Advocacy & Safety - To the anti-helmet proponents on the forum...

look at how many heads hit the pavement and tell me with a straight face that if they had not been wearing helmets, their head injuries (or lack thereof) would have been the same. Tell me that wearing a helmet didn't lessen thier injuries.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RNAYR3KPIg

Actually look at the neck rotation on that one hit, the guy in the spotty jersey.

I thought the same thing - there would have been some very serious head injuries had they not been wearing helmets. Even with the helmets there were some bells rung.

I'm trying to remember the last time I was hammering as hard as I could in the middle of a huge pack of other cyclists on my way to work. Can't think of any.

:popcorn

-Kurt

I'm trying to remember the last time I was hammering as hard as I could in the middle of a huge pack of other cyclists on my way to work. Can't think of any.

Thats not the issue.

How many "anti-helmet proponents" are there really, anyways? Sounds sort of like a strawman to me.

"Anti-helmet-law proponents", sure, but not many people go around saying that helmets never help.

Thats not the issue.

Please don't encourage the haters. Sufice it to say that injuries would have been much worse.

Please don't encourage the haters. Sufice it to say that injuries would have been much worse.

Many anti helmet proponents here, in their partisan zeal, would never concede that point. Kind of like arguing the sun doesn't rise in the east, but they do it anyway.

Sure, the helmets may very well have prevented some injuries. To what extent and what kind of injuries, we can't know for sure.

Now here's the question: When have you ever been in this situation? You may say, "It doesn't matter," but it really does if you're using it as an argument for helmet use.

Who's anti-helmet?

Adjective: anti 'an,tI or an-tee [N. Amer], an-tee [Brit]

Not in favour of (an action or proposal etc.)

Noun: anti 'an,tI or an-tee [N. Amer], an-tee [Brit]

A person who is opposed (to an action, policy or practice etc.)

"the antis smelled victory after a long battle"

Prefix: anti- 'an,tI or an-tee or an-ti [N. Amer], an-tee or an-ti [Brit]

Against, opposed to

"anti-war" (http://www.wordwebonline.com/en/ANTI)

Sure, the helmets may very well have prevented some injuries. To what extent and what kind of injuries, we can't know for sure.

Now here's the question: When have you ever been in this situation? You may say, "It doesn't matter," but it really does if you're using it as an argument for helmet use.

Thank you, finally someone rational. And I agree with your second point, different situations may or may not argue for helmet use. When I ride in a big group of 50-100 riders on a training ride/race, I always wear a helmet, because what happened in the video happens on a regular basis on the group rides I go on. Now, when I ride 3 blocks to the store to get a newspaper, I don't wear a helmet.

Who's anti-helmet?
Adjective: anti 'an,tI or an-tee [N. Amer], an-tee [Brit]

Not in favour of (an action or proposal etc.)

Noun: anti 'an,tI or an-tee [N. Amer], an-tee [Brit]

A person who is opposed (to an action, policy or practice etc.)

"the antis smelled victory after a long battle"

Prefix: anti- 'an,tI or an-tee or an-ti [N. Amer], an-tee or an-ti [Brit]

Against, opposed to

"anti-war" (http://www.wordwebonline.com/en/ANTI)

You are.

Sure, the helmets may very well have prevented some injuries. To what extent and what kind of injuries, we can't know for sure.

Now here's the question: When have you ever been in this situation? You may say, "It doesn't matter," but it really does if you're using it as an argument for helmet use.

Very simply, the situation is that an accident caused their head to hit the ground. Should we wait until after accident causes our heads hit the ground to make a decision?

Who's anti-helmet?


You are.

I'll post my stance from the thread asking for tolerance on the issue



What's my position? Well, live and let live. Let people make their own choices and if you don't agree with them, try to learn about why they made the decision they did, particularly if it doesn't make sense to you.

I believe bicycle helmets provide the protection they were designed, made, and tested to uphold.

you show me where I've posted that I'm against helmets

look at how many heads hit the pavement and tell me with a straight face that if they had not been wearing helmets, their head injuries (or lack thereof) would have been the same. Tell me that wearing a helmet didn't lessen thier injuries.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RNAYR3KPIg

Everyone knows that helmets only protect you if you are going 14 miles per hour or less...I read that today.

