Advocacy & Safety - Article in the Jan./Feb. issue of Bicycling Magazine about helmets.

First let me note I am not spouting pro-helmet doctrine here. I am not saying everyone should wear a helmet, it is your choice simple as that. I am simply writting a thread on an magazine article & what my personal opinion & beliefes are as a result of the article. I am simply sharing information with you, not saying you have to believe or follow or share the same opinions & beliefs I do. So before you start an all out attack on this thread & the pro/anti helmet debate please understand what it is about first.

The article is in the Handbook section of the magazine & is titled "Skull Savers". It explains what each part of the helmet is & does.

The article also states "2/3rd's of cycling deaths are from traumatic brain injuries, according to the Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute, & at least half of those could be prevented with the right noggin protection." Some of these are the authors words by the way.

I truely believe this info. & is part of why I wear a helmet. Again I am not saying you should believe it either or advising you to wear a helmet.

In the explanation of the foam core it states how it works to protect your head in the event of an impact. It states that it "gives your head more stopping time - about 0.06 of a second more then a naked skull. That instant can be the differance between life & death." Again some of this is right from the article.

I believe this info. to be true as well & is a reason I wear a helmet. But let be clear one more time. I am not suggesting or advising anyone to wear a helmet unless you choose to. It is your choice not to or your choice to do so.

I do encourage everyone to read the article though if you have the chance to. But unfortunatly I do not have a link to post in the thread. I looked on Bicycling's web site & could not find the story. So you'll probably have to read form the magazine itself.

Now does everyone understand I am not touting a pro-helmet agenda here, before you get on the war path & yet another heated debate is created over this? This is purely for informational purposes only. Got it?

Personally I don't give a crap how you skew the statistics. In the type of accident *I'M* most likely to be involved in, a helmet will do little to nothing to help me. I'll pass.

If someone else feels they can't keep their bike upright, and are likely to fall off and land on their head (The EXACT type of accident that helmets are designed and TESTED to protect against) then fine, wear one.

Oh, and have a nice ride. :)

In the explanation of the foam core it states how it works to protect your head in the event of an impact. It states that it "gives your head more stopping time - about 0.06 of a second more then a naked skull.

I seen the article and was surprised with that .06 of a second figure. It doesn't sound like much does it? I never used to wear a helmet until I started commuting to work semi regularly. Now I like it and the mirror I attached to it. I figure if I do crash, it won't hurt as much. Now I know I also have .06 of a second longer to enjoy my ride before the pain begins!

Personally I don't give a crap how you skew the statistics. In the type of accident *I'M* most likely to be involved in, a helmet will do little to nothing to help me. I'll pass.

If someone else feels they can't keep their bike upright, and are likely to fall off and land on their head (The EXACT type of accident that helmets are designed and TESTED to protect against) then fine, wear one.

Oh, and have a nice ride. :)

I have 2 questions for you. What type of accident are you most likely to be involved in? What exact type of accident are helmets desigend & tested to protect against? Regarbding the second question I assume you mean the type of injury that could be caused in an accident.

Helmets won't stop the car from hitting you, but they will stop the pavement from scalping you.

The article also states "2/3rd's of cycling deaths are from traumatic brain injuries, according to the Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute, & at least half of those could be prevented with the right noggin protection." Some of these are the authors words by the way.


Do ya think, that maybe, just maybe, the Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute might be remotely biased in their numbers? If 2/3rds of cycling deaths are from traumatic brain injuries, what about the other 1/3rd where
death was not from a traumatic brain injury, and how many of that 2/3rds where there was a traumatic brain innjury, were the riders wearing a helmet at the time. Anyone who has taken a college statistics course can tell you that what is missing from a statistic is often more important then what is there.

I could say more, but I owe, I owe so off to work I go....

and also, how many of those 2/3 of cycling deaths were the results of impacts with motor vehicles and can a bicycle helmet prevent brain damage from a collision with a motor vehicle travelling faster than 14mph?

