Advocacy & Safety - A type of brain injury that could be made worse by wearing a bike helmet

A few years ago I flew over my handlebars while cruising at about 25 mph. I landed head-first on the road and proceeded to do three cartwheels (per a witness). I was wearing a helmet at the time. It got scuffed up and cracked, but it stayed on, held together, and did its job. Unfortunately, I was knocked out cold and was looking pretty lifeless - other than a few grand mal seizures. I spent three days in a coma and ultimately I was diagnosed with Diffuse Axonal Injury or DAI. Most people with DAI are vegetables until they die. I was lucky.

I had what is called a closed-head traumatic brain injury. My skull was perfectly intact. (I'm still pretty - to quote Ali.) The damage to my brain was the result of rapid angular acceleration. In essence, my head suddenly rotated when my helmet hit the pavement. If you ever watch a plane's wheel make contact with the ground when it's landing, you get an idea how your head would experienced a rapid acceleration in a case like this.

The rotation/acceleration generated shearing forces that tore up bits of my brain. There was bleeding here there and everywhere inside my head.

I'm an engineer, so I've given this a little analysis...

The helmet effectively increased the twisting force that was spun into my brain in two ways:

1) The helmet "grabbed" the pavement better than my scalp would have. (Without the helmet, a piece of my scalp might have been ripped off. Not pretty, but it's better than a large torque causing a TBI and being a vegetable for life.)

2) The helmet increased the length of the moment arm that the friction force acted through. This resulted in a greater torque and an increased angular acceleration of my head.

My helmet resulted in a more severe twisting force being cranked into my head by the impact. I'm very confident that in my case, my helmet exacerbated my injury.

For many or most accidents, it's likely that a helmet reduces the severity of an injury. But there are exceptions.

I would love to know if any of the helmet manufacturers have considered this scenario and if they have determined how frequently this type of injury happens to crashing bike riders wearing helmets.

A "hard" shell which would have less friction effect with the road would have reduced this type of injury. I have had no similar experiences. There are also rare cases where seatbelts have aggravated injuries in cars.

I think what you may have missed in your calculations is that, in order for the helmet to'grab' the pavement, there had to be significant force involved in the helmet/asphalt interface -- likely enough force to crack and displace bone, not just remove scalp. So you would have been left with two choices -- where you are, or vegetative/deceased after having some brain matter ooze out of the open skull fracture.

Not saying this as an absolute, of course, but the odds are pretty remote against the helmet making it worse. Now, MOTORCYCLE helmets, the full-face type, have been proven to be deadly in a 'faceplant' type of accident, as the impact is transferred directly from the helmet to the jawbone, effectively locking it in place, and rotating the skull away from the spine -- severing the spinal cord. (That's just a bit of barely related info, for no special reason.)

This sounds like a good argument for a spherical helmet, such as my Giro Xen, rather than an aerodynamic teardrop.

Robert Hurst talks a little about this type of injury in The Art of Urban Cycling... a good introductory discussion. What happens in many cases is that the vents on many of the higher-end helmets can catch on the pavement can create torsion that aggravates neck and spinal injuries. Bike helmets are designed and tested for direct impact, intending to protect against skull fractures and concussion... but hitting the ground at speed can do other types of damage.

The Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute recommends a helmet that uses a substantial amount of foam, as well as not a whole lot of venting... something more like the Bell Citi or Metro models.

How were you able to conclusively determine the brain injury was caused by rotation as a result of the helmet "grabbing" the asphalt. Its seems just as plausible that the injury was caused by the sudden deceleration caused by you hitting the pavement head first after the endo.

Glad to hear that you are ok.

To me, this reads as if the OP is a first rate social engineer.

I think what you may have missed in your calculations is that, in order for the helmet to'grab' the pavement, there had to be significant force involved in the helmet/asphalt interface -- likely enough force to crack and displace bone, not just remove scalp. So you would have been left with two choices -- where you are, or vegetative/deceased after having some brain matter ooze out of the open skull fracture.

