Advocacy & Safety - Helmets cramp my style: Part 2

Hey everyone, this thread is getting a bit too long to load well. If you want to start a new thread, feel free to do so.

East Hill

My first impression was that the (Spring Airheads...Helmets Cramp my Style) thread was simply shut down.

:wtf:

and I couldn't get my fix :twitchy:

but after I got up off the floor, I could see and understand that a 6 year, 200 page discussion might pose some logistical problems for the board.

Time to continue on here.

Is there really anything left to say? I'm going for a bike ride...

Is there really anything left to say? ...

Are you kidding? I'm just getting warmed up.

From the HCS thread,


...why use a bicycle helmet?...(because) if a car...knocks him/her off the bike... the bicycle helmet can save a life... without cars around, I would be willing to forgo the helmets on regular rides..

If you want to get good information, go to http://pubmed.gov and search the database for the latest research.

Well, I went to pub med and found (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1767006?dopt=Abstract)


...The large majority of pedal cyclist deaths are due to head injuries after collision with a motor vehicle...but current (helmet) models are not designed to withstand the impact of collisions with motor vehicles.

based on this good information, will John still be willing to forgo the helmets on regular rides?

Can we agree that helmets do provide some level of protection? If it's just from a slow-speed head-pavement crash, it's still protection, correct?

If we assume that helmets do provide a small level of protection, would it not also be safe to assume that some people have those types of crashes for which helmet use is designed?

Can we then assume that every cyclist is at risk of that type of crash? I'm not saying all cyclists will crash that way, but we are all at risk, just as we're all at risk of being hit by a car.

If we're all at risk for a specific type of crash for which a helmet could save our lives, would it not be prudent to wear a helmet?

I think that we can all agree that risk is part of life, so then the question becomes does cycling elevate a risk of head injury above that of any other situation. Is cycling risky enough to warrant the use of a helmet?

There is no doubt a helmet can provide a certain level of protection but it just seems there are many people who believe it can provide protection above what it is made to do and that the risks to cyclists are greater than they actually face.

I think that we can all agree that risk is part of life, so then the question becomes does cycling elevate a risk of head injury above that of any other situation. Is cycling risky enough to warrant the use of a helmet?

There is no doubt a helmet can provide a certain level of protection but it just seems there are many people who believe it can provide protection above what it is made to do and that the risks to cyclists are greater than they actually face.

So what are the drawbacks to using a helmet? I know that the HANS system was designed to restrain the head using a heavy race car helmet, but bike helmets have a minimal weight and I doubt the same types of injuries race drivers were facing also occur with helmeted riders.

My helmet probably isn't protecting me because of it's age,However, I feel that it is offering more protection than a helmet I won't wear.

So what are the drawbacks to using a helmet?

False security maybe. Misplaced priorities.

I don't believe there is anything wrong with wearing a helmet, it's more about the attitude towards them.

The police seem to be having doubts about our all-ages mandatory helmet law here in BC.

One of our province's major dailies has a cop columnist and he admits he's swayed by arguments about the ineffectiveness of wearing helmets and asks if it is time to reconsider this law.

http://www.theprovince.com/Cars/Much+ponder+over+mandatory+bike+lids/1582097/story.html

Much to ponder over mandatory bike lids

BY MARK TONNER, THE PROVINCE MAY 10, 2009

Police officers become accustomed to being labelled. This month I find I'm
wearing another, square on the forehead.

Apparently I'm a "Liddite." An unthinking proponent of mandatory bicycle helmet
laws.

I'm not sure I'm done with it yet, though I am willing to think. Bicycle helmets
don't offer genuine safety, according to the anti-lid set. Most bike fatalities
involve collisions with cars, not falls onto hard surfaces. Helmets are rated
for simple falls, not collisions at speed.

The natural response, a call for better helmets, is said to be misguided.
Studies on more robust motorcycle helmets show mandatory laws elevate crash
rates, even cause fatalities. Something in a false sense of security is said to
bring trouble, while an elevated sense of danger actually providessafety for the
helmet-free.

Helmet laws are said to cause perceptions of danger, making people afraid to
cycle. Fear-driven preference for auto transport brings congestion, raises the
risk to pedestrians, other drivers, and you guessed it -- cyclists. The fewer
cyclists on the road, the more dangerous it is for those who do ride.

Social engineers would have us trained from childhood, to want to ride, and to
obey the law when we do. They'd have motor vehicles made to slow down and
respect cyclists, rather than impose helmets on riders.

It's no surprise to see anti-liddites pointing to the Netherlands. Drug liberals
have been bowing that way for years, though the bicycling issue may benefit more
clearly from Dutch insight. They restrict auto access to residential and
shopping districts. They support public transit, subsidize cycling, and you
guessed again, they don't insist on helmets.

Almost half of Netherlanders pedal to work without helmets, yet the country has
a uniquely low rider-mortality rate. They've addressed the real problem, as they
see it. The cars.

The extreme side insists that mandated helmets equal legislated fear. Auto
manufacturers sell more cars when people fear cycling. Oil companies sell more
fuel, helmet manufacturers sell to a market held captive by regulation and fear.

Past a certain point, the anti-helmet manifesto reads like a Michael Moore
script. Cigarettes kill 400 times as many people as bicycles, but smokers aren't
made to use filters. Skin cancer kills ten times as many as bikers, but
sunscreen isn't compulsory.

Add an alien and we'd get David Duchovny back. For my part, I'll admit to being
swayed. Police officers aren't lawmakers, but we're being asked to think
carefully about enforcement of helmet laws as weather improves.

The new Burrard bridge bicycle lane will provide some interesting moments,
almost certainly. I can guarantee a major portion of bridge riders will be
helmet-free. It's the same everywhere. A sizeable segment within the cycling
community simply isn't buying into this law.

I think about proposed bicycle exchange programs, with cycles available in
strategic locations around town. Spontaneity would be entirely removed if one
needed a helmet to take advantage.