Did the article report that the BHSI mentions


Bicycle helmets are designed as a compromise between impact management, cooling, weight, cost and many other factors...The typical bike crash involves a drop to the pavement...The typical bicycle crash impact occurs at a force level equating to about 1 meter (3 feet) of drop, or a falling speed of 10 MPH...Most of the cases where the helmet's limits are exceeded involve crashes with cars.

and also, how many of those 2/3 of cycling deaths were the results of impacts with motor vehicles and can a bicycle helmet prevent brain damage from a collision with a motor vehicle travelling faster than 14mph?

Hey, even the coyote opens that tiny umbrella before the boulder lands on his head. It must help... he always comes back for more.

Admittedly a helmet is not going to help if you are creamed by a vehicle moving at high speed and hitting you directly... but that is not the only type of accident out there...

Fender benders are quite common amoung vehicles on the road... and a simple "bump" is enough to send a cyclist flying off their bikes, or even falling off their bike... in the case of these more common collisions, a helmet may indeed help.

But bottom line, it is the cyclists choice... and no law should be made effecting that choice.

A helmet may help in "typical" crash, for sure but that's a long way from saying, "2/3rd's of cycling deaths are from traumatic brain injuries, according to the Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute, & at least half of those could be prevented with the right noggin protection."

That's a pretty misleading pairing of information.

Nothing like yet another helmet troll to start off the bikeforum week...:(

... Anyone who has taken a college statistics course can tell you that what is missing from a statistic is often more important then what is there...

Gospel.


I could say more, but I owe, I owe so off to work I go....

:roflmao:

With me it depends but currently I wear a helmet since it's winter and quite icy. I fully agree with all the anti helmet arguments: i.e. the helmet does make me less likely to want to go into a store.

One convincing argument I saw once (some Web site from a guy working at one of the helmet testing labs) is that the helmet is supposed to help in a fall off a bicycle; taking under consideration solely the vertical drop height and gravity. If my front wheel goes in a rut while I'm going 40 km/h, the forward speed shouldn't matter in the helmet's ability unless I hit a bridge pillar: the vertical drop is the same hence the vertical speed at which I hit the ground is the same. The helmet will actually help me skid on the ground. If I happen to wrap my leg around the handle bars and my 40km/h forward speed is translated into angular velocity then I will hit the pavement much much harder: the helmet will not help.

So this is my thinking. Wonder if it's about right. Makes sense to me.

Nothing like yet another helmet troll to start off the bikeforum week...:(

You must not like the word helmet or any mention of it in general. So you post a response such as this. Ever hear "if you don't have anything nice to say keep your ****ing mouth shut?!" Well, follow that advice!

You must not like the word helmet or any mention of it in general. So you post a response such as this. Ever hear "if you don't have anything nice to say keep your ****ing mouth shut?!" Well, follow that advice!

He stated his opinion - deal with it by practicing what you so rudely attempted to preach. :rolleyes:

He stated his opinion - deal with it by practicing what you so rudely attempted to preach.

Instead of troll he should have said thread. Then I would not have taken such an offense to it & would not have posted anything about it.

If he wants to retract what he posted or change the wording then I'll retract what I posted.

http://homepages.ius.edu/RBMORGAN/Tantrum%20Teddy_files/image001.gif

http://homepages.ius.edu/RBMORGAN/Tantrum%20Teddy_files/image001.gif

Same is said about supcom. He *****ed & cried about it first.

He made an observation, you cried (and are still crying) about it. Freakin grow up already. You got anything else to add to your latest helmet troll thread?

I am not saying everyone should wear a helmet, it is your choice simple as that...

...(I'm) not saying you have to believe or follow or share the same opinions & beliefs I do.

...Again I am not saying you should believe it either or advising you to wear a helmet.

...But let be clear one more time. I am not suggesting or advising anyone to wear a helmet unless you choose to. It is your choice not to or your choice to do so.

