Cycling and bicycle discussion forums. 
   Click here to join our community Log in to access your Control Panel  


Go Back   > >

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: What Are Your Helmet Wearing Habits?
I've never worn a bike helmet 52 10.40%
I used to wear a helmet, but have stopped 24 4.80%
I've always worn a helmet 208 41.60%
I didn't wear a helmet, but now do 126 25.20%
I sometimes wear a helmet depending on the conditions 90 18.00%
Voters: 500. You may not vote on this poll

User Tag List

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 10-28-14, 08:34 AM   #76
spoiledrotten
Senior Member
 
spoiledrotten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon
Bikes: 2015 Scott Speedster XL Frame, 2014 Diamondback hybrid, and a 20" Schwinn Unicycle (does that count?)
Posts: 217
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by howsteepisit View Post
The ordinance is here http://www.ridgelandms.org/wp-conten...ds/HELMET1.pdf, but since the posted copy is unsigned and undated its not clear if it was ever signed into law. Fine for violation is in section 3 Section $25 to $75

According to Municode its been adopted but not yet codified, whatever that means. Wonder if its ever enforced?
I couldn't say whether or not it's been enforced, but there were probably 85% of the cyclist wearing helmets that I saw on the trails. Thanks for the input.
spoiledrotten is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-28-14, 09:10 PM   #77
Six jours
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 6,401
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
"Road riding 'scary' for gold medalist"

https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/wa...old-medallist/

This pretty much sums it up for me. I no longer ride on the road. I either stick to segregated bike trails, or off road.

There are still folks deluded enough to believe that a bicycle helmet is effective protection against being struck by a motor vehicle. Those of us on planet Earth realize that there is no way to protect against motor vehicles, other than to avoid them entirely.

Short version: If you are serious about cycling safety, you'll stay away from cars. And if you stay away from cars, your chances of death from head injury on the bike are nearly nil.
Six jours is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-14, 08:12 AM   #78
mconlonx 
Nobody
 
mconlonx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 7,467
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2559 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Six jours View Post
"Road riding 'scary' for gold medalist"

https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/wa...old-medallist/

This pretty much sums it up for me. I no longer ride on the road. I either stick to segregated bike trails, or off road.

There are still folks deluded enough to believe that a bicycle helmet is effective protection against being struck by a motor vehicle. Those of us on planet Earth realize that there is no way to protect against motor vehicles, other than to avoid them entirely.

Short version: If you are serious about cycling safety, you'll stay away from cars. And if you stay away from cars, your chances of death from head injury on the bike are nearly nil.
Meh. I'm a commuter, so I mix it up with cars all the time. Which is why I wear a helmet -- much more likely to be "shoved" by a car, than hit by a car at speed, which means impact forces are within helmet-helpful range.

If it was even an issue. Which it never has been.
__________________
I know next to nothing. I am frequently wrong.
mconlonx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-14, 10:42 AM   #79
Six jours
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 6,401
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mconlonx View Post
Meh. I'm a commuter, so I mix it up with cars all the time. Which is why I wear a helmet -- much more likely to be "shoved" by a car, than hit by a car at speed, which means impact forces are within helmet-helpful range.

If it was even an issue. Which it never has been.
Well, I have had numerous "close calls" with high-speed traffic. A half dozen close friends, including my first girlfriend, have been struck and killed by cars. And I have a young family. I just feel like my luck has to run out one day, and I have more to live for now than I ever have before. Moreover, the traffic in my neck of the woods tends to be 50-70 MPH. When you get clobbered around here, the helmet doesn't do much good, as the market for ghost bikes will attest.

Realistically, my chances of being struck and killed are pretty low - but if I stay away from cars entirely, my chances of being struck and killed drop to essentially zero. In my situation, the cars are the only thing that make bicycling potentially deadly, and bicycle helmets don't change that.