I think about the will of the community, both riders and drivers, and whether or
not this law expresses majority beliefs. Is it time to reconsider? Let me know,
at the address below.

Sgt. Mark Tonner is a Vancouver police officer, whose column appears biweekly in
the Province. His opinions aren't necessarily those of the city's police
department or board. Mark may be contacted at marcuspt@shaw.ca

The other day I went for a ride wearing my helmet as usual. About half way into the ride I took the helmet off as my head was a bit warm and then i rode the rest of the way without it. I have to say that I have been wearing a helmet for so long that I forgot the feeling of not wearing one. Feeling the wind on my hair and not having the weight of the helmet and annoying straps was absolutely great. I think I am going to go without my helmet for a while unless I go mountain biking or at night when I use a helmet light.

The bigger question on bike helmets from what I have seen is the disagreements between those who think that societies interests are better served by mandating helmet usage and those that believe opposite. That's a debate never to be settled because of the diverse attitudes about rule, regulation and governmental roles.

I think that we can all agree that risk is part of life, so then the question becomes does cycling elevate a risk of head injury above that of any other situation. Is cycling risky enough to warrant the use of a helmet?

There is no doubt a helmet can provide a certain level of protection but it just seems there are many people who believe it can provide protection above what it is made to do and that the risks to cyclists are greater than they actually face.

Can you answer one question for me? It is a yes or no answer, nothing complicated.

If you crashed, would you rather have a helmet on your head?

Can you answer one question for me? It is a yes or no answer, nothing complicated.

If you crashed, would you rather have a helmet on your head?

This ^^ is meant for entrapment, and doesn't qualify for a simple 'Yes or No' answer.

"Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s”

The bigger question on bike helmets from what I have seen is the disagreements between those who think that societies interests are better served by mandating helmet usage and those that believe opposite. That's a debate never to be settled because of the diverse attitudes about rule, regulation and governmental roles.

I believe personal freedom is greater than mandates when it comes to personal safety. I disagree with mandatory seatbelt laws, mandatory motorcycle helmet laws... I believe people should make their own choices.

I used to live in a town of 1800 people. I had to drive to get groceries and when I did, I never wore a seatbelt. I had talked to a cop about collisions and he told me, as far as he could remember, the only collisions that happened where between 2 people who were bored and decided to ram each other. Seat belt use was mandatory, but what purpose did it serve to wear one in town?

Now that I live in a city of 150,000 people, whenever I drive, I wear my seatbelt. The risks are greater and I'm less willing to rely on other people's driving skills.

Can you answer one question for me? It is a yes or no answer, nothing complicated.

If you crashed, would you rather have a helmet on your head?

Demanding answers to yes-or-no questions is the sign of trying to score points, not to have an honest discussion.

But I'll answer the question. If I were crashing, I would rather have a helmet on my head. A motorcycle helmet with full face protection, since motorcycle helmets are substantial enough to provide some protection.

hnsq, if you were crashing, would you rather be wearing a motorcycle helmet with full face protection or a bicycle helmet?

Can you answer one question for me? It is a yes or no answer, nothing complicated.

If you crashed, would you rather have a helmet on your head?

I have crashed both with and without wearing a helmet and I can say without hesitation that the helmet or lack thereof, made no difference.

That's not to say my in next fall a helmet could make a difference, but from what I've learned about cyclists that crash with helmets on and the nature of brain injury, the difference a helmet can make is so slight that I'd be as willing to accept the damage to my head as I'd be willing to accept that the damage to any other part of my body in a crash.

I've removed my helmet after 21 years of wear. I'm sure I will crash again. What does that tell you?

The bigger question on bike helmets from what I have seen is the disagreements between those who think that societies interests are better served by mandating helmet usage and those that believe opposite. That's a debate never to be settled because of the diverse attitudes about rule, regulation and governmental roles.

there have been studies that show the societal costs of imposing helmet laws.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17032-bicycle-helmet-laws-could-do-more-harm-than-good.html

Mandatory bicycle helmet laws could do more harm than good, a new study claims.

Helmet laws like those in effect in Australia levy a substantial cost on healthcare systems because savings from fewer head injuries pale in comparison to the costs incurred by decreases in cycling, a mathematical model concludes.

Can you answer one question for me? It is a yes or no answer, nothing complicated.

If you crashed, would you rather have a helmet on your head?

If you crashed, would you rather be wearing full body armor? Yes or no.

(Me personally, if I crashed, I'd rather be surrounded by layers or feather pillows. If I crashed, that is.)

If you crashed, would you rather be wearing full body armor? Yes or no.

(Me personally, if I crashed, I'd rather be surrounded by layers or feather pillows. If I crashed, that is.)

I'd prefer to be surrounded by some steel, maybe a "cage" if you will. I'd also like something soft that will absorb the impact of my body, a cushioned seat perhaps. And even better, a restraint device so that my body doesn't flail wildly around or prevents me from crashing altogether. If my bicycle had 4 wheels instead of two, I'd be less likely to fall over as well.

So what are the drawbacks to using a helmet?

Being casted in Spaceballs II:

http://www.ladyrattlerathletics.com/dark%20helmet.jpg

-Kurt

I believe personal freedom is greater than mandates when it comes to personal safety. I disagree with mandatory seatbelt laws, mandatory motorcycle helmet laws... I believe people should make their own choices.
.

that is fine...as long a people are mature enough to make their own choices and take responsiblity for rhe results.

Bottom line is that neither is true. Take teenagers and seat belts. Not wearing seatbelts is a major cause of death when kids are thrown from cars.

As for taking responsibilty if you choose not to wear a seatbelt or motorycyle helmet...are you prepared to pay for all of your medical expenses (even i you have insurance) and if permanently injured not take any govement support? Most people are not, so an individiuals freedom make come at a cost to all.

are you willing to take the responsiblity to the impact to your family if injured because you are exercising your 'freedom" by not using a seatbelt?

