lostforawhile

it's not the car hitting you that you have to worry about, it's your brain smacking the inside of your skull and swelling,thats what kills you, those few inches of foam are well proven to absorb enough impact to help prevent this, it's up to you if you wear it or not, but it's better then nothing,

I-Like-To-Bike

Really? I have to remember that.

chasm54

Really? Just what, exactly, does the phrase "well proven to absorb enough impact to help prevent this" mean? How much impact, at what angle?

Your views appear to differ from those of the CEO of the Snell Foundation, which tests helmets. In 1999 he said that the weight constraints on bicycle helmets made it impossible to make one that was effective in accidents with motor vehicles. It is indeed the car hitting you that you have to worry about, and in such cases the helmet is so massively overmatched as to be irrelevant.

RazrSkutr

Errrm? Excuse me? Are you questioning the word of a INCHe(*) who has given his personal opinion that helmets are very useful and has backed this up with the opinion of his doctors? If you're still skeptical I'll just roll my eyes and refer you to the fact that none other than mconlonx (a noted expert himself) considers this credible testimony.

Sheesh... some people.

Now, let's get back to ignoring the millions of real-life, personal, acutal accidents collected together as statistics (ooooooh!) and focus on a couple of aberrant experiences posted by people who, by their own testimony have suffered serious head trauma despite wearing a helmet.


*INCHe: INternet Certified Helmet engineer

I-Like-To-Bike

Ya got me; no more will I have a doubt about either of those two INCHe. I now know how much credibility both have on this subject.

mconlonx

I don't claim to be an expert, engineer, or in any way able to gauge the scientific credibility of either the studies posted or claims made.

I do, however, have a pretty good grasp of reading comprehension, which some here very obviously lack.

ILTB already answered this -- RazrSkutr, are you claiming that there's no way beezaur's helmet protected him exactly as he described...?

For some reason, y'all want to ignore the fact that I give you(pl) exactly as much credence as those who post that a helmet saved their lives -- you could very well be right that a helmet in any given crash did nothing for its wearer.

BTW, what credentials do you two claim to have, which might allow you to speak with any better authority on the subject?

350htrr

[QUOTE=chasm54;14934075]I'm not trying to talk people out of wearing a helmet. I'm explaining why I think wearing one is unnecessary, at best, and potentially problematic, at worst. What I would like to talk people out of is, first, the idea that cycling for pleasure and transportation is intrinsically dangerous enough to require protective clothing; and, second, the illusion that in the rare event of a serious accident, a helmet is likely to make much difference.
The health benefits of cycling outweigh the risks by a huge margin. It is therefore damaging to the public health to present cycling as dangerous, when it really isn't. Helmet sales depend on presenting cycling as dangerous.

Straight enough answer?[/QUOTE]

I'm just saying it MAY be usefull and they should think about wearing one.
And I think there is proof that it CAN make a difference sometimes even tho it's reletively rare event.
I agree 100%.
Best answer yet, better than saying don't wear a helmet because it's more dangerous than not wearing one.

sudo bike

The air movement keeps me cool enough just fine, as I'm generally not on the bike for one extended period, but many small ones. Helmets keep the sweat from evaporating (to a greater extent) making me hotter, making me sweat more, and making my hair wet with sweat. Not exactly fun to deal with every time I need to get off the bike to run to class, to the bank, to the grocery store, etc. Not sure how serious you were being with the above, but there it is.

This isn't really meant to convince anyone not to wear a helmet, just pointing out that people have reasons for not wearing them, and they're the same reasons I'm guessing most helmeteers don't don body armor: they've sacrificed some safety for convenience because they felt the gain was negligible compared to the PITA.

Six jours

Like the parachute guys who say "It's not the fall that kills you, but the sudden stop at the end."

Except that they're not being serious.

Well, that and the collapsed lungs, the broken neck, and the fact that one of your legs is way over there on the sidewalk. But hey, at least the A-holes on BF won't be able to crow about how you deserved it because you weren't wearing a helmet!

curbtender

I'm just ribbing you. I'm not pro or against. Guess I'm a bi-helmet guy. I'd never wear a helmet on my Spitfire 5, but I don't feel comfortible on my commute without a helmet. I guess because it was the only time I ever needed one. Head and stone haven't met in a while, but it's nice to have a border when it does...

commodorefork

Sir, you are very diplomatic and reasonable. You aren't for or against helmets. Don't you pay any attention to people who call you a coward for refusing to take a firm stance. They're ignorant. I applaud your indecisiveness.

RazrSkutr

I'd agree. You appear to have a completely unscientific approach to this: instead of wanting data (either actual individual measurements, or the aggregates contained in "studies") you prefer to privilege anonymous internet expert's claims to knowledge.

I think you're patting yourself a bit too hard on the back there ... or else you're inconsistent. See below.

There's two problems with this: 1) Beezaur didn't describe anything except "I had a crash, my helmet is damaged and the doctors said it saved me, therefore, because I'm an anonymous internet expert I certify with 100% double-plus authenticity that this is The Truth". A scientist or engineer would describe the crash with measurements.....

2) Beezaur made a claim which I'm very surprised you accept. Either you've gone back on your original acceptance of the proposition that helmets are mostly useful for minor injuries, or else your self-vaunted reading comprehension was undergoing repairs when beezaur posted:
Are you serious? You actually accept this?