Not saying this as an absolute, of course, but the odds are pretty remote against the helmet making it worse. Now, MOTORCYCLE helmets, the full-face type, have been proven to be deadly in a 'faceplant' type of accident, as the impact is transferred directly from the helmet to the jawbone, effectively locking it in place, and rotating the skull away from the spine -- severing the spinal cord. (That's just a bit of barely related info, for no special reason.)

Also consider that a helmet can increase the peak force of impact. Imagine that you fall sideways, so that your shoulder hits the ground first. Your neck head approximately pivots about a point at the base of your neck. This means that your shoulder stops when it hits the ground and your head continues to rotate. For most people, the neck will bend until your ear hits your shoulder. The scalp will just touch the ground at a skimming angle. I would imagine that this is not merely a coincidence of human anatomy, but a product of millions of years of experience falling out of trees. If you add an extra 1.5 inches of radius around your head, now the shoulder hits the ground, and the arc of the larger head+helmet goes directly into the ground rather than into your own shoulder.

I imagine that this factor may bias some of the stories of, "My helmet took a huge impact and shattered. Surely I would have died otherwise" Without the helmet, there may not have been any great impact. Unless you fall backwards onto the back of your skull, head first into the ground like a lawn dart, or there is some hard object sticking up, it is difficult for the ground to deliver a crushing blow to your skull. These are all very possible situations to have in a bad crash, but not the most likely.

Also, to the OP, remember that you are still dealing with a finite amount of energy when you talk about increasing lever arms. The longer the lever arm the greater the torque, but the lower the rotational velocity for the same situation. If your scalp caught the ground like a helmet, there may be less torque, but it could spin your head about much faster, delivering the same amount of energy to the brain. The argument is whether the scalp-pavement interface, delivers more rotational momentum to your brain than the helmet-pavement-head interface.

I would think there is very little difference in the torque applied to the head when wearing a helmet vs non helmet. For one thing the helmet isnt very thick so it adds very little to the radius from the pivot point. Second most helmets have the smooth outer coating so unless there was something sticking out of the road to catch in a vent it would tend to slide arond the road easier than your skin/hair. My bet is that without the helmet your skin would have dug into the road and tore it open pretty good, probably even damagng the bone under and still rotate your head and flip you over as happened with the helmet. You would have more likely sustained more injuries.

I don't think this is really cause to not wear a helmet. This type of brain injury seems rare... but then again, brain injuries are rare to begin with.

The real key to preventing these types of injuries, is helping riders learn how not to flip over their handlebars and to prevent other serious types of crashes. Its crash prevention over injury mitigation.

Seems backwards we focus so much in this forum on helmets, yet, there isn't very many good discussions about safe bicycling techniques, avoiding crashes, etc.

Grease your helmet.

-Kurt

twisting and body parts never has a good outcome. my tibia broke because it was twisted like a pencil.

glad you recovered enough to analyze the accident! any side effects that lasted until now?

Check out "Blowing the Lid Off" in motorcyclist magazine back in about 2005. That was a very indepth article about TBI and helmets that should give you plenty to think about, even if they're motorcycle helmets.

This issue has been discussed in detail on the Helmets Cramp my Style thread. (part 2, for sure. It's possible it was discussed in part 1. Hasn't come up yet in part 3)

It goes hand in hand with the point that no helmet can prevent concussion and speaks specifically to the point of brain injury, which I believe, is what is of prime concern to cyclists. I don't believe cuts and scrapes are thought of as nearly as serious as brain injury is.

There have been many links provided and a few personal examples of DAIs devastating effects.

What someone should design is something like the avalanche airbag. It is a really expensive backpack for backcountry skiing that inflates when the skier pulls the ripcord. The big balloon helps keep their head above the snow and pushes them to the surface.

Well imagine the same sort of thing that inflates when it detects that you enter free fall (flying through the air and nothing resisting the force of gravity). It could stabilize your neck a bit and and cushion impact to your head, spine, and any vital organs. The large volume would also increase your drag and dissipate some of your kinetic energy as you fly through the air.