The amusing bit is that I'm such a lousy off-road rider that I fall all the time, so I always wear my helmet now.
Six jours is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-14, 12:51 PM   #80
Mark Stone
Littledog
Thread Starter
 
Mark Stone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Southwest Desert
Bikes: 2013 Giant Escape 2
Posts: 2,957
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 39 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Six jours View Post
Well, I have had numerous "close calls" with high-speed traffic. A half dozen close friends, including my first girlfriend, have been struck and killed by cars. And I have a young family. I just feel like my luck has to run out one day, and I have more to live for now than I ever have before. Moreover, the traffic in my neck of the woods tends to be 50-70 MPH. When you get clobbered around here, the helmet doesn't do much good, as the market for ghost bikes will attest.

Realistically, my chances of being struck and killed are pretty low - but if I stay away from cars entirely, my chances of being struck and killed drop to essentially zero. In my situation, the cars are the only thing that make bicycling potentially deadly, and bicycle helmets don't change that.

The amusing bit is that I'm such a lousy off-road rider that I fall all the time, so I always wear my helmet now.
↑↑↑ This is a good post. What it illustrates to me is that we all are in different riding scenarios, different circumstances and cities and routes and types of street - and so helmet use is based on our own personal need and choice. I ride on the streets all the time, but my city is set up in such a "grid" that I can go nearly anywhere on 25mph or 30mph neighborhood streets. Therefore I do wear a helmet at all times - because my head injury would be more likely caused by a fall rather than a speeding car slamming into me. If I was riding busy boulevards with fast traffic, I'd probably still wear my skid lid but I would understand that it would help very, very little if a car bashed into me.
Mark Stone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-14, 01:24 PM   #81
wphamilton
not that serious
 
wphamilton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Bikes: Nashbar Road
Posts: 11,192
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 839 Post(s)
I don't see the helmet as less useful with bike-auto collisions. The helmet is primarily for hitting the ground and that's generally going to happen regardless of how the accident occurs. Unless we're thrown up in the air we'll hit the ground with the same impact whether we're hit by a car, or riding 30 mph, or fall over at a light. So it's not really true that the helmet is useless when high-speed autos are involved - at most we can say that it's sometimes superfluous, if the collision itself causes critical injury. But that doesn't always happen.
wphamilton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-14, 05:54 PM   #82
Six jours
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 6,401
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by wphamilton View Post
I don't see the helmet as less useful with bike-auto collisions. The helmet is primarily for hitting the ground and that's generally going to happen regardless of how the accident occurs. Unless we're thrown up in the air we'll hit the ground with the same impact whether we're hit by a car, or riding 30 mph, or fall over at a light. So it's not really true that the helmet is useless when high-speed autos are involved - at most we can say that it's sometimes superfluous, if the collision itself causes critical injury. But that doesn't always happen.
The helmet is less useful in bike-auto collisions because fatal bike-auto collisions usually involve multiple massive injuries. That doesn't, of course, mean that no one has ever had his life saved by a helmet in a bike-auto collision. I just don't see significant objective evidence that it happens very much. If bicycle helmets really were effective in such scenarios, then why would motorcyclists and car racers wear such big heavy helmets?
Six jours is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-14, 06:23 PM   #83
wphamilton
not that serious
 
wphamilton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Bikes: Nashbar Road
Posts: 11,192
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 839 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Six jours View Post
The helmet is less useful in bike-auto collisions because fatal bike-auto collisions usually involve multiple massive injuries. That doesn't, of course, mean that no one has ever had his life saved by a helmet in a bike-auto collision. I just don't see significant objective evidence that it happens very much. If bicycle helmets really were effective in such scenarios, then why would motorcyclists and car racers wear such big heavy helmets?
"Usually?" Sometimes, of course. But "usually" - I have heard that before but I haven't seen any stats that support it. Have you?

I do know that there are a lot of fatalities in bike-auto collisions due to traumatic brain injury. A helmet is useful in those cases.

As for why motorcyclists wear heavier helmets than cyclists, you know why.
wphamilton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-14, 06:56 PM   #84
I-Like-To-Bike
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Posts: 24,610
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by wphamilton View Post
"Usually?" Sometimes, of course. But "usually" - I have heard that before but I haven't seen any stats that support it. Have you?

I do know that there are a lot of fatalities in bike-auto collisions due to traumatic brain injury. A helmet is useful in those cases.
" A lot of fatalities"; how many or what percentage is "a lot"? How do you know that a "lot" of the deaths were exclusively due to TBI, or "know" that helmet wear would have made any useful difference?
I-Like-To-Bike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-14, 08:25 PM   #85
Six jours
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 6,401
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by wphamilton View Post
"Usually?" Sometimes, of course. But "usually" - I have heard that before but I haven't seen any stats that support it. Have you?

