ianstew

Having never worn a helmet when I was a young BMX'er, I am still alive. I will say that it might have been nice to avoid the scalp lacs, the goose eggs, and the concussions if I had simply worn a helmet. Did I die from not wearing a helmet? No. I was even hit by a car while trying to jump a street lol. Never told the parents bout that one. One of the worst accidents i had was doing a bunny hop over a wall, and there was deep sand on the other side. Bike stopped dead, i fell over, and smacked my head on the concrete wall i had just successfully hopped over. Helmet sure would have saved me from alot of pain that day........

But these days, with having two young children and a wife to take care of, Ill take as many precautions as i can to improve my safety. And while I am not out there attempting back flips, trying to bunny hop onto cars, or trying flatland stunts, Ill take a helmet if i ever endo the bars.......I don't have delusions that a bike helmet will save my life from getting my skull crushed by a mack truck, or from a 40 mph skull collision with a brick wall. But Ill wear one to avoid smacking my head on the crete if i take a low speed corner too sharp, or fall over because I forgot to pull my feet from the toe clips.......

RazrSkutr

I'm not interested in taking up Meanwhile's argument with you, I think s/he is doing a fine job on their own.

What I am interested in establishing whether any of the confident claims that you make, interlarded with your querulous bickering, have any factual basis. Such as:
1. What evidence have you of 50% of recovered helmets, whether adult or children, splitting after complete liner compression?

2. Why do you dismiss empirical observations of a lack of crushing ("bottoming out") and claim they can be disregarded because said observations are only based on children's helmets?

Yes. If you're going to drag the level of argument down to the muddied depths which you have then you're going to remain at the bottom of a vast well of ignorance. Or you could attempt to avoid making massive assumptions such as the above.

RazrSkutr

First, why is your highly personal decision to wear or not-wear a bicycle helmet something which you feel a need to share with the world?

Second, what are your widow and fatherless children going to do when daddy dies from a spinal cord injury which was exacerbated by the helmet?

Rx Rider

I guess you didn't watch the video? if you'll notice at the end of the video all the damage to helmet was right side.
if you'll notice in the video the antelope's legs are clearly seen impacting on the right side and driving the guy off the bike from the force of the impact. did you not see that in the video? they showed it really well with the slo-mo and super slo-mo in the video. did you not watch the video? are you waiting for someone else to study the video and statistically qualify the kick to the head in the video? you should watch the video.

RazrSkutr

Of course he does. Bicyle helmets are explicitly tested to deal with kicks from antelope hooves. It's well known. Besides it's common sense.

I give up on this thread .... (again.... I'm sure my dog feels the same way every time it walks away from it's latest puddle of vomit).

ianstew

I thought this was helmet thread.......did I say you should wear one? Or say that anybody who wears one or doesnt wear on is an idiot for doing so? No, i didn't. Just sharing an opinion on the matter, that is all.

This is the same regurgitated garbage that gets spewed over seatbelts. "what are you going to do when wearing a seatbelt causes ___________ to happen"

Dont attack me because I choose to wear a helmet, and stated my personal OPINIONS for doing so. I didn't come at you with some backhanded comment about your personal choice did I? It is my OPINION that wearing a helmet adds to MY safety while I ride. Get off your soapbox, you're barking up the wrong tree.

And for the record, I do believe it is you who is rather loudly "sharing" your opinions on the helmet debate, all the while doling out witty sarcastic responses to others who opinions may differ. Seems to be alot of you people here on BikeForums.......

Monster Pete

I think it makes sense if you're out riding with kids, since although helmets are more useful for kids than adults, it's far easier to get them to wear one if you're wearing one too, rather than trying to explain why they need one and you don't.

