. Anyone have the text to the new one? BSI wants to charge 96 pounds for a copy; I think I'll pass on that

The UK's Directgov site, linked from the Department of Transport, merely says

Helmets can help prevent a head injury if you fall from your bike.
without specifying causes or types of falls, interaction with other vehicles, etc.

-- https://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAn...ng/DG_10026401

THis doesn't mean a helmet is useless, it just means it has limitations, and you should consider these limitations when making claims of efectiveness
What are helmets' specific limitations?
Six-Shooter is offline  
Old 01-24-12, 07:20 AM
  #1193  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 189
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by mconlonx
If you think I'm arguing against helmets, you are mistaken...
I neither think nor implied that My point was this: given what I've read of bicycle helmet testing standards, it's hard to either over- or- underestimate the protection a helmet is "designed" to provide. I keep seeing statements in this thread implying that a helmet is only "designed" to do X, and anyone suggesting it can do Y must be mistaken. Yet I'm not seeing evidence to support those claims or insinuations.
Six-Shooter is offline  
Old 01-24-12, 07:36 AM
  #1194  
Senior Member
 
mconlonx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,558
Mentioned: 47 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7148 Post(s)
Liked 134 Times in 92 Posts
Originally Posted by Six-Shooter
I neither think nor implied that My point was this: given what I've read of bicycle helmet testing standards, it's hard to either over- or- underestimate the protection a helmet is "designed" to provide. I keep seeing statements in this thread implying that a helmet is only "designed" to do X, and anyone suggesting it can do Y must be mistaken. Yet I'm not seeing evidence to support those claims or insinuations.
...which is why when the bare head brigade chide someone for conferring protective abilities to a helmet that it might not have, they need to be reminded that in any given situation they can't claim a helmet did not help or wouldn't have helped.

I'm still waiting for an explanation of why the death rate of cyclists is so skewed toward the helmetless in the NYCDoT and IIoHS figures posted earlier...
mconlonx is offline  
Old 01-24-12, 07:41 AM
  #1195  
Senior Member
 
closetbiker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 9,630
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Liked 18 Times in 6 Posts
Originally Posted by Six-Shooter
... What, precisely, is a "simple fall"?
falls without any other vehicle involved... the tests that cycle helmet go through mean they should offer similatr protection for a pedestrian who trips and falls to the ground...
closetbiker is offline  
Old 01-24-12, 08:44 AM
  #1196  
Still spinnin'.....
 
Stealthammer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Whitestown, IN
Posts: 1,208

Bikes: Fisher Opie freeride/urban assault MTB, Redline Monocog 29er MTB, Serrota T-Max Commuter, Klein Rascal SS, Salsa Campion Road bike, Pake Rum Runner FG/SS Road bike, Cannondale Synapse Road bike, Santana Arriva Road Tandem, and others....

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
I tend to ride hard, and I hold on and try and save myself and the bike until the last possible second when I am endanger of going down, so I wear a helmet and gloves at a minimum all of the time. I also wear DH pads when riding off-road during the icy seasons, in extreme conditions, and even when commuting on-road in seriously inclement weather.

You don't want to wear a helmet thats fine, but don't be an a$$ and blindly claim that the helmet is unwarrented when riding a bicycle. You don't know how or where I ride. If you want to cruise your MUPs without helmets who can argue, but if you want to ride where and how I ride you would be a fool not to wear one.

I've got a collection of helmets (both cycling and motorcycling) that show obvious signs of serious contact with solid objects over the years. They sit on a shelf in my garage to remind me and others that "safety gear" is worn for a reason.

Last edited by Stealthammer; 01-24-12 at 08:49 AM.
Stealthammer is offline  
Old 01-24-12, 12:03 PM
  #1197  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 189
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
As noted earlier, "simple" falls can not only cause traumatic brain injury, but are its leading cause:

https://www.cdc.gov/traumaticbraininjury/causes.html

Where helmet testing is concerned, consider the US CPSC standard:

the standard establishes a
performance test to ensure that helmets
will adequately protect the head in a
collision.
...
Consistent
with the requirements of the ANSI,
Snell, and ASTM standards, the peak
headform acceleration of any impact
shall not exceed 300 g for an adult
helmet...
-- https://www.cpsc.gov/businfo/frnotices/fr98/10mr98r.pdf

They're testing impact acceleration in G's for collisions without specifying scenario.