Actually look at the neck rotation on that one hit, the guy in the spotty jersey.


Would his neck have rotated without a helmet?

Actually look at the neck rotation on that one hit, the guy in the spotty jersey.

I don't see the rotation. All I see is a big hit of his head on the ground, a big bounce and the helmet coming partially off.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YI2qSYb0xTk

:rolleyes: So... by the logic that caused this thread all motorists should wear a helmet because NASCAR & other motor sport drivers do and it's helped them in crashes.
Fugly crash though.

look at how many heads hit the pavement and tell me with a straight face that if they had not been wearing helmets, their head injuries (or lack thereof) would have been the same. Tell me that wearing a helmet didn't lessen thier injuries.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RNAYR3KPIg

I'll bet those involved were pissed that they had helmets on and if given the chance to take that blow without a helmet would have chosen to remain without a helmet.

How many of them do you think where their lids going to the corner store or training for that matter?

Would his neck have rotated without a helmet?

Who knows, look right at 1:01. But when those pointy shards that stick out of helmets, because I guess marketing departments think they look cool, hit the ground you can get some nice leverage. Not trying to say that it's worse.

This is a typical example of the pro-helmet brigade's propaganda, in my view. "look at that, doesn't it look awful. someone would surely have died if they hadn't been wearing helmets".

Er, who knows? Since we don't have a control group reconstructing the same crash without lids, we have no way of knowing what would have occurred. And this isn't just sophistry. As I have posted on another thread, I have hit another vehicle, headfirst, at approaching fifteen miles an hour and suffered no significant damage despite not wearing a helmet. Had I done so helmeted, I might well have assumed, quite wrongly, that my escaping injury was to the helmet's credit.

In this instance, look at Cavendish. Despite the speed, despite the force with which he hits the road, he doesn't seem to sustain much of an impact to the head. These things aren't simple.

In any event, looking at individual incidents and trying to draw general conclusions is always flawed. The fact is that the increase in helmet usage here in the UK has not resulted in any discernible reduction in head injuries. So even if they have saved some people on some occasions - which I am certainly prepared to concede - they haven't reduced the risk. I don't think anybody understands why. I do think that many cyclists and parents of cyclists place a ludicrous amount of faith in a helmet's ability to protect them and their children, and I know for a fact that the chances of an unhelmeted cyclist sustaining a serious head injury are very small.

I'll post my stance from the thread asking for tolerance on the issue



you show me where I've posted that I'm against helmets

You have argued that helmets cause more extensive injuries because of increased rotation forces, you have argued that statistically, there are more injuries in helmet wearing populations than in those that don't wear helmets. But of course you are going to say that the previous positions do not make you anti helmet.

I do think that many cyclists and parents of cyclists place a ludicrous amount of faith in a helmet's ability to protect them and their children...

Agree, wholeheartedly.


...and I know for a fact that the chances of an unhelmeted cyclist sustaining a serious head injury are very small.

How in the world do you KNOW this for a fact? This is a ridiculous claim to be making without support.

I'll bet those involved were pissed that they had helmets on and if given the chance to take that blow without a helmet would have chosen to remain without a helmet.
As would anyone who fell down a flight of stairs and hit their head.

You have argued that helmets cause more extensive injuries because of increased rotation forces, you have argued that statistically, there are more injuries in helmet wearing populations than in those that don't wear helmets. But of course you are going to say that the previous positions do not make you anti helmet.
That's not anti-helmet. That is reality. He never said that you should never wear a helmet. He just states the facts and if you decide to wear a helmet, that you should know their limitations.

This is a typical example of the pro-helmet brigade's propaganda, in my view. "look at that, doesn't it look awful. someone would surely have died if they hadn't been wearing helmets".