I think it's pretty clear... no amount of disclaimers can prevent anti helmet sentiment from some at the mere mention of a helmet even possibly helping to prevent (or lessen) an injury. I guess that's what makes it so fun to read!:p

You must not like the word helmet or any mention of it in general. So you post a response such as this. Ever hear "if you don't have anything nice to say keep your ****ing mouth shut?!" Well, follow that advice!




Classy

I think it's pretty clear... no amount of disclaimers can prevent anti helmet sentiment from some at the mere mention of a helmet even possibly helping to prevent (or lessen) an injury. I guess that's what makes it so fun to read!:p

Why even worry about it... there is a sticky thread here on A&S and anyone wanting to know more about helmets can look up that thread. Those that don't like them have made their own personal choice.

Just let it go and walk away.

For the record, I do wear a helmet.

He made an observation, you cried (and are still crying) about it. Freakin grow up already. You got anything else to add to your latest helmet troll thread?

Whatever! :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I think it's pretty clear... no amount of disclaimers can prevent anti helmet sentiment from some at the mere mention of a helmet even possibly helping to prevent (or lessen) an injury. I guess that's what makes it so fun to read!:p
I think it's pretty clear... no amount of disclaimers can hide a dingy nanny's intent to troll the same ole issue for the umpteenth time. There isn't an iota of intent to help anyone with these endless trolls on the same subject, from the same source. It's all about browbeating; screw the alleged "disclaimers," they don't mean poop from the OP.

I'd actually like to read the article because there's a good chance of misleading information being spread hurting cycling advocacy in the name of trying to make some extra profit by fooling a bunch of gullible suckers to hand over cash for something that can't do what the gullible ones get the impression that it can.

Kinda works hand in hand with a lot of what Bicycling magazine stands for. Selling people something they don't really need.

Any thing in the article about the preception you give to other drivers.

How about a person wearing a helmet,
6 back lights, reflective ankles, reflective tape on bicycle, refelcitve sidewalls, a bell, a couple front lights, Ansi 2 vest, and refelctive shoes.

A helmet may help in "typical" crash....
I haven't been in that many crashes, but "typical" crashes often don't wind up with your head banging against the ground or metal.

However, it's often not the typical ones that cause the most damage.....

I haven't been in that many crashes, but "typical" crashes often don't wind up with your head banging against the ground or metal.

However, it's often not the typical ones that cause the most damage.....

I agree. After about 30 years of cycling and a whole lot of crashes, I've never bumped my head.

I also agree that when you really need real protection (beyond superficial protection) it's not typical and beyond the range of protection of a helmet

Explain something to me then. How is it with the crashes I've had where an impact to my head occured & the helmet was damaged, yet I walked away, & know that with out the helmet I'd had been killed or seriously injured a helmet is still not considered a good idea, by some, to wear? Because of the thought they are so called superficial protection, or are thought to not protect as well as they should or not at all.

All of the accidents were on the roadways & at 12 mph or greater, one was at 25 mph when I went down, though none of the impacts were directly from a motor vehicle one of them was the end result.

I am not the only one who has had this happen. There are others here who have had an accident, had an impact to their head, the helmet did it's job & protected the head but was damaged & the person walked away & would have been otherwise killed had they not had a helmet on.

I am not saying to anyone you should wear a helmet. But with all that has been said here about it, how can the belief continue that a helmet is just a waste of money & those of us who wear one are gulliable to think it will help protect us if there is an accident?

Yeah, yeah, yeah I know that good riding skills are what are needed to protect yourself from a crash in the first place. You're right & hooray for those of you who have never had a crash & it has been a very long time since you have. Would you like a cookie or something?