I don't have time to make a full contribution to this thread.

I will only point out that you absolutely cannot judge the "smoothness" or "slipperiness" of a helmet by running your fingers across the shell. Depending on the material that it interacts and the pressure it is subject to, the helmet may generate a completely unpredictable level of friction.

Point. However, NOTHING is absolute, so let's ease off of that, ok? Everyone, me included?

...I would love to know if any of the helmet manufacturers have considered this scenario and if they have determined how frequently this type of injury happens to crashing bike riders wearing helmets.

The manufacturers have known about this mechanism since it's been understood for a long time. Designs have been developed that could possibly reduce this type of injury but have been rejected by manufactures because they would be too complex and expensive to make. As a result, a couple of small companies have tried to sell these, better designed helmets but with limited results.

Current manufacturers are doing well with the simple design they already have. They've managed to convince the public that these helmets are "safe" and that they "save lives" so there is no need to improve on design as long as the public is already sold on it.

My cousin has DAI. You sound like you got very lucky.

Most people with DAI are vegetables until they die.

Really? I thought that DAI was just a description of a mechanism of axon damage that could be experienced as a spectrum of problems[1] ranging from some functional problems through to vegetative coma. The same citation also claims that DAI is more common in road-traffic accidents than simple falls (making your case rarer.)



I had what is called a closed-head traumatic brain injury.

I've got to say that your post reads as though you've made an incredibly good recovery. I'm glad for you.



I'm an engineer, so I've given this a little analysis...

The helmet effectively increased the twisting force that was spun into my brain in two ways:

1) The helmet "grabbed" the pavement better than my scalp would have. (Without the helmet, a piece of my scalp might have been ripped off. Not pretty, but it's better than a large torque causing a TBI and being a vegetable for life.)

2) The helmet increased the length of the moment arm that the friction force acted through. This resulted in a greater torque and an increased angular acceleration of my head.

My helmet resulted in a more severe twisting force being cranked into my head by the impact. I'm very confident that in my case, my helmet exacerbated my injury.


It sounds plausible, but I don't see how you can be any more confident that it's correct than the people that claim that a "helmet saved my life." On the Helmets Cramp My Style thread that closetbiker posted about one of the contributors is fond of quoting a paper by Mills et al which claims to show that the increased rotation due to a helmet is negligible[2]



For many or most accidents, it's likely that a helmet reduces the severity of an injury.

That's an assumption that is completely at odds with the data gathered in Australia over the past decade. There's a further problem in that you're lumping together all sorts of head injuries: it may be true that helmets can prevent tears to the scalp, but it remains to be shown that they prevent the sort of life-threatening problems you've experienced.



I would love to know if any of the helmet manufacturers have considered this scenario and if they have determined how frequently this type of injury happens to crashing bike riders wearing helmets.

Wow, almost reads like a viral-marketing exercise for the Phillips helmet[3]. ;)

1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1031929/

2. Mills, N.J. & A. Gilchrist. International Journal of Impact Engineering Volume 35, Issue 9, September 2008, Pages 1075-1086

3. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn418-soft-hat.html

I think what you may have missed in your calculations is that, in order for the helmet to'grab' the pavement, there had to be significant force involved in the helmet/asphalt interface -- likely enough force to crack and displace bone, not just remove scalp.

Wrong. Try again.

Look at all the armchair physicists!

(I keed, I keed)

Lets see... a bit of digging through the thread and I pulled up (HCS pt. 2)...

Diffuse axonal injury is one of the most common and devastating types of traumatic brain injury. It occurs in about half of all cases of severe head trauma and also occurs in moderate and mild brain injury.

DAI is the result of traumatic shearing forces that occur when the head is rapidly accelerated or decelerated. It usually results from rotational forces or severe deceleration. Vehicle accidents are the most frequent cause of DAI; it can also occur as the result of child abuse such as in shaken baby syndrome. The violent shaking of an infant that causes shaken baby syndrome commonly manifests as diffuse injury.