Will a bicycle helmet help in a major bike/car crash....maybe maybe not. Will it help with other crashes....in my direct experience I would say yes. I have done first aid on people who have crashed, both with and without helmets. The person with a helmet had a lot less injuries.

Same thing with skiiing. I absolutely miss the wind in my hair aspect of skiing fast without a helmet, but wear a helmet now after a couple of close calls that were not in my control.

No simple answer.... but good compromize is what is most typical...make bike helmet usage required for kids....and let them make up their mind after 18.....when theoretically the are more mature.

bottom line for me is the probabilities of having a crash, or hitting a head in a crash and the potential mitigation of injury provided by a helmet.

No doubt, they can reduce some injuries to a degree, but can they reduce them enough to make it worth the effort to wear one?

Some people think yes, others think no.

Children are not adults, but that's not to say some children are not more mature than some adults.

I'd say, it's far more productive to prevent injuries via responsible riding than wearing a helmet. If someone isn't responsible enough to ride safely, should the encouragement to wear a helmet be a priority over the encouragement to ride in a safe manner?

that is fine...as long a people are mature enough to make their own choices and take responsiblity for rhe results..

This line of thinking should also apply to the use of helmets while walking around busy cities. Or the use of helmets while doing chores about the house. Or the use of helmets when climbing stairs. Or the use of ... I hope you get the point. If you don't then here's some more: it should also apply to people that have body mass indices greater than a medically recognized threshold, it should apply to the consumption of trans-fatty acids (no more than one burger every 2 weeks please or you're irresponsible).



As for taking responsibilty if you choose not to wear a seatbelt or motorycyle helmet...are you prepared to pay for all of your medical expenses (even i you have insurance) and if permanently injured not take any govement support? Most people are not, so an individiuals freedom make come at a cost to all.


Are you exercising enough every week? If not then it's up to the government to make sure that you spend enough time in a mandatory, government approved gymnasium. It's your choice: act responsibly or else there are consequences for your actions young man.



are you willing to take the responsiblity to the impact to your family if injured because you are exercising your 'freedom" by not using a seatbelt?

Are you able to look your loved ones in the eye and tell them that you made choices which affect your health and safety to a much greater extent than the tiny, tiny risk of a dangerous bicycle accident? No? Not even if your little child tugs on your shirt sleeve and lisps: "Daddy, please, put down the beer and have a rooiboos tea instead. And while your at it you could lose a few pounds and stop riding that dangerous automobile into work every day." You monster.



Will a bicycle helmet help in a major bike/car crash....maybe maybe not.


The evidence is clear that it won't.



Will it help with other crashes....in my direct experience I would say yes. I have done first aid on people who have crashed, both with and without helmets. The person without a helmet had a lot less injuries.

I assume that's a typo. Your experiential anecdote is, I'm afraid, nearly useless for making any sort of judgement. That's not being rude, it's a simple statement that you need hundreds of thousands of examples of people falling with and without helmets in a variety of conditions in order to make any judgement. The countries and states which have imposed helmet laws allow us to compare before and after MHL and show that there is no clear benefit to wearing helmets.



No simple answer.... but good compromize is what is most typical...make bike helmet usage required for kids....and let them make up their mind after 18.....when theoretically the are more mature.
I think that's terrible when there's no clear evidence. Like any other medical intervention there are side-effects. For helmets these range from the strangling of children by helmet straps when they're caught in other objects, to the decreased use of bicycles among young people who then grow up to be non-bicycling adults, to a generalized misperception that helmets are a usefully protective safety device.

Helmet use ought not to be compulsory for any age group unless it is clearly shown that its benefits far outweigh its negative effects.

that is fine...as long a people are mature enough to make their own choices and take responsiblity for rhe results.

Bottom line is that neither is true. Take teenagers and seat belts. Not wearing seatbelts is a major cause of death when kids are thrown from cars.
I thought it was obvious I was talking strictly about adults. Apparently not. Sorry for the confusion.


As for taking responsibilty if you choose not to wear a seatbelt or motorycyle helmet...are you prepared to pay for all of your medical expenses (even i you have insurance) and if permanently injured not take any govement support? Most people are not, so an individiuals freedom make come at a cost to all.

are you willing to take the responsiblity to the impact to your family if injured because you are exercising your 'freedom" by not using a seatbelt?
Individual freedom always comes with a pricetag. Does that mean individual freedom should be removed?

As far as the family goes, I've always been bothered by that argument. It's as though your family has no say in what you do. If I tell my family that I'm not going to wear my seatbelt while driving 75mph, I would hope they would have some input into that.


Will a bicycle helmet help in a major bike/car crash....maybe maybe not. Will it help with other crashes....in my direct experience I would say yes. I have done first aid on people who have crashed, both with and without helmets. The person without a helmet had a lot less injuries.
Can you say both crashes were exactly the same? They happened at the same speed, the same rate of falling, the people had the same build, etc... I've crashed without a helmet and have seen people in much worse shape who had a helmet on, but that doesn't prove wearing a helmet is dangerous.



Same thing with skiiing. I absolutely miss the wind in my hair aspect of skiing fast without a helmet, but wear a helmet now after a couple of close calls that were not in my control.

No simple answer.... but good compromize is what is most typical...make bike helmet usage required for kids....and let them make up their mind after 18.....when theoretically the are more mature.
Again, it's about personal choices. If you feel safer wearing a helmet walking down a flight of stairs, please, wear a helmet, but it shouldn't be mandated.

bottom line for me is the probabilities of having a, or hitting a head in a crash and the potential mitigation of injury provided by a helmet.

No doubt, they can reduce some injuries to a degree, but can they reduce them enough to make it worth the effort to wear one?

Some people think yes, others think no.

Children are not adults, but that's not to say some children are not more mature than some adults.