I do know that there are a lot of fatalities in bike-auto collisions due to traumatic brain injury. A helmet is useful in those cases.

As for why motorcyclists wear heavier helmets than cyclists, you know why.
I doubt that you will ever find a stat about the number and severity of injuries in fatal car-bike interactions. I know that in my time as a paramedic, car-bike fatalities were usually a gigantic mess. I can't recall ever having been to the scene of one where the cyclist was pretty much okay except for the massive head injuries. I mean, when you really get tagged by a car, there's a lot of energy involved. It'd kind of be like jumping off an overpass and expecting a helmet to save you. It's possible, I suppose, but more in a theoretical kind of way.

As for the assertion that a bicycle helmet is useful in preventing traumatic head injuries, well, that's been debated for years here, and is unlikely to be settled any time soon. Let's just say that it's not exactly a settled issue.

And yes, I do know why motorcyclists wear heavier helmets than bicyclists. It's because motorcycle helmets are expected to help prevent brain injury in high-energy crashes. Kind of like those involving bicyclists and motor vehicles. If bicycle helmets were actually useful for that type of accident, then motorcyclists wouldn't have to bother with the multi-pound full-face down-to-the-neck deals they use.
Six jours is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-14, 07:30 AM   #86
wphamilton
not that serious
 
wphamilton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Bikes: Nashbar Road
Posts: 11,192
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 839 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Six jours View Post
I doubt that you will ever find a stat about the number and severity of injuries in fatal car-bike interactions. I know that in my time as a paramedic, car-bike fatalities were usually a gigantic mess. I can't recall ever having been to the scene of one where the cyclist was pretty much okay except for the massive head injuries. I mean, when you really get tagged by a car, there's a lot of energy involved. It'd kind of be like jumping off an overpass and expecting a helmet to save you. It's possible, I suppose, but more in a theoretical kind of way.

As for the assertion that a bicycle helmet is useful in preventing traumatic head injuries, well, that's been debated for years here, and is unlikely to be settled any time soon. Let's just say that it's not exactly a settled issue.

And yes, I do know why motorcyclists wear heavier helmets than bicyclists. It's because motorcycle helmets are expected to help prevent brain injury in high-energy crashes. Kind of like those involving bicyclists and motor vehicles. If bicycle helmets were actually useful for that type of accident, then motorcyclists wouldn't have to bother with the multi-pound full-face down-to-the-neck deals they use.
I've seen plenty of hospital stats about traumatic brain injury among those in car-bike crashes.

It's not the same as jumping off a cliff - you kind of whiffed by the main thing I was trying to get across. Your head hitting the ground, the energy and impact depends on the height of the fall. Not the speed you're going, not what causes the fall, not how big or fast the car is. Your helmet is rated for 300g and will afford that same protection in every situation. When you're struck by a car, unless you are thrown up and then fall you will fall about three or four feet. When you're riding at 10 mph and slip on leaves, you will fall about three or four feet.

Your energy equation doesn't make sense from a physics viewpoint, because you're assuming that the cyclists helmet is asked to absorb the kinetic energy of the moving vehicle. If the vehicle strikes you in the head, then your head's momentum is changed as a result and you can relate that to an acceleration, but the total energy of the vehicle isn't very informative in this situation.

It's also not as useful if you're thrown or slide into an obstruction at a high velocity. This would seem to be more dependent on the cyclist's initial speed and random chance than on the motor vehicle.

Rotational TBI is the other potential danger, and IS debated here. The best we can say with any confidence is that some traumatic brain injuries cause by crashes with motor vehicles are caused by rotational forces. These may or may have a greater likelihood with motor vehicles. It would be a fallacy to represent as known or settled that helmets are useless in these accidents due to their lack of protection against rotational forces.