Keep in mind though you can not predict, foresee or prevent everything & sometimes anything that happens while riding a bike. Who was it that said when it's your time to die, it's your time, nothing you can do about it? Guess what? Something similar could be said about being involved in a bicycle accident. Sometimes there is no control over it. So while there are those that believe wearing a helmet gives people a false hope & belief that it ilil prevent any injury, I'd venture to say some of those that say that believe their safe riding skills will prevent any accident they could ever be involved in.

As to the above post (NC's)...depends on the type of damage to the helmet.

You have to remember that the helmet adds an inch or two to the size of the head and the helmet may come into contact with pavement that your head may not have without the helmet. (NO, not a made up or original idea, a helmet article I read a few months ago brought this up.)

Besides, what kind of helmet should you be wearing? Different situations call for different protection.

Smooth surfaced helmets may allow the head to slide and increase the possibility of facial lacerations.

Helmets with a aero-point at the rear, may snag and promote neck injury.

Plain styrofoam helmets actually offer better impact resistance, but promote neck injuries.

Hard shell helmets, with no vents, offer the best protection with the least amount of helmet failures. But, to get that better protection, you have to put up with the heat.

When riding off-road in thick brush, a full-face helmet is recommended to prevent limbs or twigs from gouging your face or eyes, as well as help prevent facial injuries in the event of a crash.

If you want to wear a helmet for that "accident" that you feel is inevitable and a helmet will protect you from, then you really need to decide what type of accident you want to protect yourself from.

BTW, all those comments are from a helmet information web page about helmets and the best protection. (And no, I don't have a link...it was a while ago also.)

Explain something to me then. How is it with the crashes I've had where an impact to my head occured & the helmet was damaged, yet I walked away, & know that with out the helmet I'd had been killed or seriously injured a helmet is still not considered a good idea, by some, to wear? Because of the thought they are so called superficial protection, or are thought to not protect as well as they should or not at all.

Anybody who has read your posts over the last year or so would probably agree, unanimously, that YOU NEED a helmet and would strongly encourage you to never be without one, on or off the bike.

Explain something to me then. How is it with the crashes I've had where an impact to my head occured & the helmet was damaged, yet I walked away, & know that with out the helmet I'd had been killed or seriously injured a helmet is still not considered a good idea, by some, to wear? Because of the thought they are so called superficial protection, or are thought to not protect as well as they should or not at all.

How do you know? The only way to really tell if a helmet is effective, is to have a repeatable event, both with and without. This could be accomplished using crash test dummies that measure the actual forces, but neither the pro Mandatory Helmet Law crowd or the anti Helmet crowd, are willing to undertake this kind of study, because they are both afraid they could be found out to be wrong.

Having said, that a helmet is cheap insurance, against incidents it is effective for, so I use one.

How do you know? The only way to really tell if a helmet is effective, is to have a repeatable event, both with and without. This could be accomplished using crash test dummies that measure the actual forces, but neither the pro Mandatory Helmet Law crowd or the anti Helmet crowd, are willing to undertake this kind of study, because they are both afraid they could be found out to be wrong.

Having said, that a helmet is cheap insurance, against incidents it is effective for, so I use one.

When I die, I'll donate my noggin to BF so you can all conduct the experiment. :eek: :D

+1 A sensless argument. Obviously if you hit your head and there's some sort of protection, it's better than nothing. If your head swells while riding and you don't want to wear one...that's your deal.

Gospel.



:roflmao:

Glad you liked that....

More on Statistics, when ever I see a statistic, I ask a question, what study is the statistic from, is a copy of the study available and most important who paid for the study.

Often someone like say, the Society for the Promotion of Mandatory Bicycle Helmet Laws Everywhere, will want statistics to promote their cause, and will hire someone to do a study, they will tell the folks doing the study, what they want proved, and the folks doing the study, will prove that point. Of course the SPMBHLE will then make this publically available to bicycling magazines, who will write articles, keeping in mind all the ad revenue from helmet manufacturers they will receive.

when ever I see a statistic, I ask a question, what study is the statistic from, is a copy of the study available and most important who paid for the study.

sort of like when a study says a helmet prevents up to 85% of head injuies and the test subjects were children falling from bicycles riding at 5mph in a park and then promoters use this number to claim the same protection for adults riding at 20 mph and colliding with motor vehicles driving at 30 mph?