Obviously, if you're doing any sort of 'aggressive' riding (BMX, mountain biking etc) a fall is much more likely so a helmet can be useful. Like you pointed out, wearing one probably won't kill you any less than not wearing one, but can help reduce surface injuries. BMXers seem to have it right in this respect, with helmets that cover most of the head.

ianstew

yeah, I'm not delusional thinking that I'm impervious to head trauma because I wear a helmet, or that if I get nailed by a car at 45 MpH that the helmet is going to do much. I agree that many many people think a bicycle helmet is going to make their brains un-scrambleable. The protection a helmet offers is minimal, but after MY experiences as a cyclist, I think that the benefit is more than anti-helmet brigade lets on.

Is a helmet going to save you from a serious head trauma/death from a car collision? Probably not. Will it save you from death when you plow head on into a tree on a high speed downhill? Probably not. But might it save your brains when you are taking a corner at moderate speed and the tail kicks out and you fall, smacking your head on the pavement? I think a helmet will help in those cases.

I think the evidence posted so far points to a few things.....

1. The risk of a fatality is about the same, with or without a helmet. I think this has to with the types of accidents that are fatal among cyclists. Car strikes, etc.....a helmet wont do much in those cases

2. I think that no studies have been done/ could be done regarding the benefits of helmets in accidents where the helmet may have saved a person from more serious injury. Such as low speed fall, like in the example above. A concussion is no fun, and a helmet may prevent it sometimes. Or like the antelop video, while anecdotal, it does raise some questions whether the helmet may have prevented a more serious bell ringing. But these instances are purely conjecture, because no one knows for sure what would have happened to the guy if he were sans helmet.


3. I think the anti helmet crowd should take a bit more care in advising against helmet wearing. To say that a helmet offers no protection, or may make injuries worse, is playing a dangerous game. The evidence, while unofficial, and always unscientific, points to helmets offering at least some protection in alot of cycling falls and crashes. Maybe not to the roadie, who is barreling along at 40+, but certainly to the normal guy out with his kids on a sunday ride. People like that read these forums too. Or the guy, like me, who is riding to get a bit healthier, who snt racing, and never sees north of 20 except downhill lol.

4. The pro helmet crowd needs to stop telling people they are idiots for not wearing a helmet. "its your brain, spill it on the crete if you wish" isnt a good comeback. I took the time, did alot of research last night, and found that quite often, the pro helmet crowd is just as nasty as the anti helmet crowd.

5. Wearing a helmet is a personal decision. Take the time, read a little bit. Use your own judgement. Dont listen to me tell you to wear one, or the other guy who says not too. Do what you feel is right, and let your conscience be your guide.



I am pro helmet, but respect those who dont wish to wear one. If you honestly believe that wearing a helmet is useless, than by all means, dont wear one. But I will ask this: have you ever had a crash or fall while cycling where a helmet may have saved you from a head lump, or a scalp lac, or a concussion? Ever had a friend sans helmet get a concussion, or you yourself? If wearing a helmet may have prevented that, isnt it well worth the price? If not, then by all means, dont wear one. But if the answer is yes, whats the harm?

And i am sure someone will talk about rotational injuries, ie, neck injuries from helmets dragging on the ground and causing the body to roll, but the head to not......this is no longer an issue, and was never proven to be an issue. This was a fear from the un shelled helmet design, and thats pretty much done away with the standard of poly carb helmet shells.......

mconlonx

Hey, Closetbiker: Can you please chime in with the reference you cited previously where a helmet researcher told you that shell breakage can happen after liner compression?

1. Dissembling on your part. I did not claim that 50% of recovered helmets split after liner compression, let alone complete liner compression. Nice try -- how much more are you going to try to misrepresent what I write? I'm only claiming that just as one side can't say it saved a life, y'all can't possibly say it didn't have some kind of protective function. Especially if the only evidence is a shot of the outside of a helmet, showing a cracked shell without a corresponding shot and investigation of liner compression on the inside of a helmet.

2. Because I need something more pertinent to make a truly informed decision than Meanwhile's false claim relating to Walker's misrepresentation of a letter sent to a committee which investigated infants' helmets and found no compression going on with them and no comment one way or another about the shell failing in those cases.