Concussion, is the most common type of traumatic brain injury. It may be caused by impulsive forces, in which the head moves without itself being subject to blunt trauma. The amount of rotational force is thought to be the major type of force to cause concussion and the largest component in its severity. Studies with athletes have shown that the amount of impact force and the location of the impact are not necessarily correlated to the severity of the concussion or its symptoms.

and from the New England Journal of Medicine:

Mechanism of Concussion.

Biomechanical investigations dating back to the beginning of the 20th century suggest that concussion results from a rotational motion of the cerebral hemispheres in the anterior–posterior plane, around the fulcrum of the fixed-in-place upper brain stem...Concussions as portrayed in movies and cartoons, in which the back of the head is struck with a blunt object and no motion is transferred to the brain, are implausible. The modern view is that there is disruption of the electrophysiological and subcellular activities of the neurons of the reticular activating system that are situated in the midbrain and diencephalic region, where the maximal rotational forces are exerted. (http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/356/2/166)



JWC posted in part 1 of the original HCS thread and related his story in several posts...


I had a car wreck in 1998. As a result, I sustained a brain injury. At the accident scene, I declined a trip to the emergency room, since I was thought to be uninjured and the police thought so too. You see, my head didn't impact anything, but a few days later, I would find that I did indeed sustain a serious injury...to my brain. It wasn't until it was explained to me by a specialists that I understood how the brain is injured.

Here is how the specialist explained it to me when I told him that I didn't hit my head, so didn't believe there was any injury.

Break an egg into a bowl. Move the bowl rapidly and you'll see the egg move in the opposite direction, hitting the side of the bowl. Stop the bowl suddenly and the egg will hit that side of the bowl. That is how your brain reacts inside your skull.

It amazes me that no matter how many times I repeat the story of my brain injury and how it occurred, everyone just ignores it...Again, my injury occurred without ANY impact at all. Just a sudden jolt... My accident involved being broadside by another car going about 20 miles per hour. I had a whole car absorbing the direct impact, but it couldn't protect my brain from the sudden change in direction.

I think we're forgetting that it isn't always about how much the helmet can absorb in any kind of sudden motion...but how much the brain can absorb when it impacts the inside of the skull.

...As my specialist told me...nothing can protect you from a concussion that will do serious damage to the brain.

In other words, with a helmet, you'll still be drooling, but you'll look better...

One of my co-workers always asked where my helmet was if it was a day I decided not to wear it. Until she had to do clinicals in the brain injury unit at the local hospital. She walked up to me and said that now she understood what I had been telling her about how the brain is injured and related what doctors had told her about helmets (all kinds) and how ineffective they are or can be. The point is, she just took everything said about how safe helmets are at face value and tried to force that belief on those she thought were doing dangerous things, like riding a bicycle.

based on my experience, I do not take too seriously a comment from a paramedic or ER doctor...who states as fact that death would have been the result if a helmet had not been present....since I had a brain injury and each missed all the symptons and signs. If they don't understand brain injuries and how they occur, their remarks are simply opinion. For me, since I had no external injury, the doctors I first visited believed I had no head injury and released me.

And as I said earlier, no helmet can prevent a concussion (http://www.neuroskills.com/pr-helmetnew.shtml), but there have been a couple of companies that have improved designs of bicycle helmets (like Ridell has tried to improve the design of the football helmet)

Phillips helmets (http://www.phillipshelmets.com/) has developed a better designed helmet that, doesn't eliminate, but helps reduce rotational forces.

A Swedish company (MIPS (http://www.mipshelmet.se/home)) has also done this.

It's widely acknowledged that the current, popular design of bicycle helmets do nothing to prevent this type of injury and in fact, can increase the chances of rotational injury occurring.

I still think the chances of receiving a head injury while cycling are low enough to go without a helmet but if one were to impact the head in a fall, wearing one of these brands would be of better use than the current models of bicycle helmets.

Thanks for all the feedback. The Phillips helmet is exactly what I've been thinking makes sense for solving the problem.

