dynodonn 

Everybody here has the right to use the "Ignore List", but after being a member on some flamer forums that make BF posts look like a mere lit match, I do not find the need to even consider the use of the "Ignore List". I usually read all posts(time permitting), and respond if I choose to do so, some here may consider that as being an ignore, but only partially, since the post and their ideology was still read.

closetbiker

I guess I've ignored without using the feature too. I don't mind sifting through poop to find something useful as well as re-examining the reasons I make my posts, but time is limited and unnecessary aggravation to no point isn't worth it.

Some of these posts reveal themselves to be their own worst enemy, and if someone can't see that, they've got bigger problems than wasting their and others time on a public board

dynodonn 

Maybe so, but it is still a public board, and open to all, provided that they go by the guidelines set by the operators of this forum. I've had my run ins with Pete as well, but I still do not block his posts.

closetbiker

a board is only as good as it's members and when you're trying to learn or understand something and there are those who are just gumming up the process, it's worth it to ignore them.

There are benefits and detriments to having a voice heard. Posts like some that I've read are detrimental

dynodonn 

We both made our choices, and that's the beauty of having the freedom to do so. For the sake of not looking like I'm ignoring you, I must do some errands, and I must get prepared to do some miles on the bike.

closetbiker

not a bad barometer

charles vail

I'm sure Pete's a decent fellow but it seems he has a confrontational streak in him and likes to throw insults around. I fell for it at first and participated in the written sparring match for a while but now I see it for what it is.

The subject thread was on the effectiveness of helmets in the prevention of brain injury, at least that was were I came in on it. I had been a fairly avid helmet user before some of the links got me reading the statistics regarding effectiveness issues and such. I've never liked helmets and rode for 25 years without them so it got me thinking about the subject. Many of the posts that included graphs and links peaked my interest and confirmed my intuition on the subject. It seemed rather odd to me that for nearly 100 years, helmet use by cyclists was never an issue until Styrofoam was used to make them. That got me thinking about the ramifications of the use and disposal of plastic waste materials and the environmental impact etc. What better way to spread waste products around the country.....just invent a product that plays on peoples fears and sell it to them, then tell them UV exposure and dropping it will reduce its effectiveness so they'll need to replace it every five years. What a crock of hooey!

I warned the thread viewers that people would join in and start an argument to distract from the facts of the issue.
Its a typical tactic of distraction practiced by subversives in any arena. Either Pete works for a helmet manufacturer or he just likes to be confrontational. Regardless, his communication style, much like Zuesers, is in your face, argumentative and boarders on rude, maybe he's really an attorney. I prefer to discuss the facts in a civil manner and have learned a lot from Closebikers links and graphs. My mind isn't totally made up so I look forward to the ongoing and non-personal debate.

I'd be interested to know if the use of "safety gear" in other sports has decreased injuries and deaths or if by the use of the safety gear, it allows people to take even greater risks, nullifying the benefit of the safety gear in the first place and causing the statistics to show no reduction of injury or death in their use.

charles vail

I think what Closebiker was saying is that the average bicycler rides in a manner that doesn't result in pain. Like the two photos he provided showing commuters riding without helmets or even gloves. While there are quite a few bicyclers riding mountainbikes in rough terrain, I suspect that this is not the majority of use worldwide. Places like Holland and China as well as other Asian countries have huge populations (millions) of cyclists who ride for transport and not zooming down trails lined with sticker bushes and boulders. I think what Closebiker is saying is that, these types of riders are the more extreme types and are not typical of most cyclists worldwide. That may be his opinion from your point of view but it is a generally accepted fact by most people. Asking him to "prove it", I think, threw him off, since I believe he was honestly trying to convey a universally accepted fact.
As far as my rants, they were a somewhat misdirected attempt to illustrate how simply wearing protective gear does not protect a cyclist, if they insist on riding in a progressively risky manner. I just reviewed the Snell foundations standards on helmets and looked at Wikipedias information on bicycle helmets and was less than impressed by the current standards for bicycle helmets. In fact, it is difficult to even buy a well designed helmet that will actually work these days, since the standards have been reduced.

chtorr

I am waiting for the day when someone comes up with a helmet design that is more acceptable to the general public. Spandex and bike helmets are a big turnoff for many people, and one of the things that prevents them from getting into cycling (the biggest deterrent being general laziness).

Road and MTB helmets (including the Bell Metro) and even skateboard helmets (an alternative choice for some) look terrible to most non-riders (nearly everyone I know) I've talked to. If someone could come up with a design that presents a less nerdy image, it would be a step in the right direction. I wonder if the TDF and Lance Armstrong have done more to deter cycling in the US than they've done to promote it.

Botom line: (overgeneralizing here) average folks think cyclists are dorks and helmets (along with spandex) have done more to cement that image in peoples' minds than anything else. The percentage of people riding bicycles could be much higher than it is if not for the "roadie" image people have.