This isn't about liner compression regarding infant helmets from the late-90s. This is refuting tenuous claims made by the bare-head brigade in this thread.

Again, you got any research or proof outside the weakness that Meanwhile posted relative to liner compression vs. shell breakage? Your link back to p.96 of this thread is less than helpful.

closetbiker

wasn"t the last thing I said to you something like,

I could, but that wouldn't help you, it'd be enabling you.

?

Not interested in wasting my time. The info you're looking for is posted. If it matters that much to you, look for it.

(and I'll give you a hint, you're not remembering as accurately as you think you are)

mconlonx

Meh, not worth it. So... do you agree with Meanwhile's assertion?

The stuff you posted previously said that compression can lead to cells breaking in the form of a cracked helmet after it has been compressed, but it also looked like you stopped short of making any comment regarding the shell or that such compression might provide any protection. (OK so maybe worth a quick search...)

meanwhile

No, that's a lie. No such study exists. You're attempting to use the vagueness of the word "show" to sneak in the notorious and effectively faked 86% study.

meanwhile

Your inability to read or do a google search is not anyone else's problem:

https://www.cyclehelmets.org/1139.html
When helmets fail, they do so catastrophically, rather than gradually, by breaking. The breaking of a helmet is not by itself evidence that it has provided useful protection to the wearer. It is common for cycle helmets to fail prematurely, before the polystyrene liner has been fully crushed. Indeed, very often helmets break without the liner compressing at all, perhaps because they have been subjected to oblique forces, not directed at the head, that they are not designed to withstand. If a helmet breaks without its liner compressing, it is likely that no more than superficial protection would have been afforded.

meanwhile

One wonders why this actually matters? Surely what is important is that

1. Helmets are not designed to absorb the amount of energy needed to protect an adult from even a moderately severe accident

2. Lab tests confirm this

3. Real world statistics confirm it too

..arguing over whether ANY helmets that broke managed to absorb a trivial 100J first or SOME of them did seems, well, obscenely stupid. Like a shill for an ineffective parachute design insisting that his 'chute o' choice usually manages to reduce victim's impact speeds to 199mph instead of the 200mph they'd be otherwise. Yes, they're jelly either way and no one's chances of survival are increased - but that 1mph really matters to him!

meanwhile

This is true, it will only give you what the spec says - 100J of help. At most. That's like shielding against "projectile impacts" by using a sheet of think paper - the only ones it will stop are those that would sting a bit at most.

Sometimes = "in freak medical cases"; a helmet would need 3 to 4 inches of foam to prevent "ordinary concussions" - regrettably. More, you're missing the main point: which is that if someone is interested in investing in safety then, if they know that a helmet is a poor safety investment and there are better ones available, they can take those investments instead. A helmet is comforting and immediately attractive but ineffective; education and intelligence would allow people to switch to less obvious and comforting investments that actually work. You're almost certainly an example of this - you've probably never looked at a chart showing the blindspots of a truck, you almost certainly don't know what road features are associated with high fatal accident rates, and probably have no idea how to brake hard in an emergency (even most roadies don't unless they do crits.) This is not a rational approach to safety.

WHAT evidence says that? At least when you get past the level of lacerations and minor lumps? (Which admittedly ARE the most common head jury by far.)

No helmet maker is willing to promise significant protection against concussions: honestly, mail them. If you're going to wear a helmet, understand what it can do.

hagen2456

Easy now! It isn't a "lie", as there are lots of studies that appear to show benefits. It's just that they're allmost all problematic due to the control group issue. And the 86% study wasn't "faked", it was just very bad science.

