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
11-05-12, 09:44 AM
#3976
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 257
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Helmets do not protect against minor concussion by design. They don't even start deforming until you get to impacts that would cause major injury. Here is a set of accelerometer plots.
In a lab test graphs of the energy traces look like this, with a smooth curve extending over 6ms for the good helmet (on the left below), and a huge spike for the bare head (right).
Somewhere about half way up that spike is where permanent brain damage begins.
Somewhere about half way up that spike is where permanent brain damage begins.
So in a damaging impact (which is the point) you prevent permanent brain damage. If you use softer foam you risk "bottoming out" and having permanent damage.
11-05-12, 09:50 AM
#3977
Senior Member
You've been badly misled.
Helmets do not protect against minor concussion by design. They don't even start deforming until you get to impacts that would cause major injury. Here is a set of accelerometer plots.
Source: https://www.helmets.org/liners.htm
So in a damaging impact (which is the point) you prevent permanent brain damage. If you use softer foam you risk "bottoming out" and having permanent damage.
Helmets do not protect against minor concussion by design. They don't even start deforming until you get to impacts that would cause major injury. Here is a set of accelerometer plots.
Source: https://www.helmets.org/liners.htm
So in a damaging impact (which is the point) you prevent permanent brain damage. If you use softer foam you risk "bottoming out" and having permanent damage.
Bare-head Brigade attack formation!
11-05-12, 10:09 AM
#3978
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 353
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Here we go again, it's an infinite loop.
11-05-12, 10:13 AM
#3979
Gone.
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 509
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
11-05-12, 10:48 AM
#3980
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Posts: 4,811
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1591 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1,018 Times
in
571 Posts
At this time of year where I live, an added benefit of helmet use it is protects from falling nuts. They won't kill, but they can really hurt when they drop on your unprotected noggin. On my last few rides I had a number of times where the sound of contact was such that all I could think was 'damn, glad that didn't hit my head.'
11-05-12, 10:48 AM
#3981
Senior Member
I always wear it, and I would suggest that if your dog doesn't make you wear yours, well then he's an idiot. 
Of course that being said, I did forget my helmet once. Didn't even realize I was missing it until I was a half mile out.
I did think of an excellent use for my helmet the other day though, I could set my helmet down, slide my phone into one of the vents, and then take a self photo. I haven't tried that yet.
And no, I don't have a dog.
Of course that being said, I did forget my helmet once. Didn't even realize I was missing it until I was a half mile out.I did think of an excellent use for my helmet the other day though, I could set my helmet down, slide my phone into one of the vents, and then take a self photo. I haven't tried that yet.
And no, I don't have a dog.
11-05-12, 10:56 AM
#3982
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Posts: 4,811
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1591 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1,018 Times
in
571 Posts
As I noted in the other thread, I learned this weekend that at the right time of year helmets have the added benefit of protecting against falling nuts. It was breezy this weekend and on a few of my regular roads there were many trees shedding their fruit.
11-05-12, 11:40 AM
#3983
The Recumbent Quant
Hi,
It is true that there are accidents that one would be better off not wearing a helmet. But as far as I can tell, statistically speaking, you are better off wearing a helmet than not wearing a helmet*. I've seen it recommended that people get smooth helmets so that they avoid placing additional torque on your head.
Even if you crash at a higher speed than is recommended for the helmet, if the helmet hits whatever your head was going to hit, that means that the helmet has absorbed some of the energy that would have been absorbed entirely by your skull. So I don't find the "don't help in high speed collisions" argument because, well, they do.
Cheers,
Charles
* There are car accidents where the occupant is better of not wearing a seatbelt. My aunt was in one where she was thrown completely from the car and would not have survived if she had worn one. She always wore her seatbelt after because she realized how unlikely such events are.
Actually, helmets aren't much use at preventing concussions. They will mitigate minor injuries and save some pain, blood etc. if one is unlucky enough to come off and hit one's head, but they are simply inadequate to deal with the forces involved in high-speed collisions. In fact, there is some evidence to suggest that they may worsen diffuse axonal injuries to the brain because it is your brain bouncing around inside your skull that is the dangerous thing, and whereas a skull might (painfully) bounce and slide, a helmet might increase the rotation of your head, which isn't great.