Er, who knows? Since we don't have a control group reconstructing the same crash without lids, we have no way of knowing what would have occurred. And this isn't just sophistry. As I have posted on another thread, I have hit another vehicle, headfirst, at approaching fifteen miles an hour and suffered no significant damage despite not wearing a helmet. Had I done so helmeted, I might well have assumed, quite wrongly, that my escaping injury was to the helmet's credit.

In this instance, look at Cavendish. Despite the speed, despite the force with which he hits the road, he doesn't seem to sustain much of an impact to the head. These things aren't simple.

In any event, looking at individual incidents and trying to draw general conclusions is always flawed. The fact is that the increase in helmet usage here in the UK has not resulted in any discernible reduction in head injuries. So even if they have saved some people on some occasions - which I am certainly prepared to concede - they haven't reduced the risk. I don't think anybody understands why. I do think that many cyclists and parents of cyclists place a ludicrous amount of faith in a helmet's ability to protect them and their children, and I know for a fact that the chances of an unhelmeted cyclist sustaining a serious head injury are very small.

Finally, a real anti-helmet proponent has the courage to admit it and to come forward. Its interesting, you won't admit the obvious, that a big walloping crack on the head is going to hurt more if you are not wearing a helmet than if you do wear a helmet. And then argue "but you have no scientific evidence to back up your point.", yet in the next sentence, you quote anecdotal evidence and we are supposed to accept it as proof that helmets don't lessen injuries.

Would his neck have rotated without a helmet?

Who knows, look right at 1:01. But when those pointy shards that stick out of helmets, because I guess marketing departments think they look cool, hit the ground you can get some nice leverage. Not trying to say that it's worse.
Without that helmet, his head might not have even hit the ground, rotating and risking serious brain injuries.

This is a typical example of the pro-helmet brigade's propaganda, in my view. "look at that, doesn't it look awful. someone would surely have died if they hadn't been wearing helmets".



I am pro-helmet. Pro-helmet for me. I don't try to impose my will on others. What I take away from that video is this. If I had a bicycle accident like that I would have preferred for my head to have been covered with a layer of sacrificial foam. That's my general conclusion. Help me understand why that is flawed.

Finally, a real anti-helmet proponent has the courage to admit it and to come forward. Its interesting, you won't admit the obvious, that a big walloping crack on the head is going to hurt more if you are not wearing a helmet than if you do wear a helmet. And then argue "but you have no scientific evidence to back up your point.", yet in the next sentence, you quote anecdotal evidence and we are supposed to accept it as proof that helmets don't lessen injuries.
You crack me up. He is showing that an accident of his is anecdotal and if he were wearing a helmet at the time might have made him believe that a helmet helped. Yet, you try to spin it to say he is using anecdotal evidence in the effectiveness of helmets.

That's not anti-helmet. That is reality. He never said that you should never wear a helmet. He just states the facts and if you decide to wear a helmet, that you should know their limitations.

To argue that helmets statistically cause more injuries and cause more severe injuries because of rotation is NOT arguing against helmet use? The only logical conclusion from saying helmets aggravate injuries is to argue against helmet use.

...I know for a fact that the chances of an unhelmeted cyclist sustaining a serious head injury are very small.



How in the world do you KNOW this for a fact? This is a ridiculous claim to be making without support.

I have plenty of support. You can google the statistics for yourself. But here's a reference from the British Medical Journal. Wardlaw M. British Medical Journal 2000;321(7276):1582 (23 December), doi:10.1136/bmj.321.7276.1582 In this article the author points out that it takes 8000 years of average cycling to produce one clinically severe head injury, and 22,000 years to produce one death. I'd call those chances pretty small, wouldn't you?

As would anyone who fell down a flight of stairs and hit their head.

The biggest difference is that I have more control of the situation when I am walking down the stairs than I do when I ride a bicycle. I don't normally have people pulling out in front of me or passing me at high speed on stairs. I have yet to have a pit bull run under my feet on stairs. I have not yet had mechanical issues with my shoes either. Pot holes are somewhat uncommon on stairs too.