Last edited by wphamilton; 10-31-14 at 07:34 AM.
wphamilton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-14, 07:33 AM   #87
wphamilton
not that serious
 
wphamilton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Bikes: Nashbar Road
Posts: 11,192
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 839 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike View Post
" A lot of fatalities"; how many or what percentage is "a lot"? How do you know that a "lot" of the deaths were exclusively due to TBI, or "know" that helmet wear would have made any useful difference?
Ask the guy making the absolute assertion that helmets are useless in motor vehicles. Logically, the vague representations I make are sufficient to dispute that.

The injury statistics are seen from enough sources and are consistent enough to "know" that helmets make a useful difference. I know that you've seen them already.
wphamilton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-14, 09:09 AM   #88
mconlonx 
Nobody
 
mconlonx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 7,467
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2559 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by wphamilton View Post
Rotational TBI is the other potential danger, and IS debated here. The best we can say with any confidence is that some traumatic brain injuries cause by crashes with motor vehicles are caused by rotational forces. These may or may have a greater likelihood with motor vehicles. It would be a fallacy to represent as known or settled that helmets are useless in these accidents due to their lack of protection against rotational forces.
And while some rotational TBI is mitigated by current design in excess of current testing standards, other studies posted by helmet doubters have indicated that skate-style helmets have been proven to mitigate rotational injury as well...
__________________
I know next to nothing. I am frequently wrong.
mconlonx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-14, 03:01 PM   #89
Six jours
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 6,401
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by wphamilton View Post
I've seen plenty of hospital stats about traumatic brain injury among those in car-bike crashes.

It's not the same as jumping off a cliff - you kind of whiffed by the main thing I was trying to get across. Your head hitting the ground, the energy and impact depends on the height of the fall. Not the speed you're going, not what causes the fall, not how big or fast the car is. Your helmet is rated for 300g and will afford that same protection in every situation. When you're struck by a car, unless you are thrown up and then fall you will fall about three or four feet. When you're riding at 10 mph and slip on leaves, you will fall about three or four feet.

Your energy equation doesn't make sense from a physics viewpoint, because you're assuming that the cyclists helmet is asked to absorb the kinetic energy of the moving vehicle. If the vehicle strikes you in the head, then your head's momentum is changed as a result and you can relate that to an acceleration, but the total energy of the vehicle isn't very informative in this situation.

It's also not as useful if you're thrown or slide into an obstruction at a high velocity. This would seem to be more dependent on the cyclist's initial speed and random chance than on the motor vehicle.

Rotational TBI is the other potential danger, and IS debated here. The best we can say with any confidence is that some traumatic brain injuries cause by crashes with motor vehicles are caused by rotational forces. These may or may have a greater likelihood with motor vehicles. It would be a fallacy to represent as known or settled that helmets are useless in these accidents due to their lack of protection against rotational forces.
You didn't ask about head injury stats. You asked about how many of which type of injuries could/would result in death. That's a stat I doubt you will find.

Also, at least in my experience, the head hitting the ground is not the main issue in a car-bike accident. It's being accelerated from 15 MPH to 60 MPH in milliseconds that is the issue. The brain can't withstand that regardless of helmet use. Nor can a number of other key bits of the human body.

In short, you seem to be arguing for the idea that being hit by a car is no big deal because the ground is only so far away. This is obviously silly and I'm surprised you would post it.
Six jours is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-14, 03:30 PM   #90
wphamilton
not that serious
 
wphamilton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Bikes: Nashbar Road
Posts: 11,192
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 839 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Six jours View Post
You didn't ask about head injury stats. You asked about how many of which type of injuries could/would result in death. That's a stat I doubt you will find.

Also, at least in my experience, the head hitting the ground is not the main issue in a car-bike accident. It's being accelerated from 15 MPH to 60 MPH in milliseconds that is the issue. The brain can't withstand that regardless of helmet use. Nor can a number of other key bits of the human body.

In short, you seem to be arguing for the idea that being hit by a car is no big deal because the ground is only so far away. This is obviously silly and I'm surprised you would post it.
Your head isn't accelerated from 15 to 60 in milliseconds unless it (the head) is struck directly by the car. Head on, head first.

I'm telling you that the collision you envision is uncommon in auto-bike accidents and that TBI from striking the ground or other objects at the cyclist's speed (plus whatever momentum has been transferred from the car) is a more likely event.