I wouldn't try to dissuade anyone from wearing one on this basis. However, it is quite interesting that increased helmet use seems to have had little or no impact on the (already mercifully low) incidence of head injury to cyclists. I don't wear one myself, becasue cycling is already pretty safe, the stats suggest that helmets don't make it safer, on the very rare occasions that I have come off and hit my head I have been fine, and I'm more interested in my brain (which helmets do little to protect) than my scalp, which can stand the very occasional contusion.
Make up your own minds. There's a long and sometimes exasperating, but sometimes informative, thread on the subject in the advocacy and safety forum.
I wouldn't try to dissuade anyone from wearing one on this basis. However, it is quite interesting that increased helmet use seems to have had little or no impact on the (already mercifully low) incidence of head injury to cyclists. I don't wear one myself, becasue cycling is already pretty safe, the stats suggest that helmets don't make it safer, on the very rare occasions that I have come off and hit my head I have been fine, and I'm more interested in my brain (which helmets do little to protect) than my scalp, which can stand the very occasional contusion.
Make up your own minds. There's a long and sometimes exasperating, but sometimes informative, thread on the subject in the advocacy and safety forum.
Even if you crash at a higher speed than is recommended for the helmet, if the helmet hits whatever your head was going to hit, that means that the helmet has absorbed some of the energy that would have been absorbed entirely by your skull. So I don't find the "don't help in high speed collisions" argument because, well, they do.
Cheers,
Charles
* There are car accidents where the occupant is better of not wearing a seatbelt. My aunt was in one where she was thrown completely from the car and would not have survived if she had worn one. She always wore her seatbelt after because she realized how unlikely such events are.
11-05-12, 12:26 PM
#3984
Bulky Bullet
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: New Smyrna Beach, FL
Posts: 1,101
Bikes: Burley Koosah / RANS Zenetik Pro / Catrike Expedition
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I ride on 3 wheels a lot, so the threat of winding up fleshy side down is pretty minimal.
When I ride on two wheels, I typically don't wear the Styrofoam hat unless I'm riding on sketchy surfaces or racing. But that's really just my choice.
When I ride on two wheels, I typically don't wear the Styrofoam hat unless I'm riding on sketchy surfaces or racing. But that's really just my choice.
__________________
"Obstacles don't like me very much. I make them look bad."
"Obstacles don't like me very much. I make them look bad."
11-05-12, 12:34 PM
#3985
Banned.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Uncertain
Posts: 8,651
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
Even if you crash at a higher speed than is recommended for the helmet, if the helmet hits whatever your head was going to hit, that means that the helmet has absorbed some of the energy that would have been absorbed entirely by your skull. So I don't find the "don't help in high speed collisions" argument because, well, they do.
Last edited by chasm54; 11-05-12 at 01:02 PM.
11-05-12, 01:01 PM
#3986
Banned.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Uncertain
Posts: 8,651
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
You've been badly misled.
Helmets do not protect against minor concussion by design. They don't even start deforming until you get to impacts that would cause major injury. Here is a set of accelerometer plots.
Source: https://www.helmets.org/liners.htm
So in a damaging impact (which is the point) you prevent permanent brain damage. If you use softer foam you risk "bottoming out" and having permanent damage.
Helmets do not protect against minor concussion by design. They don't even start deforming until you get to impacts that would cause major injury. Here is a set of accelerometer plots.
Source: https://www.helmets.org/liners.htm
So in a damaging impact (which is the point) you prevent permanent brain damage. If you use softer foam you risk "bottoming out" and having permanent damage.
11-05-12, 03:12 PM
#3987
The Recumbent Quant
Ho hum. The lab test that generates those figures involves a zero speed fall from seven feet with a disembodied headform inside the helmet. Its relevance to real-world crashes is negligible. Tell me what the g forces inside the helmet will be if it is hit by a two-tonne car at, say, 20mph. And then tell me the helmet will have provided significant mitigation of my undoubtedly catastrophic head injury.
People who wear bicycle helmets get killed by cars. It's clearly not a panacea. But people who wear helmets are more likely to survive crashes that involve cars than people who don't.
If you don't want to wear a helmet, that's fine with me. From both a public health point of view (you're better of riding a bike and not wearing a helmet than you are not riding a bike and getting fat sitting on your couch) as well as a "better for me as a bicyclist if more people ride bicycles" point of view, I support your right to not wear a helmet when you ride a bicycle. But, statistically speaking, you are better off wearing a helmet than not wearing a helmet if you are in a crash.