I was inspired by the info so I browsed and found: http://www.cycle-helmets.com (http://www.cycle-helmets.com/) It's wonderful - but I'm a bit of a heretic, so it appealed to me more than it probably should have.

http://www.cycle-helmets.com/helmet_compensation.html is particularly thought-provoking.

I love finding stuff that flies in the face of common sense and proves conventional wisdom wrong. Remember the tourniquet? That thing seemed like it made perfect sense.

I was agnostic.... now I'm pretty certain that helmets are a bad idea. Besides not being very effective at preventing injury, they: provide a false sense of security; could cause greater forces on your brain; discourage chicks from riding bikes and messing up their hair; make your head bigger (and a bigger target for passing signs etc); be a distraction.

Speaking of a distraction, check out this underpass on the Samammish River Trail near Seattle WA 145879

A kid hit me head-on coming around the corner a few weeks ago. :cry: The Sheriff's accident report said nothing about what a crappy alignment the trail has here - but helmets were accounted for. Ridiculous. MAKE THE TRAILS AND ROADS SAFE!!!! Helmets are a panacea!

If you're interested, you might want to check out the third version of the Helmets Cramp My Style thread.

At this point, it's only 8 pages long, has little in the way of arguing (although there is some...), and is mostly composed of various helmet blogs I've seen on the web and posted on the thread.

Why helmets? Why not avoid crashing in the first place? I'm only mostly kidding. In fact, I almost always wear a helmet myself. I just think it's unfortunate that the first thing that comes up in any crash, whether there was head injury or not, is the helmet. It either saved a life, or it made the injury worse. I'm not an expert, and frankly I have no new ideas about this, but there must be better ways to protect ourselves from injury. Some quick ideas might be bike design to reduce certain types of crashes, and rider education in better ways to prevent crashes.

OP, I'm glad to hear you're ok. Good luck with everything.

Remember the styrofoam helmets that did not have a plastic coating. Helmet manufacturers saw the increase in rotational brain and neck injuries that those helmets caused. They quietly changed the design, putting the plastic coating on to reduce such injuries before they got sued out of business. Now if they would only take the next step in safer helmets.

Safest - avoid the collision

Next safest - tuck you chin to your chest, do a shoulder roll, etc. so your head does not hit the ground

Least safe - rely on your helmet to save your brain

Sounds like another injury that could have been more likely prevented by riding a recumbent, helmeted or helmetless....


Leo H.
Sun Valley, NV

I don't think this is really cause to not wear a helmet. This type of brain injury seems rare... but then again, brain injuries are rare to begin with.

The real key to preventing these types of injuries, is helping riders learn how not to flip over their handlebars and to prevent other serious types of crashes. Its crash prevention over injury mitigation.



Seems backwards we focus so much in this forum on helmets, yet, there isn't very many good discussions about safe bicycling techniques, avoiding crashes, etc.

Truer words were never spoken...

Wrong. Try again.

Wrong yourself. Proof?

Wrong yourself. Proof?

Ok. The OP says that certain types of brain injuries may be made worse or made more common by wearing typical bicycle helmets. There is a lot of support for this assertion and some of it has been referred to in this thread. Then you say, without substantiation, that forces required to cause the types of injuries being discussed would be sufficient to cause serious injuries in the absence of a bicycle helmet. Someone disagrees and you ask for proof. I don't know if you're right or wrong, but it is your burden to prove your assertion true, not the other party's burden to prove your assertion false.

Sounds like another injury that could have been more likely prevented by riding a recumbent, helmeted or helmetless....


Leo H.
Sun Valley, NV

Till you fall asleep on that hammock and a truck runs over you. :eek: :p

it is your burden to prove your assertion true, not the other party's burden to prove your assertion false.

Prove it.

Prove it.

And there we are: just like the tea partiers versus MoveOn.org

well, I think there's one thing we can all agree on (or can we?), that in areas that have mandated helmet use, and usage rate has more than tripled over night, there has been no noticeable decline in head injuries in the riders who continued to ride bikes.

