vol

What if one is riding on a bike path?

350htrr

And is riding a trike... How safe is it? It's up to you if you want to wear a helmet or not, it depends on your own risk assessment of the situation. But the fact remains that when head hits the pavement, it's better for said head to have a helmet on than not to have a helmet on... IMO

vol

I have addressed all the points you are making here.

350htrr

And now I have addressed all the points you are making here... Time to sit back and have a coffee... Our job is done.

vol

You haven't. Regardless, the fact remains that when head hits the wall while sitting back, it's better for said head to have a helmet on than not to have a helmet on.

The fact remains that when the body is being run over by a vehicle, it's better for said body to have an armor on than not to have an armor on.

350htrr

What? Coffee break over already? Dang it. Your what if's can go on endlessly, but my statement stands... It's a true statement. It is better to have a helmet on when head hit's anything... Nobody has ever said a helmet would help when run over by a vehicle....

rydabent

Since you dont seem to mind a "bump" on the head, why bother with a bike just grab a hammer and hit yourself.

asmac

Helmets are also an issue in the horse set: Equestrians At Higher Risk Of TBI Than Member Of Armed Forces

skye

That was rude, and typical of the level of intelligence of the pro-beer cooler crowd.

skye

An oldie but a goodie.

rydabent

That response if equal to the example given.

I guess it has descended to the the "beer cooler crowd" vs the greatest bike handlers in the history of cycling that never crash. So be it.

wphamilton

(About rotational injuries being more dangerous than "the bump on the head", and ineffectiveness of cycling helmets in mitigating them).

Speaking of which, I have been wondering about strapping on a bike helmet and training for tumbling and falls, with the helmet on. I have heard it advocated that learning martial arts falls or gymnastic tumbling is the best defense against suffering an injury during a crash. I happen to agree. But these helmets stick out on all sides - a lot. The potential issue is: you go into a shoulder roll for example and you're tucking your chin in on the opposite shoulder, to keep your head out of ground contact because there is little margin there. The helmet sticking out two inches or more may contact the ground (where your head wouldn't have), and the drag could cause it to rotate which is the cause of concussions or neck injury.

It occurred to me that I've never practiced these rolls or falls while wearing a helmet. My question is: what of the rest of you? Have you trained with a bike helmet on? Did it make for a difference in technique?

350htrr

Just because a helmet doesn't protect against everything is no reason not to wear one...Deciding not to wear one because you think your personal risk is small enough may actually be a good enough reason IMO. People have been killed/injured by seatbelts/airbags would you take them out of your car? Let's assume it wasn't illegal, you had the option...?

As for practicing falling, I wouldn't any more, maybe 30 years ago I would have considered it.

wphamilton

People have been killed/injured by seatbelts/airbags would you take them out of your car? - the issue is whether helmets increase the risk of rotational injury in some situations, so that's a poor comparison. Better is, would you put small children in front of airbags?

As for practicing falling, I wouldn't any more, maybe 30 years ago I would have considered it. - just age should not prevent someone from learning falls in a dojo. My question is, those who have trained and know how, what differences in technique did they find?

njkayaker

No, the issue is whether it matters (whether there's a positive overall benefit).

There's a fairly high probability that helmets contribute to rotational injury in some situations. We have no idea whether "some" is 1/1 or 1/1,000,000.

The whole point of that is that there are easy alternatives to that that are deemed better. You have no idea whether, in the absense of alternatives, small children would fair better or worse.

This is the specious argument that one can't use anything unless it's perfect.

wphamilton

Review the article that sky linked, and you'll see that the issue in that context is as I described and not at all about the "overall positive benefit".

It's not even legal to have small children in front of air bags, in this state, because of the danger. So evidently you are incorrect in your assessment of "the whole point", and ignorant of what idea I have about how children would fare.

There is also some work which suggests that most of the concussions suffered are due to rotational forces, so you are also incorrect that "we have no idea".

Was the point of your post merely to call an argument specious? Given that you were incorrect about the issue addressed in the study, about the dangers of air bags and the associated analogy, and about what is known about rotational injuries.

njkayaker

There where a lot of "maybes" in the article.

So, "life saving protection" in the "majority of cases considered" versus a "marginal increase in injury outcome" at "low speed linear impacts and the most severe oblique case" due to "linear and rotational accelerations".

Some states require you to use the easily-available alternative of putting them in the back seat and/or in a special child seat.

https://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/laws...e=child-safety

Anyway, children and airbags don't have any clear relevance to anything else. And whether you wouldn't something in one case doesn't mean you shouldn't in another case.

Anyway, airbags are designed (basically) for adults. Like adult-sized helmets are designed for adults. It's quite possible that a child would fair worse with an adult-sized helmet. But that isn't relevant at all to the adult.

Concussions are not all head injuries and concussions occur without helmets. You have no idea how many concussions are caused or made worse by helmets.

There's "some work" that "suggests" benefits to helmets too.

mr_bill

Incorrect.

Infants in *rear* facing seats may not ride in a front seat unless the vehicle has no passenger side airbag, or a mechanism to disable the passenger side airbag.

My son rode in a rear facing infant seat then in a front facing child seat, each was located in the front passenger seat. He did not die.

-mr. bill

wphamilton

There is also an issue addressed, and it is about the risk of rotational injury - not about "whether there's a positive overall benefit" as you suggested.


Delving into exceptions and specific laws sheds no further light on the fact that air bags pose a serious potential for injury for children and must be avoided.

It is a better analogy than seat belts because air bags are known to be harmful in some common situations. There is strong evidence that cycling helmets can be harmful, or at least of little safety utility, under some conditions.

No one said it was "all" of them - yet as I pointed out, some information suggests that most concussions are due to rotational forces.


That is also a true statement.

You seem to want to dive into a criticism of the article. Note that literally all that *I* said about this article was "(About rotational injuries being more dangerous than "the bump on the head", and ineffectiveness of cycling helmets in mitigating them)." to summarize it since skye didn't, for context of my question.

As skye said, it's an old study. Mostly meta, and there are more current studies. I'm not all that interested in rehashing it, or arguing about whether it pertains to "all concussions" or that we have "no idea" or whatever other absolutes are on your mind about it. I'm not usually so harsh, and I apologize, but you came on pretty strong there for someone getting it wrong in the particulars.

Back to my question.

Have YOU trained with falls and rolls, in martial arts or gymnastic tumbling? Have you tried it with a bike helmet on?

wphamilton

You could have been ticketed in Georgia then, unless there were no rear seats. The law requires that children under eight be in the rear seat, and also in an appropriate (for their size) booster or safety seat.

As I told the other guy, delving into exceptions in code doesn't change the facts.

mr_bill

No I could not have been ticketed in Georgia then.

The fact is, you got your facts wrong. Again.

-mr. bill

wphamilton

https://www.gahighwaysafety.org/camp.../ocga-40-8-76/

(B) Any such child shall be properly restrained in a rear seat of the motor vehicle consistent with the requirements of this paragraph. If the vehicle has no rear seating position appropriate for correctly restraining a child or all appropriate rear seating positions are occupied by other children, any such child may be properly restrained in a front seat consistent with the requirements of this paragraph;

mr_bill

May a child be properly restrained in a front seat?

The answer is yes.

Any questions?

-mr. bill

wphamilton

Yes, I was wondering whether you didn't understand "unless there or no rear seats" from my post, or " Any such child shall be properly restrained in a rear seat" from the Code, since you appear to be contentious about what this law means.

mr_bill

I absolutely understand what the law means. You however clearly do not.

-mr. bill