I'd say, it's far more productive to prevent injuries via responsible riding than wearing a helmet. If someone isn't responsible enough to ride safely, should the encouragement to wear a helmet be a priority over the encouragement to ride in a safe manner?

CB, we're all human, and being as such, we make mistakes occasionally even while riding responsibly. Like you, I've crashed with and without a helmet, but in my case the outcome was far more favorable while wearing a helmet. Just recently had a local cyclist died from crashing in virtually the same manner as I did years back without a helmet, the difference was that the cyclist hit his head on a concrete sidewalk while I hit my head on the asphalt roadway. Stories like that only reinforce my beliefs of why I choose to wear a helmet every time I go for a ride on the bike.

I'd prefer to be surrounded by some steel, maybe a "cage" if you will. I'd also like something soft that will absorb the impact of my body, a cushioned seat perhaps. And even better, a restraint device so that my body doesn't flail wildly around or prevents me from crashing altogether. If my bicycle had 4 wheels instead of two, I'd be less likely to fall over as well.


maybe if they had something like they had in that Stallone classic, Demolition Man?

In it, Stallone's character John Spartan gets into a high-speed car accident during an electric car chase through the future streets of San Angeles. Instead of smashing to tiny bits, a foam fills the car and solidifies, saving his life and leaving him totally unscratched.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnyhkBU1yaw

CB, we're all human, and being as such, we make mistakes occasionally even while riding responsibly. Like you, I've crashed with and without a helmet, but in my case the outcome was far more favorable while wearing a helmet. Just recently had a local cyclist died from crashing in virtually the same manner as I did years back without a helmet, the difference was that the cyclist hit his head on a concrete sidewalk while I hit my head on the asphalt roadway. Stories like that only reinforce my beliefs of why I choose to wear a helmet every time I go for a ride on the bike.

Yes, we're human, and accidents happen but I have yet to see any data that comes close to indicating that these types of unexpected events happen to cyclists any more than to any others.

Further, helmets are made to absorb a certain amount of energy from a direct fall, not from a fall where there is a fair amount of forward momentum with the fall that can impact damage to the brain.

In this (http://www.cyclehelmets.org/papers/c2023.pdf) paper, it's explained helmets were never intended for adult cyclists traveling at high speed and that even when falling from a bicycle at a slow speed with little forward momentum it can't be said if the area of concern is brain injury, that a cyclist is any better off with or without a helmet.

True story, witnessed by a co-worker. I went to my locker at work the other day to retrieve something. For the last several weeks there have been chairs placed on top of the lockers by cleaners that moved them out of the way to buff the floor and they were not placed back down on the floor after the cleaning.

As I unlocked my locker, one of these chairs fell and hit me square on the head. I'm sure had I been wearing a helmet at the time, it would have crushed or cracked and if I was inclined to believe in a certain way, I would say that that helmet saved me or at least prevented a more severe injury.

As it was, my co-worker is well aware of my position on helmets so when I said, "I should have been wearing a helmet!", we both laughed.

Yes, we're human, and accidents happen but I have yet to see any data that comes close to indicating that these types of unexpected events happen to cyclists any more than to any others.

Further, helmets are made to absorb a certain amount of energy from a direct fall, not from a fall where there is a fair amount of forward momentum with the fall that can impact damage to the brain.

In this (http://www.cyclehelmets.org/papers/c2023.pdf) paper, it's explained helmets were never intended for adult cyclists traveling at high speed and that even falling from a bicycle at a slow speed with little forward momentum it can't be said that a cyclist is any better off with or without a helmet.

True story, witnessed by a co-worker. I went to my locker at work the other day to retrieve something. For the last several weeks there have been chairs placed on top of the lockers by cleaners that moved them out of the way to buff the floor and they were not placed back down on the floor after the cleaning.

As I unlocked my locker, one of these chairs fell and hit me square on the head. I'm sure had I been wearing a helmet at the time, it would have crushed or cracked and if I was inclined to believe in a certain way, I would say that that helmet saved me or at least prevented a more severe injury.

As it was, my co-worker is well aware of my position on helmets so when I said, "I should have been wearing a helmet!", we both laughed.

CB, I too have had things fall on my head over the years, been on the losing end in of a fight or two, but I have yet to have anything lay me out on the ground as the time I hit my head on the pavement without a helmet.

.

This line of thinking should also apply to the use of helmets while walking around busy cities. Or the use of helmets while doing chores about the house.
.

That is a vast over generalization that really has no meaning. Your are comparing activities that do not include significant speeds with one where 15 to 20 mph is common. Please note that my response was in regard to the opinion on personal freedom, including the usage of seat belts, helmets on motorcycles


.

Are you exercising enough every week? If not then it's up to the government to make sure that you spend enough time in a mandatory, government approved gymnasium. It's your choice: act responsibly or else there are consequences for your actions young man.


Are you able to look your loved ones in the eye and tell them that you made choices which affect your health and safety to a much greater extent than the tiny, tiny risk of a dangerous bicycle accident? No? Not even if your little child tugs on your shirt sleeve and lisps: "Daddy, please, put down the beer and have a rooiboos tea instead. And while your at it you could lose a few pounds and stop riding that dangerous automobile into work every day." You monster.




Not an invalid argument, but people do get punished if the are not in proper BMI....ie no insurance, higher costs. and yes for full disclosure, i do need to lose weight....but that is not an excuse not to wear a seat belt in a car or to put a bike helmet on which are simple, no pain actions.



.

I assume that's a typo.

I think that's terrible when there's no clear evidence. Helmet use ought not to be compulsory for any age group unless it is clearly shown that its benefits far outweigh its negative effects.

yep typo since corrected. Bottom line for me I have seen physical differences in similar injuries. I have also seen a teenage snow boarder with a severe concussion.....and a helmet that took much of the impact....the ER docs were pretty clear that the consussion would have been a fatality other wise.
agree this is small sample, not scientific.

I don't understand the assertion that that there is no evidence that helmets help at all. And what negative effects? A little hotter, some weight on your head?