That much has been documented very well as there has been substantial documentation of the rise in head injuries that has corresponded with the rise in helmet usage. This is also happening at the same time that in areas that have almost no helmet use, these areas have the fewest amounts of head injuries to cyclists.

I think we can all see this is a very muddled issue and there is a fair bit of disagreement on the topic. Maybe we can agree, helmets have not been what a lot of people have made them out to be, and deaths and serious injury continue to cyclists who choose to wear helmets.

All that said, I don't think riding a bike makes anyone more vulnerable than many others, including pedestrians who continue to die from head injuries as do cyclists. Pedestrians could benefit from wearing helmets too. I dare say, it's as silly to expect a cyclist to wear a helmet as it is to suggest a pedestrian should be wearing a helmet.

About 600 American bicyclists over the age of 15 die each year in bike accidents. Many of these die from head injuries. I'm not sure of the number, but somewhere from 20,000 to 30,000 (+ or-) Americans over 15 die in auto accidents each year, many of these from head injuries. If the goal is to reduce the number of head injury deaths in the United States it's very clear where the emphasis should be applied; it's very clear who should be encouraged to wear helmets.

Bicycling, in general, is not dangerous either with or without a helmet though I guess (but cannot prove) that it is a bit less safe without. So, if we assume, without proof, that it is a bit less safe without a helmet, how much less safe is it? How much, for example, does a typical 15 mile helmetless recreational ride reduce one's life expectancy, as compared to a 15 mile ride with a helmet? Is it measurable? Does it reduce life expectancy more than consuming a Big Mac? If the answer is no, and I expect it is, why don't people advocate wearing helmets when consuming Big Macs? It makes sense, doesn't it? Perhaps helmet advocates could reduce Big Mac consumption as effectively as they have reduced bicycle riding (assuming, without proof, that they have).

There are a few misconceptions about the safety of cycling that has been perpetuated by helmet proponents one of which is the cause of deaths to cyclists being from head injuries.

This is true, but misleading because what causes these head injuries that cyclists die from are collisions with motor vehicles and the forces of these collisions are far beyond a helmets ability to protect. For arguments sake, lets say bicycle helmets could withstand any impact from a motor vehicle. Cyclists would still die because it's been shown that in these deaths where cyclists have died from head injuries, the cyclists would have died from other injuries as well. Necks are snapped, spines are crushed, aortas are torn, spleens burst, etc., etc.. I don't even have to mention the lower half of the head (in which a large portion of the brain is exposed) below the fictional "perfect" helmet that could be smashed in too (Oops. I just did)

The association is drawn between helmets, head injuries and death, but it's a misleading association and distracts people from solving a problem by focusing on a red herring.

Another issue helmet proponents avoid (that has been verified many times over) is the fact that regular cyclists live longer than others who do not get the same exercise cycling provides. Cycling improves health in even taking into consideration the collisions (and deaths) involved.

People also seem to forget that less people are injured on the road when more people ride bikes because they cannot do the damage motor vehicles can. A lot has recently been made on the importance of quality of the air we breath and I think we can see where this is going, so I'll cut it off by saying, riding a bike is a good thing. Not a bad thing. More people on bikes = better place to live with healthier, safer people.

Helmet promotion relies on fear. If people thought riding a bike was as good and safe as going for a walk, helmets would be a rare thing to see. Instead, people are afraid of serious brain injury from collisions with cars, so they strap on helmets and (in those rare instances when it happens), get one anyway. At the same time, they don't worry about the same risk while walking, so don't wear a helmet and (in those rare instances when it happens), receive the same injuries in collisions with cars as cyclists do.

Till you fall asleep on that hammock and a truck runs over you. :eek: :p


:recum:

:roflmao:


Leo H.
Sun Valley, NV

I think you spinach hating anti-helmetees really are deluding yourselves that there is this great unwashed horde of bicycle riders in the non riding world who are just aching to ride but are held back by a fear of lycra, or padded shorts or plastic helmets and, in some yearned for utopia, if we all just rode around in street clothes and bare headed, then the streets would be filled to the brim with bicycle riders.