I'll also represent that the usefulness of a helmet should not be assumed to be limited to preventing a fatality. If you believe that the helmet is useless among cars, then it follows that you believe that it is of no help in any of the likely scenarios. Right hook, left hook, sideswipe, clipped the hip, etc.
wphamilton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-14, 04:44 PM   #91
Six jours
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 6,401
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by wphamilton View Post
Your head isn't accelerated from 15 to 60 in milliseconds unless it (the head) is struck directly by the car. Head on, head first.

If the body is accelerated, the head goes with it. Usually. Not that it matters, because when the body is accelerated to that degree, it doesn't really matter what the head does, because all the other injuries caused by the acceleration can and will cause death anyway.


Quote:
Originally Posted by wphamilton View Post
I'm telling you that the collision you envision is uncommon in auto-bike accidents and that TBI from striking the ground or other objects at the cyclist's speed (plus whatever momentum has been transferred from the car) is a more likely event.
And your evidence for this is? My evidence is the thicket of ghost bikes in my neighborhood - almost all of which represent helmeted cyclists hit by cars.


Quote:
Originally Posted by wphamilton View Post
I'll also represent that the usefulness of a helmet should not be assumed to be limited to preventing a fatality. If you believe that the helmet is useless among cars, then it follows that you believe that it is of no help in any of the likely scenarios. Right hook, left hook, sideswipe, clipped the hip, etc.
You are putting words into my mouth. I did not claim that helmets are useless among cars. I wrote that "The helmet is less useful in bike-auto collisions because fatal bike-auto collisions usually involve multiple massive injuries."

Last edited by Six jours; 10-31-14 at 09:56 PM.
Six jours is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-14, 10:50 PM   #92
wphamilton
not that serious
 
wphamilton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Bikes: Nashbar Road
Posts: 11,192
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 839 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Six jours View Post
If the body is accelerated, the head goes with it. Usually. Not that it matters, because when the body is accelerated to that degree, it doesn't really matter what the head does, because all the other injuries caused by the acceleration can and will cause death anyway.

Not with the same acceleration.

Think of an extreme example and I'm sure it will become clear. Suppose your body was hit with a baseball bat. Now compare the situation when you're head is hit by the same baseball bat, at the same speed. The way you're reasoning, your head will experience the same acceleration either way, but I'm sure you'll realize that that's not true.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Six jours View Post
And your evidence for this is? My evidence is the thicket of ghost bikes in my neighborhood - almost all of which represent helmeted cyclists hit by cars.
That's not very good evidence about anything beyond some fatal accidents.




Quote:
Originally Posted by Six jours View Post
You are putting words into my mouth. I did not claim that helmets are useless among cars. I wrote that "The helmet is less useful in bike-auto collisions because fatal bike-auto collisions usually involve multiple massive injuries."
This would only make sense if all or most bike-auto collisions were fatal, and if the fatalities involving head injuries could not have been prevented by using helmets. Neither of these stipulations look reasonable.
wphamilton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-14, 11:01 PM   #93
Six jours
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 6,401
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
If a baseball bat was capable of accelerating a person's entire body, you'd have a point.

At any rate, your stuff is getting so silly that it's becoming apparent that you are emotionally invested in the idea of your helmet saving you if you are struck by a car. Your powers of self-delusion are obviously superior to my powers of persuasion, so this line of discussion is looking fairly pointless.
Six jours is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-14, 07:27 AM   #94
wphamilton
not that serious
 
wphamilton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Bikes: Nashbar Road
Posts: 11,192
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 839 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Six jours View Post
If a baseball bat was capable of accelerating a person's entire body, you'd have a point.

At any rate, your stuff is getting so silly that it's becoming apparent that you are emotionally invested in the idea of your helmet saving you if you are struck by a car. Your powers of self-delusion are obviously superior to my powers of persuasion, so this line of discussion is looking fairly pointless.
Seriously the same physical principles are at play with a baseball bat or car. The only difference is that the bat has greater change in momentum, so difference in acceleration is less pronounced. But there is a difference in accelerations there no matter what.