IIndividual freedom always comes with a pricetag. Does that mean individual freedom should be removed?

As far as the family goes, I've always been bothered by that argument. It's as though your family has no say in what you do. If I tell my family that I'm not going to wear my seatbelt while driving 75mph, I would hope they would have some input into that.

.

The question is where done one persons personal choice end when it impacts another person? The reason there are mandatory laws for safety is that many people make decsision that impact others.

As for the family.....my is on me to lose weight (rightfully so) so I think your point is valid..they should be vocal, but families are not always with you in every instance and you described not using a seatbelt in town...based on a local LEO impressions....all it would take is one drunk red light runner to make a big mess....why not just wear the seat belt, they aren't really any hassle?





Can you say both crashes were exactly the same? They happened at the same speed, the same rate of falling, the people had the same build, etc... I've crashed without a helmet and have seen people in much worse shape who had a helmet on, but that doesn't prove wearing a helmet is dangerous.


.


Typo, since corrected...I was saying the person with the helmet had less injuries. Again not scientific but very small sample personal observation that wearing a helmet had direct injury prevention benefits. addtional story, same vein, my neighbor (5"7, 130 lbs , marathon runner) had a slow speed fall, where the bike essentially tipped (he was new to clipless pedals.....so we can get into the saftey of them :) ) slowly and hit his head on a curb.....his doctors opinion (and mine after looking at the broken,crushed foam) was the helmet prevented serious injury

not scientific, but more than enough for me. I just don't get the arguments that helmets have no benefit or negative benefit.

I do underestand you are saying it should be personal adult choice.

That is a vast over generalization that really has no meaning.

Hey, you started it. You jumped from bicycle helmets, which is the subject of this thread to seatbelts and god knows what else.



Your are comparing activities that do not include significant speeds with one where 15 to 20 mph is common.

Bicycle helmets are designed to be effective in "activities that do not include significant speeds". They are not designed to be effective at speeds much above 20 Km/h. Bicycle helmets, if they have any effectiveness in stopping injury for the parameters in which they are designed would also be useful for walking injuries and all those other ludicrous examples that I suggested. If we are going to save people from themselves then a great contribution could be made by introducing legislation (or the removal of health insurance and government care) which forces people to wear helmets while out walking, taking showers or other routing occupations which see many more people seriously injured than while cycling.



I don't understand the assertion that that there is no evidence that helmets help at all. And what negative effects? A little hotter, some weight on your head?

I don't assert that there is "no evidence that helmets help at all." It's more subtle than that. I assert that forcing populations to wear helmets had demonstrated no improvement in serious head injury rates in Australia, N.Z., and the more nanny-state provinces of Canada (Nova Scotia, British Columbia and Ontario IIRC).

Helmets are probably wonderful for preventing cuts to the scalp, tears of the scalp and bruises. They have not been shown to prevent rotational injuries or subdural haematomas ... the serious injuries.

The negative effects are that people don't like them, stop cycling and become less fit. There is also some suggestion that they may exacerbate the serious rotational injuries by increasing the effective moment of force on the head because the radius is increased.

This is all gone into in detail at cyclehelmets.org. I can't believe you'd be advocating mandatory helmet usage for anyone without having researched this first.

Hey, you started it. You jumped from bicycle helmets, which is the subject of this thread to seatbelts and god knows what else.

I can't believe you'd be advocating mandatory helmet usage for anyone without having researched this first.

Point....I was replying to the previous post the talked about freedom from mandatory usage laws including seat belts and motorcycle helmets.

I am noting that mandatory happens because many people do no make responsible decisions. The only mandatory for bicylist I advocated was for kids under 18....and when push comes to shove I care most about the dad law....my son knows his bike will be grounded if he doesn't wear his helmet. He does do big jumps :)



.
They have not been shown to prevent rotational injuries or subdural haematomas ... the serious injuries.

The negative effects are that people don't like them, stop cycling and become less fit. There is also some suggestion that they may exacerbate the serious rotational injuries by increasing the effective moment of force on the head because the radius is increased.

This is all gone into in detail at cyclehelmets.org. I can't believe you'd be advocating mandatory helmet usage for anyone without having researched this first.

Ok rotational...ie neck injuries do bike helmets help, probably not.
But, please show me details about how the don't help with head contact injuries? Have you ever seen a helmet after a hard fall....and see how it has crushed as designed, dispersing force? This argument does not track. and is does not track with personal expericence (even if small sample size)

the comments about don't like them smack of all the arguments people use about seat belt in cars, if a helmet stops some one from biking, they were looking for an excuse.

Ok we can play dueling websites..... http://www.bhsi.org/index.htm this has a helmet bias...but is upfront and to me seems to be less biased than your site is against helmets.

Choose not to wear a helmet or ...I am ok with that, once you are of a reasonable age to do so.

Non logical arguments to support not wearing helmets (people don't like them and stop biking) ..... does not compute

I am noting that mandatory happens because many people do no make responsible decisions. The only mandatory for bicylist I advocated was for kids under 18....and when push comes to shove I care most about the dad law....my son knows his bike will be grounded if he doesn't wear his helmet. He does do big jumps :)


That's not responsible either on his part or on yours. If he does genuine big jumps and lands on his SNELL or ANSI or even worse CPSC approved helmet then he's going to be effed up because that's outside of the limits of design for such helmets. Doing those jumps is an incredibly poor judgement on both your parts ... but I don't care ... it's a choice made by you guys and I do plenty of stuff which is risky in other ways. I'll be glad to see my tax dollars going to support him in the ICU.

But, your screwball sport has little to do in terms of risk with normal riding by non-risk seekers on public streets. Legislate yourself and your son, not me and my daughter.



Ok rotational...ie neck injuries do bike helmets help, probably not.


It's not just that they don't help: they may actually make things worse.