Sounds sarcastic and exaggerated? Based on the 'reasoning' proposed and the 'conclusions' offered by the spinach haters, on any number of forums I've come across, this is what they believe to be the current state of bicycling around the globe.

I, for one, fail to see that this is the case. That said, if you want to ride without a helmet, fine. I can assure you one thing, concussion or no, I'll bet a dollar to a donut, I'll have less chance of dying from melanoma than you all will. Enjoy losing your body parts bit by bit y'all.


Leo H.
Sun Valley, NV

I think you spinach hating anti-helmetees really are deluding yourselves that there is this great unwashed horde of bicycle riders in the non riding world who are just aching to ride but are held back by a fear of lycra, or padded shorts or plastic helmets and, in some yearned for utopia, if we all just rode around in street clothes and bare headed, then the streets would be filled to the brim with bicycle riders.

Sounds sarcastic and exaggerated? Based on the 'reasoning' proposed and the 'conclusions' offered by the spinach haters, on any number of forums I've come across, this is what they believe to be the current state of bicycling around the globe.

I, for one, fail to see that this is the case. That said, if you want to ride without a helmet, fine. I can assure you one thing, concussion or no, I'll bet a dollar to a donut, I'll have less chance of dying from melanoma than you all will. Enjoy losing your body parts bit by bit y'all.


Leo H.
Sun Valley, NV

I spend a lot of time advocating cycling among my friends and acquaintances. Most of them would rather drop dead than wear spandex and helmets.

I think enthusiasm for spandex and helmets is limited to countries were standards of dress are very low (non existent.) In many parts of the world, were people (especially those of middle and older age) are expected to dress elegantly, it is almost unthinkable to wear something as revealing and unflattering as tight underwear and a helmet.

I too, think the kind of roadside garbage collector chic that many cyclists don is quite demeaning. Most people on bikeforums.net have no idea how silly others (U.S. non-cyclists and the rest of the world) think they look.

Don't get me wrong though. I think that spandex can be a turn-on depending on the circumstances. Helmets, not so much.

... you spinach hating anti-helmetees...

While I can't really say if I hate spinach, I do appreciate your mentioning I'm not against spinach, however I'd be interested to know just who do you think is anti- helmet here, and where has anyone said if we all just rode around in street clothes and bare headed, then the streets would be filled to the brim with bicycle riders? (not that it doesn't happen. It just doesn't happen where helmets are most popular)

Enjoy losing your body parts bit by bit y'all.
How very rational and logical of you. I enjoy these types of well thought responses to a topic that should be discussed rationally.

I fail to see how you fail to see that your posts are not advocating NOT wearing a helmet. You're not the only one and the fact that there are whole threads (helmets cramp my style), shows me you're not alone.

What any/most of the comments that I've read on this and numerous forums and blogs and whole websites actually, all have in common is, that the unspoken thought behind helmet bashers (how's that for a handle instead of spinach haters?)is that people are whining about someone else telling them what to do and then the helmet bashers go to great lengths to then 'prove' that helmets 'cause' injuries. You're actually using the same techniques as the helmet supporters, whom are decried long and loud.

I use the term spinach hater, because the image that comes to my mind when I read anti helmet posters, by and large are youngsters turning up their lips at something because they don't like the taste.

I work in a physical rehabilitation hospital and I won't go in to scary, emotional stories, blah, blah, blah. I will say that I have actually considered upgrading my helmet and wishing that there were more rigorous objective standards for comparing and testing sporting helmets like the motorcycle industry has with Snell.

I have also read numerous times where some poster at one point or another, states how bicycle riding is hampered because non riders see someone in a helmet and that scares them. IMO, the reason the vast majority of people aren't riding a bike is they don't want to exert the effort, or in the case of women, they find the extra time and inconvenience of preparing their appearance at work after riding in not worth the effort.