You must not like the word helmet or any mention of it in general. So you post a response such as this. Ever hear "if you don't have anything nice to say keep your ****ing mouth shut?!" Well, follow that advice!
I'm very sorry is feel offended by my pointing out that your posting of yet another bicycle helmet thread is a troll.

But it is.

When I die, I'll donate my noggin to BF so you can all conduct the experiment. :eek: :D

ewwwwww, nasty!

Bicycle helmets are tested by mounting a weight with sensors into the helmet. Then dropping said helmet from 6 feet and measuring the forces transmitted to the weight. That's it. They are designed to withstand the types of falls that someone just learning how to ride a bike will be most likely to have.

Along the way they HAVE added the outer shell, but only because they found that the original helmets with no shell significantly INCREASED your chances of serious neck injuries, and actually increased your chance of dying in any kind of accident at speed.

My problem with the helmet nannies is that they insist on making biking seem to be dangerous.

IT'S NOT DANGEROUS.

Your chances of dying on a bicycle are HUGELY smaller than your chances of dying in a car. And you know what's REALLY cool? The more you ride, the LESS likely you are to die early!!!! And that's whether or not you wear a helmet.

WHY are you less likely to die at a young age? Well, number one, because the more you ride, the less likely you are to do something stupid on a bike, and get yourself killed. Then there's the health benefits... with heart disease being the number one killer in our country, anything that improves your cardiovascular system to the extent that bicycling does is GOOD! Plus, it can help keep your weight down, help prevent diabetes, and I'm sure there are a lot of other health benefits.

If I die on a bicycle, it WON'T be because I wasn't wearing a helmet. It will be because some self absorbed idiot in a car or truck wasn't controlling their vehicle properly and runs me over.

Edit: And yes, this whole thread is a troll. It's not like this debate hasn't been held OVER and OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER.....

You're not going to get me to change my opinion by spouting the exact same bad statistics over and over. And I'm obviously not going to get you to change your mind. So why the hell not just let the subject drop? Millions of people ride their bikes without helmets. All the helmet nannies in the country aren't going to change that.

Bicycle helmets are tested by mounting a weight with sensors into the helmet. Then dropping said helmet from 3 feet and measuring the forces transmitted to the weight. That's it.....

B, absolutly right. And I used to think that it's a silly test. However on page three of this thread I've posted why I think this might be sufficient. (I don't know how to link a posting).


They are designed to withstand the types of falls that someone just learning how to ride a bike will be most likely to have.

Yeah, see, even though I often change my mind on whether I want to wear a helmet, this has no longer anything to do with this argument. Please read my posting on page three and comment. I'm sorry I don't know how to link the particular posting nor remember the Web page quoted.

Your chances of dying on a bicycle are HUGELY smaller than your chances of dying in a car. And you know what's REALLY cool? The more you ride, the LESS likely you are to die early!!!! And that's whether or not you wear a helmet...

If I die on a bicycle, it WON'T be because I wasn't wearing a helmet. It will be because some self absorbed idiot in a car or truck wasn't controlling their vehicle properly and runs me over.

A lot of people say the smaller numbers of cyclists dying on the road has to do with the smaller number of cyclists on the road (as compared to motorists) but few acknowledge just how many people cycle on a regular basis.

When someone says to me that less people die while riding a bike because of those numbers, I always point out that the huge majority who die on bikes do so because they were riding on the wrong side of the road, going though stop signs, riding at night without lights or were drunk (or some other idiotic behavior), something I never do (even though I ride my bike all the time).

My problem with the helmet nannies is that they insist on making biking seem to be dangerous.
IT'S NOT DANGEROUS.