But, please show me details about how the don't help with head contact injuries? Have you ever seen a helmet after a hard fall....and see how it has crushed as designed, dispersing force? This argument does not track. and is does not track with personal expericence (even if small sample size)


Please, just go read the cyclehelmets website, or the earlier posts on this thread. Again I'm not saying that "how the don't help with head contact injuries" [sic] I'm saying that the only "head contact injuries" they help with are relatively trivial gashes and cuts. I'm arsed if I'm going to explain it to you personally when you should have done some minimum research before advocating draconian legislation.



the comments about don't like them smack of all the arguments people use about seat belt in cars, if a helmet stops some one from biking, they were looking for an excuse.


We can speculate all we want. The facts are the MHLs are correlated with a reduction of the number of riders. It seems highly likely that you'll be killing people from heart disease in order to avoid an imaginary threat of head injuries.



Ok we can play dueling websites..... http://www.bhsi.org/index.htm this has a helmet bias...but is upfront and to me seems to be less biased than your site is against helmets.

Yeah, the difference is that I've actually read the BHSI site and more because I'm genuinely interested in the truth wheereas its painfully obvious that you've neither read the BHSI site nor cyclehelmets.org.



Choose not to wear a helmet or ...I am ok with that, once you are of a reasonable age to do so.


There is no credible body of evidence which suggests that children are safeguarded by making them wear helmets. Your own post suggests that the ignorant believe that they are magic devices which protect children against "big drops" (bro!). Risk compensation at its finest. Now, go take a flying leap out of the lives of other people's children and look after your own (if you're capable of it which I doubt having read your missives).

I agree with RazrSkutr about the risk compensation, but that's about all I agree with him about.

Before you believe what is stated here, read what Nigel Mills, PhD, states about helmets he has researched in the Polymer Foams Handbook, Engineering and Biomechanics Applications and Designs Guide, at:

http://books.google.com/books?id=MjGg2DPFWCMC&pg=PA346&lpg=PA346&dq=mills+and+oblique+helmet+impacts&source=bl&ots=L_u_pkwIQH&sig=vdQQoI_rBtFjdaJcp9bbzYKXXw8&hl=en&ei=brkIStiuMJKKtgPBrdHrCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#PPP1,M1

Read the entire chapter on bicycle helmets, which is available here free from Google Books.

John

CB, I too have had things fall on my head over the years, been on the losing end in of a fight or two, but I have yet to have anything lay me out on the ground as the time I hit my head on the pavement without a helmet.

That may be, and I may have been lucky, but not only have I known people who have been laid out from a fall from a bike, they have been so while wearing a helmet and admissions records in hospitals show they were not alone.

The mechanisms of how those injuries occurred inside the skulls had not as much to do with the impacts to the outside of the skulls but rather the change in direction of the skull in opposition to the brains movement after the impact. The impact to the skull may have been mitigated, but the brain damage still occurred

I agree with RazrSkutr about the risk compensation, but that's about all I agree with him about.

Before you believe what is stated here, read what Nigel Mills, PhD, states about helmets he has researched in the Polymer Foams Handbook, Engineering and Biomechanics Applications and Designs Guide, at:

http://books.google.com/books?id=MjGg2DPFWCMC&pg=PA346&lpg=PA346&dq=mills+and+oblique+helmet+impacts&source=bl&ots=L_u_pkwIQH&sig=vdQQoI_rBtFjdaJcp9bbzYKXXw8&hl=en&ei=brkIStiuMJKKtgPBrdHrCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#PPP1,M1

Read the entire chapter on bicycle helmets, which is available here free from Google Books.

John

Just scanned the pages on bicycle helmets and noticed quite a bit of credence given to the Thompson, Rivera, and Thompson Seattle Harborview study commissioned by the Snell Foundation. It also cites BHSI.org

Big red flag here. The TRT study is one of the most flawed studies ever made and I personally emailed the Snell Foundation to ask why they commissioned this study. The Snell foundation said they wanted to commission a study that showed their standards were effective. Not to see if they were effective. They wanted a result and paid to get one. They hired an author who already had done helmet promotion work and he bent the study to make helmets look as effective as he could.

BHSI.org is blatentley helmet biased and knowingly spreads false information about the TRT study

That may be, and I may have been lucky, but not only have I known people who have been laid out from a fall from a bike, they have been so while wearing a helmet and admissions records in hospitals show they were not alone.

The mechanisms of how those injuries occurred inside the skulls had not as much to do with the impacts to the outside of the skulls but rather the change in direction of the skull in opposition to the brains movement after the impact. The impact to the skull may have been mitigated, but the brain damage still occurred

I'm not saying that helmets will keep someone from being seriously injured, it's just that I choose to wear a helmet based on my personal experiences with bicycle falls.
I've been mandated to wear a helmet on construction and longshoreman sites, but realistically, I know it won't be of any help if a 40+ ton load came crashing down on me, same with a bicycle helmet against a motor vehicle at freeway speed.

Just scanned the pages on bicycle helmets and noticed quite a bit of credence given to the Thompson, Rivera, and Thompson Seattle Harborview study commissioned by the Snell Foundation. It also cites BHSI.org

Big red flag here. The TRT study is one of the most flawed studies ever made and I personally emailed the Snell Foundation to ask why they commissioned this study. The Snell foundation said they wanted to commission a study that showed their standards were effective. Not to see if they were effective. They wanted a result and paid to get one. They hired an author who already had done helmet promotion work and he bent the study to make helmets look as effective as he could.

BHSI.org is blatentley helmet biased and knowingly spreads false information about the TRT study

That's funny, I can see him quoting Gregory et al. (2003), and himself for his and Gilchrist's work, but not Thompson and Rivera (I cannot see the references in my preview--two tries). I have several of Dr. Mills papers, including N.J. Mills and A. Gilchrist, "Oblique impact testing of bicycle helmets," International Journal of Impact Engineering 35 (2008) 1075–1086, and "Polymer foams for personal protection: cushons, shoes and helmets," by N.J. Mills, C. Fitzgerald, A. Gilchrist and R. Verdejo, Compsotise Science and Technology, 63 (2003) 2389-2400, and neither of these cite Rivera and Thompson. These are the articles which this book comes from. He may have cited Rivera and Thompson in the book, but as I recall he did so to say something about uncertainty, not to discuss the credibility of their work.