FWIW, I don't agree with the general public on this, but I believe I'm accurate in describing how they think (I'm generalizing again).

closetbiker

bottom line (I think) is that people around the world don't think that head injuries are a big problem as long as you take care while riding.

Whether it's the crowd in Beijing,



a messenger in Tokyo,



riding off to the store in Paris,



or heading off to work in London,



the bicycle is a daily way of life in a way that it isn't in the US, Canada or Australia.

Here, the bicycle is not used as much for transportation and seen as recreational, optional and different. Something that public opinion can be shaped on because so few ride on a daily basis, they have little invested to care very much whether policy is good, bad or indifferent for cycling so long as it doesn't interfer with what the public really cares about, driving.

Severe restrictions on driving, made to make the road safer for everybody, is looked upon with far more opposition than helmets for cyclists.

What would prevent more injuries and save more lives? Better driving or helmets for cyclists? I think the answer (and bias) is clear.

billew

I don't get this helmet BS, when the same so called "educated middle class" whom I would say make up the bulk of BF members(insert scientific proof request here) insist on helmet use on bikes, and then ski or snow board with a knit cap. One would think helmets would be everywhere on the slopes. Of course I'm speaking of recreational use not racing.

dynodonn 

The stats, graphs, and world opinion, presented by you, backs you up on this aspect, but since I haven't been hit by a car in the my many years of riding, the better driving does very little for me, just like your need for a helmet. It doesn't mean that I will not benefit from better driving by motorist, but wearing a helmet has helped me far more.

charles vail

I've often thought about this aspect, regarding other sports activities. Its actually fairly common for people involved in many activities where safety gear is utilized to pursue their pastimes with a more aggressive attitude because they are now using "safety gear". This of course increases the risk that they will need the gear in the first place and also increases the chance of exceeding the safety gears limitations nullifying its effectiveness. I think they call it risk compensation. We've gone over this before in this thread about 30 pages ago but it bears repeating. I say, wear a helmet if you want to but pretend you aren't, if you can and don't ride like it will save you from a head injury, since it most likely will not. If it does, great but I suspect that most of us will ride harder when using a helmet and increase our chance of needing it. Its just the way it goes. Don't forget the actual performance limitations of helmets, they are lower than you think and most cyclists exceed the limits every time they ride.

closetbiker

well I would say, if drivers drove better, cyclists would not be hit and a major motivator for wearing helmets would be eliminated.

One can never say to another, their own, personal experience isn't valid, but one can also say the best way to look at a problem is to look at it as a whole.

There are going to be X number of collisions between bikes and cars each year. Some will end up in injuries, and some will end up in death. It's quite remarkable how consistant these numbers are each year, especially when you consider the wide varieties of people, conditions, and traffic they encounter every different day on their bikes. If the only difference made to this, is now the cyclists all wear helmets, we can see if there has been any difference at the end of the year. This is where all those stats and grphs come in. The helmets make little difference. Same goes for head injuries to cyclists not involving cars.

Small wonder. They are not made for anything but a simple fall with no forward momentum and no involvement of a motor vehicle. They bottom out and are useless after the foam crushes from a blow equalling 14 mph total (or 11mph if you hit something with an edge) the equivalant of the drop from the test rig. Once bottomed out, or if the foam fails to crush and splits, the use of the helmet has reached it's limits.

They are intended for children, or in some situations that would duplicate the fall that they are tested for. I could be waiting at a light and fall over and if I hit my head, I would hope the helmet would crush and not split. Trouble is, over 90% of the time I'm on my bike, I'm in motion riding it. Helmet standards are not intended to protect in high speed riding, and by high speed riding, that means riding at a reasonable cycling expectation speed.

It's no mystery that that oft-quoted 85% reduction of injury was claimed fom a study that involved only children falling from their bikes and not being involved in a collision with a car.

I'm not going to say one isn't going to feel better after a collision with a car where someone felt the helmet made a difference, but to best understand something, it's better to be detached, neutral and objective about the properties of the collision. People step aside if they have a vested interest or conflict of interest in a case they're working on so the work isn't tainted. To be honest, one would have to do the same here or admit, personal involvement and emotion might cloud their judgement.

Zeuser

Well there you have it. If helmets are 85% effective for that situation, it's enough justification for people to wear 'em.

And I'm sure it's more than just children. Ask my mom who just recently fell off her bike.

dynodonn 

Judging by my falls on my bike, it seems that I might be my own assassin, and I am working on my second childhood.

closetbiker

I should add that the 85% reduction was a result of comparing those children, who the authors admitted were more cautious riders, to adults riding in traffic being hit by cars and comparing the injuries between the 2 groups.