Cheers,
Charles
11-05-12, 05:09 PM
#3990
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 257
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I was riding along about 20 mph when a kid (salmon) popped out and hit me. I was knocked off my bike and landed head-first on pavement. Broken neck, couldn't use my lungs for a while.
My helmet was significantly mashed, probably about 2/3 of its deformation taken up by the impact. I won't get into the details of how I know this is true (it would take way too long - let's just say I am a professional engineer and have years and years of training and actual experience), but the deformation in my helmet is entirely consistent with standard helmet testing. So probably my head was exposed to something like 200-300 times gravity as it decelerated. You can consider that my professional opinion as an engineer.
If I was not wearing a helmet I probably would have been killed, and at the very least broken my skull and severely damaged my spinal cord. I still got a pretty good concussion, but my wife still has a functioning (and healing) husband, not a quadriplegic with severe brain brain damage and zero hope of improvement. I was just at the doctor's today in fact. They say I am coming along remarkably well and am expected to make a full recovery. They explicitly said (again) that I owe my safety to my helmet.
I actually need to thank the anti-helmet political activists here for lowering the quality of advice available at this site. Had they not degraded discussion so badly, I would have asked for a helmet replacement recommendation, been given one, and would be on my merry way.
As it was I was so appalled that I decided to learn about helmets and what is the real story about helmet safety. A lot of what I learned surprised me, and I never would have known if I had not felt a need to find out for myself.
It turns out that more expensive is not better. Cheap helmets protect just as well as expensive ones. The extra money just gets you style and (non-safety) features.
Round and smooth is best. I had no idea, but sharp, aerodynamic shapes and massive venting provides a grip surface that can cause your helmet to be ejected or to twist. So you might lose the coverage and get your skull bashed, or you might have twisting injuries. A pointy helmet is still way better than no helmet, but round, smooth ones are best.
Helmets need to fit to work. Otherwise they might twist or come completely off.
There still is room for improvement in helmets, but the main points above will help getting the best protection that is available.
So:
- I have my helmet to thank for the fact that I still can walk and talk;
- I have political activists and their propaganda to thank for my learning about helmets on my own.
As a result I have a replacement winter helmet on the way. Hopefully I can take that first return ride just before Christmas.
Last edited by beezaur; 11-05-12 at 06:16 PM.
11-05-12, 06:34 PM
#3991
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
My father was an engineer. He believed in repeatable tests, provable numbers, and documented research. You and he apparently went to different schools, because your conclusions appear to be supported by nothing other than opinions and feelings.
11-05-12, 07:19 PM
#3992
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 257
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
If you are actually interested in understanding bicycle helmet safety, I would strongly recommend starting at the Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute:
https://www.helmets.org/index.htm
Most activists do it a different way. They know what they want to support (usually fighting helmet laws) so they dredge up anything they can find to support their political position. This includes using people who do research the same way, presenting their "findings" as unassailable fact without regard to the actual validity of the findings.
The big reason I don't want to get into why the truth is the truth is that it would take an amount of writing that I neither have the time nor the inclination to do.
To understand why bogus statistics are bogus, for example, you would need about a year of statistics training and about a year of physics training with a lab where you actually do measurements and calculations. Even then I have seen people go through that and be so insistent on their political beliefs that they still manage to screw it up.
Same thing happens with global warming. There are bona fide climate scientists (the deniers) who do research for hire by political actors.
The biggest impediment is insistence on being right about something for political reasons.
There is no fix to that, and I'm not going to waste my time trying. Those who are interested should actually learn about it. Keep in mind that learning does not mean familiarizing one's self with propaganda.
Like I said above, I regard the discussion at this site to have degraded to the point that it is not reliable. I might check this thread or I might not - I've said what I have to say and have no illusions about being able to change people's emotions about solid research. They are either interested in the truth or in their politics, generally not both.
Last edited by beezaur; 11-05-12 at 07:22 PM.
11-05-12, 07:43 PM
#3993
MUP World Champ
After putting a dent in a Chevy pickup hood with my helmet and surviving, I have an opinion on the effectiveness of helmets that will not be changed. Some of the people here remind me of a quote I learned in a statistics class.