I'll explain it explicitly. Acceleration is the change in velocity over the amount of time during which the acceleration is experienced. The body may deform when struck, and may (or sections of it may) also rotate when struck. When the body deforms, the momentum transfers over a larger period of time, reducing the acceleration. If the body rotates, the head describes an arc while following, which also increases the time under acceleration, which decreases the acceleration experienced.

I'm not trying to persuade you, and I'm am subject to persuasion through an explanation of the relevant science or credible data. I merely see a misunderstanding of the physical dynamics and thought that it would be a shame if you, or anyone else, refrained from wearing a helmet on a particular ride solely because they mistakenly believed that it would necessarily be of limited or no use.
wphamilton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-14, 09:11 AM   #95
MMACH 5
Cycle Dallas
 
MMACH 5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Land of Gar, TX
Bikes: Lucinda--2010 Jamis Aurora Elite & a few others
Posts: 3,675
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 63 Post(s)
wph,
While I agree with the principle you are arguing, I don't think a bat is the best comparison. Perhaps a 250lb linebacker diving at you, helmet first. If he plowed into your head, the acceleration to your brain pan would be greater than if his helmet struck you in the chest.
MMACH 5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-14, 11:40 AM   #96
Six jours
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 6,401
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Look, mate, you're trying to claim that being accelerated by a baseball bat is the same as being accelerated by a speeding car. It's too silly to bother debating. It also ignores the main point that being accelerated by a speeding car can be expected to cause fatal injuries to multiple parts of the body, rendering head protection superfluous.

The short version is that it should be pretty obvious that a few ounces of head foam won't make the slightest difference when a car hits you at 60 MPH.
Six jours is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-14, 02:47 PM   #97
Joe Minton
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Southern California
Bikes: Gary Fisher Hi-Fi Deluxe, Giant Stance, Cannondale Synapse, Diamondback 8sp IGH, 1989 Merckx
Posts: 575
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 43 Post(s)
wphamilton:

Thank you for your accuracy, correctness and intelligent reasoning. Everything you said is accurate. This is uncommon and very welcome.

I have been completely discouraged by the tenor of the previous ‘helmet’ thread which seemed to have little to do with helmets and much to do with private anger, inadequate reasoning powers and urges to bully together with enormous ignorance of the subject.

Unfortunately, it seems that this second version is going the same way. A majority of those on my “ignore” list found their way there through the helmet thread.

I am a helmet expert. I have testified as such in Courts of Law. I have studied, participated in the testing of and written about helmets and helmet performance, both motorcycle and bicycle for 49-years now. I could design one.

I managed the Helmet Protection Research Laboratory for a year. The Lab was directed by and basically owned by Professor of Safety Hugh H. Hurt of the University of Southern California. Professor Hurt was (R.I.P.) a primary figure in the development of the modern safety helmet. It was he who first suggested the use of EPS (Styrofoam) as a peak force attenuator in helmets (A funny story in itself). He was my dear friend whom I loved and respected.

I have many facts & stories I could tell about helmet performance, design, strengths and --- weaknesses (even some of the politics). Yes there are weaknesses in bicycle helmets and some of them are very important and are not being addressed. If the atmosphere here were better we could explore those things. It isn’t, and --- I fault the moderators who have allowed this important subject to become such a pile of crap.


Important BTW:
Did any of you know that those pointy-tailed ‘aero’ helmets were dangerous, even deadly, if struck from behind? I have seen video tape of a helmet test that proved, beyond doubt, that this is so.
Why you think current road helmets are rounder at the rear than they used to be? --- Because pointed ones use their pointy tails to lever themselves out of the way of impact between your head and the car windshield or, worse yet, the window brace at the top of the window.
Do a Google search for “pig face helmet” and you will see that the pointy noses of these medieval knight’s helmets were designed to deflect ‘spears, slings and arrows’ away from the wearer’s head. Pointy-tailed bicycle helmets deflect themselves away from the wearer’s head and what is about to strike it.
These ‘Aero’ designs were irresponsible and should never have been on the street. There were/are folks in the industry who knew/know that and I am sure some of them spoke up, but --- marketers (or whatever) ignored these voices of reason and built and sold those helmets to riders who were simply not informed of the inherent danger of the design.