Finally, a real anti-helmet proponent has the courage to admit it and to come forward. Its interesting, you won't admit the obvious, that a big walloping crack on the head is going to hurt more if you are not wearing a helmet than if you do wear a helmet. And then argue "but you have no scientific evidence to back up your point.", yet in the next sentence, you quote anecdotal evidence and we are supposed to accept it as proof that helmets don't lessen injuries.

You're either mischievous or unable to comprehend my point; which was that I was unhurt, but had I been wearing a helmet I might have assumed that it was the helmet that saved me. Nobody but you is talking about proof that helmets don't prevent injuries.

The biggest difference is that I have more control of the situation when I am walking down the stairs than I do when I ride a bicycle. I don't normally have people pulling out in front of me or passing me at high speed on stairs. I have yet to have a pit bull run under my feet on stairs. I have not yet had mechanical issues with my shoes either. Pot holes are somewhat uncommon on stairs too.

Frankly, this argument is absurd. It is based on the premise that cycling is intrinsically dangerous, while walking downstairs is not. There is absolutely no reason to believe this. Why don't we look at the number of injuries sustained from accidents in the home, and then insist that people wear protective gear to avoid them?

There are two interesting things in this video:
1. Cavendish, a pro tour rider who claims he is the worlds best sprinter can't hold his line in a sprint. Nor can he keep his head up.
2. The guy in orange doing the power stop.

Another helmet thread? I think brain injuries might start occurring from reading all of them. To me, it looked like I would have rather had a helmet in that particular collision. On a lighter note...
They look freaking hilarious with their heads bobbing around like that! Like when cats watch birds or something, I'm still laughing about it!

Frankly, this argument is absurd. It is based on the premise that cycling is intrinsically dangerous, while walking downstairs is not. There is absolutely no reason to believe this. Why don't we look at the number of injuries sustained from accidents in the home, and then insist that people wear protective gear to avoid them?


The argument that I have more control of the entire situation while I am walking down the stairs than when I am cycling is absurd how exactly? I'm sorry, the nuances of internet communications sail right over my head sometimes.

You seem to have missed my comments about making decisions for others. I make decisions for me and let others make their own decisions. I am not one to impose my will on other people.

You seem to have missed my comments about making decisions for others. I make decisions for me and let others make their own decisions. I am not one to impose my will on other people.

That's fine. Wear your helmet by all means. But it would be just as rational to put it on before descending the stairs as to put it on before going out on your bike.

Okay, I am going to feed the troll here:

Pretty much nobody in that video was going to sustain any serious head injury regardless of helmet use. Broken bones, yes, but head injury no. Almost all of the riders take the brunt of the impact on arms, elbows, shoulders and back. The heads that do hit the ground are mainly glancing blows that are in fact caused by the extra protrusion of the helmet around the riders head.

In fact, I would posit that riding like that on a flat surface it is very unlikely to sustain a serious head injury unless it is delivered by another bicycle. Without some sort of projecting object, like a curb, a fire hydrant, or an oncoming car, it is very difficult to hit your head with a large amount of force. Your body is already built to protect your noggin.

That's fine. Wear your helmet by all means. But it would be just as rational to put it on before descending the stairs as to put it on before going out on your bike.

I disagree. There are many more variables beyond my control when I ride a bicycle. I trust myself to negotiate stairs safely.

Okay, I am going to feed the troll here:

Pretty much nobody in that video was going to sustain any serious head injury regardless of helmet use. Broken bones, yes, but head injury no. Almost all of the riders take the brunt of the impact on arms, elbows, shoulders and back. The heads that do hit the ground are mainly glancing blows that are in fact caused by the extra protrusion of the helmet around the riders head.

In fact, I would posit that riding like that on a flat surface it is very unlikely to sustain a serious head injury unless it is delivered by another bicycle. Without some sort of projecting object, like a curb, a fire hydrant, or an oncoming car, it is very difficult to hit your head with a large amount of force. Your body is already built to protect your noggin.

Took the words out of my mouth.

In this instance, look at Cavendish. Despite the speed, despite the force with which he hits the road, he doesn't seem to sustain much of an impact to the head. These things aren't simple. Really, none of them seem to hit the road with that much force.