Compare G forces tested and sustained in auto accidents:

All car designs sold in the U.S. must be tested on the G-forces registering on a safety-belted, front-seat dummy when its car crashes into an immovable barrier at 30 mph. To pass the test, the dummy’s chest deceleration cannot exceed 60 Gs for more than three milliseconds during the crash, according to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208.
-- https://www.vcu.edu/cppweb/tstc/crash...n/kinetic.html

Minimum force levels associated with face and skull fractures caused by blows with a small impactor (6.45 cm2 area) range from 670 to 4000 N (Schneider and Nahum, 1972). These forces correspond to head accelerations of 15-90 g for the 4.5 kg head of the Hybrid III dummy used in Institute tests. This additional head evaluation criterion is similar to requirements of the Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations Standard 208, which limits test dummy head accelerations to less than 80 g in cars not equipped with airbags.
-- https://www.iihs.org/ratings/protocol...es_frontal.pdf
Six-Shooter is offline  
Old 01-24-12, 01:26 PM
  #1198  
Senior Member
 
closetbiker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 9,630
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Liked 18 Times in 6 Posts
Originally Posted by Six-Shooter
As noted earlier, "simple" falls can not only cause traumatic brain injury, but are its leading cause:
Yes. So it is only logical then that it should pedestrians, who suffer the vast majority of head injuries because of these simple falls that should be the focus of helmet usage campaigns, no?

Last edited by closetbiker; 01-24-12 at 03:13 PM.
closetbiker is offline  
Old 01-24-12, 02:58 PM
  #1199  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 189
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by closetbiker
Yes. So it is only logical then that it should be pedestrians who should be the focus of helmet usage campaigns, no?
But in that case, this conclusion would also be logical: helmets are tested against "simple" falls, which are agreed to be the leading cause of traumatic brain injury, ergo cyclists should be the focus of helmet usage campaigns But why these repeated attempts to steer away from the topic at hand and bring pedestrians and so forth into it? The focus is cyclists and bike helmets.

Of which, going back to the article you quoted a few posts back: the author does write that "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."

But all that means is that helmets could be of use either to a cyclist or a pedestrian. It does not say helmets can't provide protection in situations a pedestrian wouldn't encounter. The author also neglects to specify which testing standard he is referring to, though his statement comes shortly after quoting a standard that, as noted above, has since been rescinded and replaced*--and is of course is not universal, anyway.

Either way, he goes on to say,
Among adult cyclists, helmets
likewise have a greater potential
benefit in incidents that take
place at lower speeds [meaning what, precisely?] and without
any third party involvement. So
in circumstances in which the
cyclist is more likely simply [the loaded word of choice in this thread of late ] to fall
off, there is a stronger argument
for helmet wearing.
So there is an argument for helmet wearing, and he does not say they don't confer any benefit at higher speeds or with third-party involvement. But, alas, he doesn't back his statements with data or sources. Even if you grant he's an expert, he needs to make his logic and data clear for others to evaluate his claims.

Link: https://www.cyclehelmets.org/papers/c2023.pdf

* Apparently by BS EN 1078:1997, which he alludes to later.
Six-Shooter is offline  
Old 01-24-12, 03:22 PM
  #1200  
Senior Member
 
closetbiker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 9,630
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Liked 18 Times in 6 Posts
Not the leading cause of traumatic brain injury. The leading cause of head injury. Head injury usually refers to TBI, but is a broader category because it can involve damage to structures other than the brain, such as the scalp and skull. That's a big difference. A difference that can distinguish a minor from a major injury

It is possible to have a major tbi from a simple fall, but it is as rare as receiving the samei from a simple trip and fall while on foot.

The focus here is on cycling, but that's part of the argument; placing the risk of cycling out of context. Without context, speculation is worthless

Last edited by closetbiker; 01-24-12 at 04:15 PM.
closetbiker is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.