Don’t get me started about retention straps that work themselves loose over time so that the helmet might remove itself from the rider’s head as he flies through the air on his way to the ground --- there’s more, so much more. Like the question of how many “g”s are required before a typical bicycle helmet with its six-pound-per-cubic-foot foam starts to actually crush? I don’t know but I’ll bet it’s more than that needed to start the crush of a motorcycle helmet with three-pound foam. Is it more likely that the bike rider will receive a concussion than the other bike rider? I don’t know but suspect it would.

Joe
Joe Minton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-14, 05:16 PM   #98
I-Like-To-Bike
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Posts: 24,610
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Minton View Post
These ‘Aero’ designs were irresponsible and should never have been on the street. There were/are folks in the industry who knew/know that and I am sure some of them spoke up, but --- marketers (or whatever) ignored these voices of reason and built and sold those helmets to riders who were simply not informed of the inherent danger of the design.

Don’t get me started about retention straps that work themselves loose over time so that the helmet might remove itself from the rider’s head as he flies through the air on his way to the ground --- there’s more, so much more.
Ya mean to say that Safety First is not necessarily the driving force or mantra of the helmet designers, manufacturers and promoters? Say it ain't so!
I-Like-To-Bike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-14, 06:01 PM   #99
Rollfast
What happened?
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Around here somewhere
Bikes: Shooting for a family of six
Posts: 4,416
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 389 Post(s)
Well, I know that's a bummer to those of you guys with the old World War I helmets with the spike on top or WW II olive drab buckets.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by ahsposo View Post
If he was a shark he would have to attend remedial frenzy classes.
Rollfast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-14, 06:02 PM   #100
corrado33
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Bozeman
Bikes:
Posts: 3,185
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 543 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Minton View Post
wphamilton:

Thank you for your accuracy, correctness and intelligent reasoning. Everything you said is accurate. This is uncommon and very welcome.

...

Joe
Joe, I'd love to hear more about your experiences and opinions on helmets. These are my current thoughts on bike helmets (not motocycle helmets.)

Some (or all) of these may be wrong, feel free to correct me.

Bike helmets don't do that much to prevent concussion. There simply isn't enough padding. If you're going to hit hard enough to get a concussion, you'd get one with or without a helmet. If you're going to hit hard enough to have serious brain injury, it will happen with or without a helmet. I'm sure the helmets do SOMETHING (small), but not enough to justify wearing one. Especially the road biking helmets with little more than a few mm of padding on the inside and the rest hard foam. I believe people on here have quoted stats before and after required helmet laws were put in effect in cities. From what I've read (on here) those stats didn't change much before and after those laws were put into effect.

Helmets can easily grab on something and wrench your neck around via the straps.

Helmets are GREAT for preventing road rash/cuts on the top of your head, provided it stays on.

Helmets do nothing to protect your face (which is also your head.)

With that said, I don't wear a helmet when I commute. (Short commute, I don't go very fast.) The main danger to me on my commute is cars. If I get hit by a car I don't think a helmet would do much to protect me. However, I DO wear a helmet when I go riding. The main danger to me there is the road surface, my own mistakes, etc.

Mind you, I have had a somewhat serious crash without my helmet on. I was going around a roundabout 270 degrees at probably about 18-20 MPH. The rear tire slid out from under me and I slid, a good long while. I instinctively slid on my stomach (I've been playing basketball since I was a kid) and held my hands, feet, and head up in the air. The only injuries I had was a bit of road rash on my one hand (from the initial fall) and a bit of road rash on my knee, also from the initial fall. My head never touched the ground. My chest was fine as I generally wear 2 shirts, with a dress shirt on the outside. The dress shirt stood up pretty well, however it was ruined. The place I slid was mostly smooth asphalt, so I was lucky there.

I have had other, less serious, falls without my helmet on. I tend to roll, if I'm headed in that direction, to avoid sliding on my head. I've flipped over curbs on my winter bike. I've fallen from pedalling too hard, which I also rolled away from. I know I can't rely on instincts to save me from a serious crash, but those are just my experiences. I've also been riding dirtbikes since I was 5, and have had plenty of crashes on those, all with a helmet on though.

Last edited by corrado33; 11-03-14 at 06:22 PM.
corrado33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:35 PM.