John

I'm not saying that helmets will keep someone from being seriously injured, it's just that I choose to wear a helmet based on my personal experiences with bicycle falls..

and that's fair enough. I would never say someone shouldn't wear a helmet.

That's funny, I can see him quoting Gregory et al. (2003), and himself for his and Gilchrist's work, but not Thompson and Rivera (I cannot see the references in my preview--two tries).

John

try page 348 John

That's funny, I can see him quoting Gregory et al. (2003), and himself for his and Gilchrist's work, but not Thompson and Rivera (I cannot see the references in my preview--two tries).

Yeah, it's very funny: it shows that you don't read the material that you point to in support of whatever you're arguing. It shows that you don't even know how to spell the name of one of the most notorious helmet researchers in the business.

Here's the quote for you so that you can read a tiny fraction of the book which you cited as somehow supporting your views (I'm sure you took a good look at their finite element analysis and concluded to your satisfaction that it made sense too):

"Polymer Foams Handbook p.348
14.7 Bicycle helmet effectiveness
The effectiveness of bicycle helmets has been assessed by epidemiological studies. Thompson et al.'s (1999) review of worldwide research concludes `Helmets provide a 63-88% reduction in the risk of head, brain, and severe brain injury for all ages of bicyclists. Helmets provide equal levels of protection for crashes involving motor vehicles (69%) and crashes from all other causes (68%)'. The Snell Foundation in the USA partly commissioned the Harborview survey of 527 helmets (Rivara et al., 1996). They comment `Brain injury increased very slightly with increasing (helmet) damage score up to the point where the helmet received catastrophic damage. Then the injury rates shot up dramatically.' This means that any impact, which does not cause the bicycle foam to completely crush, will only cause a minor head injury."

So, apparently your favorite piece of research you have not read cites the notorious "88%" statistic with no critical commentary. Not very reassuring.



I have several of Dr. Mills papers,


Awesome. Try reading them and getting a scientist to explain them to you now.

The question is where done one persons personal choice end when it impacts another person? The reason there are mandatory laws for safety is that many people make decsision that impact others.


I think you just answered your own question; when one's personal choice impacts the freedom of another. I think we as a society should absorb the impacts of one's personal freedoms, that is, if you decide not to wear your seatbelt and end up have huge medical bills. I think we should and I think we can. Like you said, however, when peoples decisions start to impact the personal freedoms of others, that is when laws should be enacted.

try page 348 John
Actually, I've tried three times and my view goes only to page 347, stating "some pages are left out of this view." I did look.

Even while citing Thompson and Rivara, he mostly cited his own research on the helmets. This shows that the horizontal forces are not much of a factor (page 345, bottom of the page), that "the compressive forces are spread over a large region of the helmet liner, at peak of the direct impact as in EN 1078..." that the pattern is complex due to the ventilation holes (pages 344-5), and that "If a cyclist falls forward, striking the front of the helmet on the road, the frictional forces on the headform act to prevent the face rotating toward the road."

As I stated on the other thread, newer research is somewhat troubling about helmet fit.

Inj Prev. 2009 Apr;15(2):125-31.Click here to read Links
A systematic review of correct bicycle helmet use: how varying definitions and study quality influence the results.
Lee RS, Hagel BE, Karkhaneh M, Rowe BH.

O'Brien Centre for the Bachelor of Health Sciences Program, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

BACKGROUND: Bicycle helmets effectively reduce the risk of bicycle-related head injuries and trauma; however, they must fit properly to be effective. Little is known about the prevalence of correctly worn helmets and factors associated with proper helmet use. OBJECTIVE: To examine proper bicycle helmet use through a systematic review. METHODS: Comprehensive searches of electronic medical databases were performed, and completed by grey literature and reference list checks to identify eligible studies. Studies eligible for inclusion had to involve cyclists and report on the prevalence of correct or incorrect helmet use. Two reviewers independently selected studies and data were extracted regarding the prevalence and factors influencing proper helmet wearing of cyclists. RESULTS: An inclusive search strategy led to 2285 prescreened citations; 11 of the studies were finally included in the review. Overall, correct helmet use varied from 46% to 100%, depending on the criteria used by researchers to define proper helmet use; stricter criteria reduced the proportion of properly worn helmets. Adulthood, female sex and educational interventions were associated with correct helmet use in some studies. Self-reported poor helmet fit (OR = 1.96; 95% CI 1.10 to 3.75), posterior positioning of helmet (OR = 1.52; 95% CI 1.02 to 2.26) and helmet loss in crash (OR = 3.25; 95% CI 1.82 to 5.75) increased the risk of head injury. In addition, educational programmes on helmet use in schools increased correct helmet use among schoolchildren. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review outlines the current state of the literature including the variability in research methodology and definitions used to study proper helmet-wearing behaviour among cyclists.
So we who choose to wear a helmet need to pay particular attention to the fit, as the odds ratio of 1.96 for a poorly fitting helmet means that it has lost its protective effect. An odds ratio over 1.00 is not protective, whereas an odds ratio below 1.00 shows protective effects. By the way, to me that means that the odds ratio without a helmet too as high or higher than that of a poorly fitted helmet.

John

Yeah, it's very funny: it shows that you don't read the material that you point to in support of whatever you're arguing. It shows that you don't even know how to spell the name of one of the most notorious helmet researchers in the business.