A little bit of nuance won't hurt anyone

meanwhile

Excuse me: your words about the study are possibly true. But "lie" referred to the claim that the implicit claim that the study is valid, which was being made by someone who has sat through a discussion of its flaws. Doing junk science = incompetence OR lying. Knowingly quoting junk science = lying.

rydabent

It is amazing the news that the anti helmet clik reveals in this thread. For instance ------- if you have a head on crash with a huge SUV doing 75 mph you will probably die even if you are wearing a helmet!!!!!! Really you spoz********** They dont want to talk about accidents that are hundred of time more probable. How about going down sideways around a corner with gravel doing 9 mph?? At the very least in the best case it may prevent road rash to your head.

Monster Pete

The probability of that sort of accident can be significantly reduced by learning to ride a bike properly, reducing speed and/or steering clear of the gravel in the first place.

LesterOfPuppets

It's pretty difficult to smack your head when laying it down unless you've an amputated arm on the side you're going down on. Far more probable to smack head if you highside. Pretty difficult to highside at 9 mph, let's try 18 mph or so. I've only highsided on a bicycle a couple of times in my 38 years of riding.

Refer to that youtube vid featuring a European icy MUP with a 6' radius 90 degree turn, the one woman who highsides almost smacks her head, no one that lays it down comes very close to head smacking.

YMMV, feel free to wear a helmet for every bicycle ride.

njkayaker

No maker of any helmet (not just bicycle helmets) is "willing to promise" anything. By your silly logic no one should wear any helmet ever.

You see this as a problem and don't do anything useful about it. You appear to only be crabby about helmets.

mconlonx

So weak; so many qualifications in the quote you cite compared to the declarative statements you make regarding helmets. While you may be able to read, reading comprehension appears beyond your capabilities. Or you're just into blatant misrepresentation and hope that everyone else just buys into it if you say it enough, with bold text.

mconlonx

It matters because people might actually fall for your misguided bluster. Pointing out how wrong you are on the details is not only an indication of how less than credible you are, but it's also fun.

1-3. Helmets protect as well as they're designed to; if you believe otherwise, that's on you and you're the fool.

You seem to think that I'm arguing that a helmet would help in some kind of serious accident, the kind that would lead to moderate to severe head or brain injury. I'm not arguing such -- again, the way you drag such drivel into your arguments, implying that's my stance on the issue, is disingenuous at best.

meanwhile

This is untrue: if you use site search to check old posts you'll find "clikkers" (sic!) telling 'bent that helmets do stand a chance of helping in road rash level accidents, but no more, and 'bent claiming over and over that they''ll reduce the chances of death in a serious accident.

meanwhile

Except that I'm not wrong: you're just not smart enough to understand what you're reading. If you need it spelt out more, John Franklin - the main UK expert on cycling safety (he wrote the Dept Of Transport published cycling manual) put it in a more idiot-friendly way:


Helmet standards require helmets to be designed only to survive a simple drop test onto an anvil. The
maximum permitted deceleration of the dropped head form is typically 300g, which is equivalent to
an impact velocity of 20 km/h (12.5 mph)... The performance of a helmet above an impact velocity of 20 km/h is neither tested nor defined. Cycle
helmets usually fail catastrophically rather than gradually, through total compression or
disintegration. It is therefore not simply the case that the proportion of the force absorbed will
decrease with increasing velocity.

from "The effectiveness of cycle helmets" - available online as a pdf, which goes into detail on sources.

..And actually I have more sources than this. I just wanted to show that you have done any research of your own - or you'd know this stuff. You've started from the conclusion you want rather than by looking at evidence. Which, yes, makes you a bad person. Or at least not a smart one.

As ready as you are to call most of the people in this thread stupid - because most of them believe helmets protect at level vastly higher than the cert level - you are still being foolish. Again, if you'd done any research, you know that helmet performance in the real world seems to be a lot LOWER than the design level - eg when the Consumer Association tested a random sample of store bought foam hats something like 80% failed to reach cert levels.

Actually, you HAVE said that helmets "may" help in such serious injuries. Really: go back and read your posts.