The injuries that showed reduction included areas not covered by a helmet and consisted of mostly superficial lacerations. the authors took this into consideration and reduced the 85% to 64% (although the larger, incorrect number is what's more commonly known)

If you're a cautious child, and don't ride around cars, maybe a helmets for you

charles vail

Wasn't this the purpose of those early non hard shell foam helmets, we all now use these days? That is, from my reading, the original designs used a hard shell with a liner (Snell approved) and people complained so they made them with more vents, then they complained about the mushroom appearance, so they made them less thick, with no hard shell and even more vents. Next, they added a mesh inside the foam to hold it together on impact and now we have the currently available bicycle helmet that crushes at low impact speeds and is useless except in very limited scenarios.
If we look at a child's helmet they are very thick and bulbous for their size. A comparable adults helmet with a appropriately thicker (higher body weight rider) foam shell would look like a beach ball on your head.
In order to work as intended, these adult helmets would have to be really bulbous and nobody would buy them. If you use a current skater style hardshell helmet that is approved for bicycling you have a better helmet or an old Bell Biker for that matter. The current crop of adult helmets are all but useless.
Cyclists are fooling themselves if they think their noggins are protected in any significant way.

closetbiker

the helmets used by the children in the study were the old mid 80's style hard shells. The kind that are not avalible now. Now we have the micro shells, essentially the same material milk jugs are made from, that the foam is molded into, as opposed to the old foam liner with a separate hard shell. The advantage of this is that the helmets are noticeably lighter.

Those old non hard shell foam helmets had a number of problems but were sold to get the weight down to be more comfortable, but of course, they broke apart more easily and dragged in sliding, increasing injuries.

The old hard shells distributed the impact over a greater area and took a heavier blow before the shell was damaged.

The micro shells are lighter and more moldable, so designs are more easily adjusted. vents can take different shape, but as the vents get bigger, and helmets get smaller, the foams density has to change to sustain the test in the rig. The helmet is lighter and cooler, but safety is compromised.

closetbiker

here are a couple of helmets that were possibly worn in the study





and one of the newer helmets worn by a tour stage winner



You can't see the differences in the density of the foam, but you can see the differences in the coverages between helmets from the time the study was done, to the newer designs.

Kind of looks like the designs have regressed back to the old leather hair-net days

Cowtown Cumuter

Unfortunatelly we live in a society where we have to put labels on everything and everyone. I am not a "roadie" and not a "mountain biker"...I am just a guy who rides a bike to work and back and enjoys weekend rides once in a while. I hate wearing a helmet but I do wear one because how could I ask my children to wear one without being a hypocrite. Also, crashed recently and the helmet did help reduce abrasions and possible stitches, concussion.
Saw a very cool site the other day on my morning commute. A construction guy in full work gear, hard hat, tool belt and metal lunch box...riding to work on his kona mountian bike. Don't know if the hard hat would help at all in a crash though.

My kids wear Nutcase helmets, hard shell very cool paint jobs on them and they love them.
https://www.nutcasehelmets.com/

John C. Ratliff

I wear the Nutcase helmet, with the Bridge Pedal design, in yellow no less, as my main helmet when the weather turns cooler. Contrary to what Closetbiker says (and we've had a lot of discussions over the years), these full helmets are currently being made and are nice helmets. By the way, Closetbiker is saying the same things he was saying a year or two ago, so no matter what you post here, his story will always be the same.

John

talofa

Recently I had an event that made me glad I was wearing a helmet. I was moving along slowly about 10 mph when my front tire caught a grove near the edge of the road. I was thrown to the ground hitting my head on the pavement. My head hit the pavement HARD. The helmet was badly dented and cracked inside.I would have been seriously injured if not for the helmet. I am no rookie, I have been riding since I bought my first ten speed in 65 by selling newspapers.

Six jours

I was once in a race where, on a steep downhill, a rider's tire rolled off. When he hit the ground, his helmet stuck to the pavement, torqued his neck, and resulted in severe injury. If he hadn't been wearing a helmet he would have been fine. He was an excellent mechanic, BTW, and had been gluing on tires for years.

The reason I've never put up this story before is because it's personal anecdote, so is pretty much useless, and also because I really have no way of knowing if he'd have been better off without a helmet. And of course, his experience gluing on tires didn't mean anything, because his tire still came off. If he'd been more careful and/or competent in the first place, he wouldn't have had to try out his helmet at all.

charles vail

These look like my old MSR that I wear in the winter to keep my head warm. Being that they are hard shell helmets with a smooth round profile they appeal to me better than the "florist or FTD look" of the other helmet styles being made. If I wear a helmet, it would be one of these for sure. The graphics are fun looking without being too bizarre. In hot weather, I doubt they would vent enough but I live in the N.W. and its only hot for three months. I ride year round and figure I am more likely to crash at night or in the winter months, when its cooler.