Here's the quote for you so that you can read a tiny fraction of the book which you cited as somehow supporting your views (I'm sure you took a good look at their finite element analysis and concluded to your satisfaction that it made sense too):

"Polymer Foams Handbook p.348
14.7 Bicycle helmet effectiveness
The effectiveness of bicycle helmets has been assessed by epidemiological studies. Thompson et al.'s (1999) review of worldwide research concludes `Helmets provide a 63-88% reduction in the risk of head, brain, and severe brain injury for all ages of bicyclists. Helmets provide equal levels of protection for crashes involving motor vehicles (69%) and crashes from all other causes (68%)'. The Snell Foundation in the USA partly commissioned the Harborview survey of 527 helmets (Rivara et al., 1996). They comment `Brain injury increased very slightly with increasing (helmet) damage score up to the point where the helmet received catastrophic damage. Then the injury rates shot up dramatically.' This means that any impact, which does not cause the bicycle foam to completely crush, will only cause a minor head injury."

So, apparently your favorite piece of research you have not read cites the notorious "88%" statistic with no critical commentary. Not very reassuring.



Awesome. Try reading them and getting a scientist to explain them to you now.
No, it only shows that Google Books decided to delete that page from my view. As I stated in the other thread, much of this "debate" is pretty well settled in the scientific and medical communities.

John

No, it only shows that Google Books decided to delete that page from my view.

Yeah, but you read it before you posted the link surely :roflmao2: and during that reading you would have noticed that their entire commentary on the usefulness of bicycle helmets in preventing serious head injuries approvingly cites the well-debunked Rivara studies :D



As I stated in the other thread, much of this "debate" is pretty well settled in the scientific and medical communities.


Yes, you state a lot of stuff and it's becoming clearer and clearer that most of what you state is demonstrably false. This is another example (even if it meant anything which it doesn't. Doctors by-and-large know next to nothing about statistics and the only doctors that are relevant for expert opinion and authority in this debate are those that are trained in epidemiology and analysis of medical trials). The same holds for many if not most engineers (who are in general not scientists but technologists).

Those capable of analyzing the evidence on a statistical level have got anything but consensus about helmets. That's why there's a debate.

... much of this "debate" is pretty well settled in the scientific and medical communities.

John

Dr. Michael Schwartz, neurosurgeon and member of Canadian Standards Association Committee establishing helmet standards (he would be part of the scientific and medical community, wouldn't he?) has said,

" . . helmets will mitigate the effects of falling off your bicycle and striking your head . . . If a cyclist is accelerated by a car, then the helmet will not work and will not prevent a severe or even fatal injury."

Mayer Hillman, a Senior Fellow Emeritus since 1992 at the Policy Studies Institute does not support the use of helmets and,

Frank Krygowski, Professor of Mechanical Engineering Technology, Youngstown State University, Ohio, USA, Shane Foran, MSc and Safety Analyst, Bill Curnow, retired scientist and policy adviser, Dr Nigel Perry Senior Fellow, University of Canterbury, Dr Peter Ward, MB.BS DCH DRCOG MRCGP GP Principal, Gateshead, England, Dr Richard Keatinge GP, Consultant in Public Health Medicine, Dr Dorothy L Robinson, Senior Statistician, University of New England, Brian Walker Director, Head Protection Evaluations, UK, Dr Peter Keller, Wellington Hospital, New Zealand, Jean-René Carré, Emeritus Directeur de Recherches, Institut National Recherche & Etudes sur les Transports et leur Sécurité, France, Gerald J S Wilde, Ph.D., Emeritus Professor of Psychology, Queen's University, Ontario, Canada, Charlie Lloyd Transport Researcher, London Metropolitan University, England, Malcolm Wardlaw, BSc, MBA Consultant on Cycling, Health and Safety, Edinburgh, Scotland

have all spoken out on the inflated claims of helmet proponents.

I could add many more names of members of the scientific and medical communities, but I think you get the idea that there is more than just one side to the issue.

I have crashed both with and without wearing a helmet and I can say without hesitation that the helmet or lack thereof, made no difference.

That's not to say my in next fall a helmet could make a difference, but from what I've learned about cyclists that crash with helmets on and the nature of brain injury, the difference a helmet can make is so slight that I'd be as willing to accept the damage to my head as I'd be willing to accept that the damage to any other part of my body in a crash.

I've removed my helmet after 21 years of wear. I'm sure I will crash again. What does that tell you?

This tells me you know very little (or ignore) facts on how fragile a human skull is. Even if it makes very little difference (which it might), wearing a helmet (NOT manditory helmet laws) has absolutely no downside.

This tells me you know very little (or ignore) facts on how fragile a human skull is. Even if it makes very little difference (which it might), wearing a helmet (NOT manditory helmet laws) has absolutely no downside.

Sure it does. If I wear a helmet, I get helmet hair, something I don't appreciate taming at work. Most helmets have that little pad right in the front which helps direct sweat into the eyes. That's a downside. During intense exercise, my scalp itches. With a helmet, I have difficulty scratching and start to get annoyed pretty quickly.

This tells me you know very little (or ignore) facts on how fragile a human skull is. Even if it makes very little difference (which it might), wearing a helmet (NOT manditory helmet laws) has absolutely no downside.

Oh, I think I have a pretty good idea what a skull can and cannot take and as I've stated several times before, I have no problem if someone wants to voluntarily don a lid but I don't know if you really want to say there is no downside to wearing a helmet.

You may not see any apply to you or others you may know, but you can't deny there has been more than a little research done on risk compensation and that does show downsides to some safety measures. It's been shown people take greater risks when they feel safer, risks that often exceed the safety devices benefits.

There is also research that shows there is some question as to the increased mass of a head wearing a helmet contributing to the torque forces to blood vessels and the brain in an impact.

These points may not mean anything to you, but that's not to say they don't mean anything to others

The question is where done one persons personal choice end when it impacts another person?

so how would someone's choice to not wear a helmet impact another person in a way that would be any different from another's choice to do something else that could be described as, less than optimal?

Seems to me that's a pretty slippery slope and these choices can include pretty much anything and everything.