Sure, the bikes were hauling ass, but that doesn't accurately translate to a harder impact with the ground. Instead, it means you're being dragged across the ground as you slow down. (Now, if they hit something that wasn't flat -- a car, a curb, etc. -- then the speed *would* translate to a harder impact, but I don't see that here.)

The actual impact (the one that will crack your skull or give you a concussion) would be approximately the same as if somebody fell off their bike while not moving and hit the ground. Fortunately, this is within the range of impacts that bicycle helmets are designed to protect against, as long as the helmet actually hits the ground (if you land chin first, your non-full helmet isn't going to help much.) And the helmet will certainly help reduce road rash (almost completely) on your head if your helmet is what's dragging on the ground as you go from 40 mph to 0 mph. Road rash doesn't usually cause brain injuries, but it's still best avoided.

Ultimately, I imagine that the helmets helped here, but I doubt they saved anybody from becoming a vegetable or anything like that. I'll bet knee and elbow pads might have reduced injuries in this accident more than the helmets did. (Full leathers would help even more, but aren't very practical for a cyclist.)

I wonder ... do pro racers get better (i.e. stronger, less likely to break in an impact) helmets than mere mortals?

I disagree. There are many more variables beyond my control when I ride a bicycle. I trust myself to negotiate stairs safely.

OK. But in the UK more than 1000 people die each year from falling down stairs. They trusted themselves too. Fewer than 150 die in cycling accidents.

Yes, I know more people use stairs than cycle. But this sort of pseudo-statistical legerdemain is commonplace among the anti-helmet faction, so I thought I'd hop aboard.

I wonder ... do pro racers get better (i.e. stronger, less likely to break in an impact) helmets than mere mortals?

No. They use helmets available on the market. Usually they're high end because that's how you advertise road equipment (you give it to a pro peleton rider).

I believe the guy in polka dots (forgot his name) was wearing a cat like brand.

This is a typical example of the pro-helmet brigade's propaganda, in my view. "look at that, doesn't it look awful. someone would surely have died if they hadn't been wearing helmets".

Speaking of propaganda ... I see what you did there. You're the first one to say "Someone would surely [or otherwise] have died if they hadn't been wearing helmets." No helmet ninny said anything like that. The nannies asked whether anyone really believes that the helmets didn't help even a little; you've created a false dichotomy and implied that death is the only type of injury cyclists can get.

This is a big part of why cyclists think there's an "anti-helmet" brigade; some of the more extreme helmet law freedom-fighters go so overboard with the propaganda, straw men, and weasel words.

Okay, I am going to feed the troll here:

Pretty much nobody in that video was going to sustain any serious head injury regardless of helmet use. Broken bones, yes, but head injury no. Almost all of the riders take the brunt of the impact on arms, elbows, shoulders and back. The heads that do hit the ground are mainly glancing blows that are in fact caused by the extra protrusion of the helmet around the riders head.

Yes, I'm looking at a grainy, ****ty You-Tube video and unfortunately I lack the god-like powers possessed by San Rensho in determining how many heads exactly hit the tarmac. So, San Rensho perhaps you could answer your own question below:


look at how many heads hit the pavement

How many is that?

And then when you've answered that simple question you can move on to deal with the implied question in Dan the Man's post above: how many hit their heads simply because of the increased radius of their helmeted heads.

San Rensho's post is taking anecdotal simplification to a new low.

The biggest difference is that I have more control of the situation when I am walking down the stairs than I do when I ride a bicycle. I don't normally have people pulling out in front of me or passing me at high speed on stairs. I have yet to have a pit bull run under my feet on stairs. I have not yet had mechanical issues with my shoes either. Pot holes are somewhat uncommon on stairs too.

It's kinda funny that you brought up the points you did. My one big fall down the stairs as a child was caused by a loose sole on my shoe that caught the carpet just as I was about to take my first step down. A few years ago my mom gave herself two black eyes and a concussion while walking through the house and tripping over a dog that ran between her legs. Smacked her face on the door threshold. Ugly stuff. I have way more problems with squirrels than dogs while riding my bike though I think the squirrel will likely suffer more than me if I ever hit one.