He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts...for support rather than illumination.
Andrew Lang (1844-1912) Scottish poet, novelist and literary critic
He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts...for support rather than illumination.
Andrew Lang (1844-1912) Scottish poet, novelist and literary critic
11-05-12, 08:02 PM
#3994
Senior Member
After putting a dent in a Chevy pickup hood with my helmet and surviving, I have an opinion on the effectiveness of helmets that will not be changed. Some of the people here remind me of a quote I learned in a statistics class.
He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts...for support rather than illumination.
Andrew Lang (1844-1912) Scottish poet, novelist and literary critic
He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts...for support rather than illumination.
Andrew Lang (1844-1912) Scottish poet, novelist and literary critic
11-05-12, 08:25 PM
#3995
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 922
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Your post leaves out all the interesting parts. Could you share some of the measurements you took, the assumptions you used and the methods you used to calculate this figure?
11-05-12, 08:26 PM
#3996
Senior Member
After putting a dent in a Chevy pickup hood with my helmet and surviving, I have an opinion on the effectiveness of helmets that will not be changed. Some of the people here remind me of a quote I learned in a statistics class.
He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts...for support rather than illumination.
Andrew Lang (1844-1912) Scottish poet, novelist and literary critic
He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts...for support rather than illumination.
Andrew Lang (1844-1912) Scottish poet, novelist and literary critic
Well, if you're using 19th century Scottish poets to justify your inability to understand basic math, you've got far more problems than I can help you with.
But by all means, keep pretending that 2 ounces of beer cooler foam can protect you from brain damage.
11-05-12, 09:07 PM
#4000
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
My opinion is based on a whole lot of things I'm not going to get into. Short answer: your guess is wildly inaccurate.
If you are actually interested in understanding bicycle helmet safety, I would strongly recommend starting at the Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute:
https://www.helmets.org/index.htm
Most activists do it a different way. They know what they want to support (usually fighting helmet laws) so they dredge up anything they can find to support their political position. This includes using people who do research the same way, presenting their "findings" as unassailable fact without regard to the actual validity of the findings.
The big reason I don't want to get into why the truth is the truth is that it would take an amount of writing that I neither have the time nor the inclination to do.
To understand why bogus statistics are bogus, for example, you would need about a year of statistics training and about a year of physics training with a lab where you actually do measurements and calculations. Even then I have seen people go through that and be so insistent on their political beliefs that they still manage to screw it up.
Same thing happens with global warming. There are bona fide climate scientists (the deniers) who do research for hire by political actors.
The biggest impediment is insistence on being right about something for political reasons.
There is no fix to that, and I'm not going to waste my time trying. Those who are interested should actually learn about it. Keep in mind that learning does not mean familiarizing one's self with propaganda.
Like I said above, I regard the discussion at this site to have degraded to the point that it is not reliable. I might check this thread or I might not - I've said what I have to say and have no illusions about being able to change people's emotions about solid research. They are either interested in the truth or in their politics, generally not both.
If you are actually interested in understanding bicycle helmet safety, I would strongly recommend starting at the Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute:
https://www.helmets.org/index.htm
Most activists do it a different way. They know what they want to support (usually fighting helmet laws) so they dredge up anything they can find to support their political position. This includes using people who do research the same way, presenting their "findings" as unassailable fact without regard to the actual validity of the findings.
The big reason I don't want to get into why the truth is the truth is that it would take an amount of writing that I neither have the time nor the inclination to do.
To understand why bogus statistics are bogus, for example, you would need about a year of statistics training and about a year of physics training with a lab where you actually do measurements and calculations. Even then I have seen people go through that and be so insistent on their political beliefs that they still manage to screw it up.
Same thing happens with global warming. There are bona fide climate scientists (the deniers) who do research for hire by political actors.
The biggest impediment is insistence on being right about something for political reasons.
There is no fix to that, and I'm not going to waste my time trying. Those who are interested should actually learn about it. Keep in mind that learning does not mean familiarizing one's self with propaganda.
Like I said above, I regard the discussion at this site to have degraded to the point that it is not reliable. I might check this thread or I might not - I've said what I have to say and have no illusions about being able to change people's emotions about solid research. They are either interested in the truth or in their politics, generally not both.
Last edited by Six jours; 11-05-12 at 09:12 PM.