Your chances of dying on a bicycle are HUGELY smaller than your chances of dying in a car.
If I die on a bicycle,...


:rolleyes: Most of us are not worried about "going quick". It's that brain injury thing that'll keep you from working a job,engineering your toys. It's a life long injury. You can do as you like, nobody's forcing ya...except maybe your wife!

A lot of people say the smaller numbers of cyclists dying on the road has to do with the smaller number of cyclists on the road (as compared to motorists) but few acknowledge just how many people cycle on a regular basis.


Maybe what we need is a ratio for comparisions. #ofCars:#injuries/year comparing #ofBikes:#injuries/year. Yes it's true, you're probably safer with an air bag

My position on helmets is simple and, I believe, shared by most serious bicyclists and BF members:

1) I oppose mandatory helmet laws for adult cyclists.
2) I choose to wear a helmet at all times while cycling.
3) Well aware of my helmet's limitations, I ride as though I inadvertently left it at home, to avoid feeling invincible.
4) I concur that a defensive riding style and highly visible clothing contribute far more to one's safety than any helmet ever can.

Maybe what we need is a ratio for comparisions. #ofCars:#injuries/year comparing #ofBikes:#injuries/year. Yes it's true, you're probably safer with an air bag

and wearing a seatbelt.

if you think those two things are the same, you're not understanding the problem

My position on helmets is simple and, I believe, shared by most serious bicyclists and BF members:

1) I oppose mandatory helmet laws for adult cyclists.
2) I choose to wear a helmet at all times while cycling.
3) Well aware of my helmet's limitations, I ride as though I inadvertently left it at home, to avoid feeling invincible.
4) I concur that a defensive riding style and highly visible clothing contribute far more to one's safety than any helmet ever can.

+100

The keys being: opposing mandatory laws and making your own choices.

+100

The keys being: opposing mandatory laws and making your own choices.

+ 100%

The problem is if Bicycling is misrepresenting a problem and offering an inferior solution to it's large audience. I haven't read the article so I can't say, but if it is, it's a pretty sad state of affairs.

**just went upstairs to the domestictic terminal building to look at the magazine, and it's not too bad.

The statement, "2/3rd's of cycling deaths are from traumatic brain injuries, according to the Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute, & at least half of those could be prevented with the right noggin protection." is the biggest problem because they don't mention about 90% of those TBI deaths are the result of collisions with motor vehicles that the helmet is not designed for, but next to this claim is a description of just how the helmet is tested. Anyone with reasoning skills should be able to understand that a drop from 6 feet is not the same as being hit by a truck or car.

+ 100%

The problem is if Bicycling is misrepresenting a problem and offering an inferior solution to it's large audience. I haven't read the article so I can't say, but if it is, it's a pretty sad state of affairs.

**just went upstairs to the domestictic terminal building to look at the magazine, and it's not too bad.

The statement, "2/3rd's of cycling deaths are from traumatic brain injuries, according to the Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute, & at least half of those could be prevented with the right noggin protection." is the biggest problem because they don't mention about 90% of those TBI deaths are the result of collisions with motor vehicles that the helmet is not designed for, but next to this claim is a description of just how the helmet is tested. Anyone with reasoning skills should be able to understand that a drop from 6 feet is not the same as being hit by a truck or car.


The really sad thing is that Bicycling doesn't highlight why there are Bicycle deaths in the first place. Forget the helmet, which is much like a bandaid and only useful when and if one is falling... but what caused the falls in the first place? What can make cycling safer? Helmets do not cause safety, they are only a device to reduce certain head injuries.

The really sad thing is that Bicycling doesn't highlight why there are Bicycle deaths in the first place.

Well, that and the fact that it says a helmet can prevent 1/3 of TBI deaths. Even the BHSI that they quote says collisions with cars exceeds a helmets protective limits. They should have said that TBIs' to cyclists are almost always after a collision with a motor vehicle.