Because for me, riding to work regularly started as an uncertain thought as to whether I 'could' do it, then has progressed slowly to the point where I ride more often to work than not, it's taken me close to 2 years to do that and a very supportive non cycling wife. I encourage people I come across who don't ride, but I also tell them it's safer to do that they feel it might be and it's safer than I thought it would be.

Leo H.
Sun Valley, NV

How very rational and logical of you. I enjoy these types of well thought responses to a topic that should be discussed rationally.

As if the helmet bashers are the font of rational thought and enlightenment??? It was a joke, but a fact nonetheless. Humor and truth....

Leo H.
Sun Valley, NV

I fail to see how you fail to see that your posts are not advocating NOT wearing a helmet. You're not the only one and the fact that there are whole threads (helmets cramp my style), shows me you're not alone.

What any/most of the comments that I've read on this and numerous forums and blogs and whole websites actually, all have in common is, that the unspoken thought behind helmet bashers (how's that for a handle instead of spinach haters?)is that people are whining about someone else telling them what to do and then the helmet bashers go to great lengths to then 'prove' that helmets 'cause' injuries. You're actually using the same techniques as the helmet supporters, whom are decried long and loud.

I use the term spinach hater, because the image that comes to my mind when I read anti helmet posters, by and large are youngsters turning up their lips at something because they don't like the taste.

I've been riding a bike regularly for over 40 years and only wear a helmet when some event requires it. I never considered cycling dangerous enough to warrant wearing one and still don't. If you think it is that dangerous and wish to wear a helmet, that's cool with me. I also like spinach...even have some on the tuna salad sammich I brought for lunch.

Your perception is about as accurate as my perception of 'bent riders being old bearded fat dudes who can't stay awake long enough realize their dreams of being the next unabomber. :p

I fail to see how you fail to see that your posts are not advocating NOT wearing a helmet...

I guess that speaks to your level of comprehension on what has been posted.

I'd suggest a more careful reading and consideration of the merits on the points raised, rather than just a blanket assumption with what has been discussed.

When it comes down to it, the main points we're tossing around here are, helmets don't look cool and lycra spandex doesn't look cool. So the arguments against looking like a stereotypical cyclist are based on appearances. Not very logical.

Neither is the assertion that helmet wearers are dupes who haven't seen the latest statististics from Australia that 'prove' that helmets don't prevent head injuries, THEREFORE, toss that styrofoam bucket, they're all part of a plot organized by THEM to keep people from riding bicycles because they're scared.

If you fail to see that these are subtexts painted on this thread, I can't say I'm surprised. I don't think even a careful reading is needed to understand that.


Leo H.
Sun Valley, NV

When it comes down to it, the main points we're tossing around here are, helmets don't look cool and lycra spandex doesn't look cool...

what have you been smoking?

what have you been smoking?

Spandex and helmets?

-Kurt

Ok. The OP says that certain types of brain injuries may be made worse or made more common by wearing typical bicycle helmets. There is a lot of support for this assertion and some of it has been referred to in this thread. Then you say, without substantiation, that forces required to cause the types of injuries being discussed would be sufficient to cause serious injuries in the absence of a bicycle helmet. Someone disagrees and you ask for proof. I don't know if you're right or wrong, but it is your burden to prove your assertion true, not the other party's burden to prove your assertion false.


Prove it.

My assertion is based on personal observation and experience, having fallen on the helmet a few times. I don't need to prove anything when someone else just says, "WRONG." They're the one making the cross-assertion, and just saying "Wrong" is no different from the "Did not!" "Did too!" arguments we see our kids have.

The OP's assertion also includes the action of torquing, and my assertion was that in order to torque, the force the helmet 'experiences' would be enough to do more than just remove skin. There are no more empirical facts involved in the OP's post than in anyone else's on this thread, so we're talking suppositions here.

If it wasn't for Dan the Man's masterful "leg sweep" of the whole thing, I'd be tempted to tell you that your condescension is misdirected and unwarranted.

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPPPSS................................................




DAN -- YOU ROCK!