You're focussing on the wrong thing: don't accept me, my credentials or my testimony. Nor anyone else's individually. Individually it amounts to zilch. There are people with real skin in the game: they publish in journals with their reputations on the line and their data and thinking open for all of us to examine. They disagree strongly on the topic and defend their opinions not on the basis of some nebulous accreditation, but through stating their models, data and conclusions. Anything else is frankly unbelievable... especially when it's anonymous.

In short, the only important and useful thing is the aggregate of experiences measured in some way and fitted to an hypothesis. This is difficult to do. It is inconclusive. The most believable results (of population studies with large power) suggest that helmets MAKE NO DIFFERENCE TO SERIOUS HEAD INJURIES. The rest is just true believers getting up and speaking in tongues about the helmet god.

mconlonx

Nope. I've been in this thread since page 3 and at least the thread before this one. I've seen the inconclusive studies posted at the notorious pro-helmet site; I've seen the inconclusive studies posted and the notorious helmet-skeptic site. There's good and bad stuff on each, but more to the point, there's people misquoting and misrepresenting studies from each to "prove" their point here in this thread, which even a cursory glance at the studies or abstracts will reveal as more wishful thinking than "proof" one way or another.

I don't believe anyone who comes on here and says "A helmet saved my life!" but I also don't give any credence to those who say "No it didn't!"

That must be why my shoulder hurts...

No, he said more than that: referenced 3d liner deformation, asserted his professional/educational ability to assess the damage and deformation taken by the helmet as some kind of authority on physics, materials, and destructive testing. Totally a bummer that he wasn't wired up with accelerometers and whatnot when he suffered that total fluke crash -- must have just forgotten them that one day... Might also be that he's got better things to do than argue with uninformed fanatics online...

That helmets don't protect against major injuries? Yes, I accept this -- you don't?!? That his doctors say he would have suffered major injuries without a helmet? Of course not -- that's what I've been saying all along. (Ref: reading comprehension of some who post here, above) But I do accept that his helmet may have mitigated some damage, and his assessment of liner deformation confirms that. As much as anyone wants to believe his supposed credentials and ability to make an educated assessment.

I note that you still did not answer the question I actually asked...

Don't get me wrong, I don't accept you, your credentials or your testimony. Nor anyone else's individually. But you and others occasionally post a link to an interesting study that's handy to peruse, usually because it turns out they've misquoted or misinterpreted said studies to support their own POV. It's OK, though --happens on both sides of this argument.

In an aggregate, of course they make no difference to serious head injuries. Helmet manufacturers state as much, and studies back it up. I've never said different and double-dog dare you to find and quote where I've said otherwise. That does not mean that they don't help in specific instances, and while most can be dismissed because they come from faith-based belief, this report seemed to be at least a notch or two beyond the usual.

curbtender

I know my limits. Come do a 50+ downhill with me and lets see who hits the brakes first. I'll be wearing a helmet.

John C. Ratliff

Here's a study which does not back that statement up:
Here is the definition of an Odds Ratio (OR):
And guess what, this isn't the only one:
Before making such statements, please go to Pubmed.gov and search for "bicycle helmet".

John

mconlonx

Thanks for the info. I did not know to look at Pubmed. These studies are very recent--while they've undoubtably been peer reviewed, have they been A&S reviewed yet?

Can't wait to hear what the bare head brigade has to say about these...

lostforawhile

I just cant understand the thought process of "well my helmet might now save me, so I'll wear nothing" those couple of inches of high density foam,it's not regular foam by the way, are designed to sacrifice themselves and absorb lots of energy before your skull does, it might save your life is better then it might have saved your life

John C. Ratliff

Here is one more:

Six jours

I've seen studies that show pretty much anything that can be imagined - "Lies, damned lies, and statistics". Now, as always, I don't doubt that cycling with a helmet is safer than cycling without one. But a two-in-a-million chance of dying is twice as bad as a one-in-a-million chance, which is pretty much the point the helmeteers are trying to make, without admitting to the big picture.

John C. Ratliff

Simply labeling a study where people went to the trouble of crunching cadaver heads "lies" doesn't cut it. You need to read the study, then see whether there was some kind of discrepancy which would invalidate their findings. You cannot just label it as showing "pretty much anything that can be imagined." If you don't do that kind of legwork, you are putting your own credibility on the line.

You also need to check your facts. In Florida, the odds of dying while bicycling is more like 1 in 4,900. In Germany, the odds are about 1 in 92,000. In the UK, it again is about 1 in 4900. Also, the odds of dying while bicycling in the USA apparently is 3-5 times that of Europe.
Why?

John

sudo bike

I agree you can't simply wave off the studies you don't like, but that of course cuts both ways, and I think it is perfectly fair to point out that there are many studies that do not come to the same conclusion and can no more be waved off as lies...

corvuscorvax

rando

very well said!

mconlonx

You're one of the more sensible bare-headers; you don't count.

I bet it has very little to do with helmets...

John C. Ratliff

Mconlox,

Actually, it does have something to do with helmets. But if you look at the article, they use engineering design principals to separate traffic from bicycles too. Here is what one study states about bicycle helmets in Sweden:
What is happening is that the science is progressing. Yes, there are some studies which discuss risk compensation:
But what has happened in this thread (and the preceding ones on this topic, which goes back some seven years) is that the same old studies are being used to justify current thinking. My response is that as the science progresses, you need to keep up with the new studies. People also have to be able to change their views based upon the new science to maintain scientific credibility.

John