Fifty Plus (50+) - Another helmet save

I was riding a familiar section of single track on my mountain bike Saturday afternoon. Going downhill at moderate speed when all of a sudden I was on the ground with my helmet grinding along the gravel-strewn trail. Aside from some minor abrasions and torn Lycra, I was fine. My helmet was another matter -- it was destroyed. I tried to imagine that damage to my head had I not been wearing a helmet. At best I would have been in ICU with a traumatic brain injury and at worst... Oh, and the bike was fine.

If you want to see what happens to your head hitting the ground without a helmet, try dropping a cantaloup from an 8-foot step ladder. Guess I just became the new "poster boy" for bicycle helmet safety! :thumb:

There is a difference in riding TRAILS and riding ROAD -- namely, TRACTION. A fall on a trail is pretty much what the helmet is designed to handle. Being knocked over by a car is beyond the capability of ANY helmet.

Anyone rolling dirt without a helmet is just asking for "dain bramage". The fact that I enjoy trail riding is one of only two reasons I still own a helmet. (The other is organized rides that require them)

Dangerous business, starting threads on helmet safety outside A&S. Tends to become very controversial very fast. Suffice it to say that many many more people claim that their helmets saved their lives, than ever died from head injuries before helmets became fashionable.

I'm glad you're okay, OS. Have a beer then go buy a new helmet.:)

For those of us that believe in Helmets no extra proof is needed. For those who do not not proof is enough. That is just how it is even on motorcycles. When I lost my Lapierre to a car that cut me off and stoped short I hit the back bumper and flew over the trunk into the back window of the car. Much like the NHSTA studies show my head with helmet impacted the rear window first and I punched a bowling ball sized hole in the window traveling at 18 MPH. Glad you are OK. I got a great deal on a new helmet at Performance that is even better than the one I had before.

There is a difference in riding TRAILS and riding ROAD -- namely, TRACTION. A fall on a trail is pretty much what the helmet is designed to handle. Being knocked over by a car is beyond the capability of ANY helmet.



Trail riding and it was a bad fall and new helmet about every 12 months. I got into the habit of having two helmets so that I could ride the next week without going to the LBS. But the worst fall I had was on the road. Caught some black ice and over I went. I slid pretty well but had a bit of a headache from the bang on the black stuff. The Ice saved the clothing with just a few scuff marks but a few miles later I still had the headache so stopped to take an aspirin. My co-rider suggested I take off the helmet and look at it. The side of the helmet was almost worn through from the contact with the asphalt. If I were not wearing the helmet- that would have been my temple.

But worst helmet damage happened to my mate offroad. Hit a rock at speed and up he went and landed on his helmet. After getting him off to A&E for 32 stitches inside his cheek and 32 oputside- we picked up the pieces of his helmet. I mean pieces- it was a plastic bag job.

Glad you are OK. No stories needed here... I owe my life to a helmet 3 times!

I had no idea that helmet wearing is controversial. I've had two falls where my helmet hit the pavement hard enough to crack the styrofoam lining. I'm glad my helmet and not my head took those blows. I think I'll keep wearing a helmet when I ride.

I had no idea that helmet wearing is controversial. I've had two falls where my helmet hit the pavement hard enough to crack the styrofoam lining. I'm glad my helmet and not my head took those blows. I think I'll keep wearing a helmet when I ride.

That is fine, people should do what they feel best with. The only reason helmet wearing is controversial is that some places are foolish enough to legislate to make it compulsory, and despite the weight of anecdote (this thread is an example) the evidence does not indicate that increasing use of helmets has made a measurable difference to the incidence of serious injury or death to cyclists.

The problem with the anecdotes is this. Understandably enough, people assume that if their helmets suffer damage, that their heads would have suffered equal or worse damage were they unhelmeted. This isn't always true, by any means. In particular, people are impressed when their helmets shatter and assume their skulls might have shattered in similar circumstances. In fact, however, a helmet that has shattered has almost certainly not done its job. Helmets work by having the outer casing remain intact and the liner compressing to absorb impact. If they break, that simply means the forces involved have overwhelmed them and that most of the force of the impact will have been transmitted to the head anyway.

Helmets are very good at what they are tested to do, namely absorb relatively small amounts of energy from low-speed impacts. They probably save a lot of minor injuries to scalps. It's very unlikely, given their construction, that they save many people from death or serious brain injury, and that seems to be borne out by the accident statistics.

So like I say, people should do what they want to do. But the case for helmets is very far from being as obvious as anecdote would lead you to believe.

Well said chasm54. Only the fundraising rides require helmets, probably for insurance purposes. Most local organized club or group rides have abandoned the mandatory helmet rule. On those it's usually 60-40 with the helmets in the majority. For the most part it's those over 40 with helmets and the younger ones without. Of course there are exceptions on both sides of the age groups. The point is that no one demands that others do as they do any more, and people get along much better.

There are preachers on both sides of the argument but for the most part they are categorized as someone who sits at home in the closet wearing aluminum foil on their head.

Personally, I don't judge or preach either way.

That is fine, people should do what they feel best with. The only reason helmet wearing is controversial is that some places are foolish enough to legislate to make it compulsory, and despite the weight of anecdote (this thread is an example) the evidence does not indicate that increasing use of helmets has made a measurable difference to the incidence of serious injury or death to cyclists.

The problem with the anecdotes is this. Understandably enough, people assume that if their helmets suffer damage, that their heads would have suffered equal or worse damage were they unhelmeted. This isn't always true, by any means. In particular, people are impressed when their helmets shatter and assume their skulls might have shattered in similar circumstances. In fact, however, a helmet that has shattered has almost certainly not done its job. Helmets work by having the outer casing remain intact and the liner compressing to absorb impact. If they break, that simply means the forces involved have overwhelmed them and that most of the force of the impact will have been transmitted to the head anyway.

Helmets are very good at what they are tested to do, namely absorb relatively small amounts of energy from low-speed impacts. They probably save a lot of minor injuries to scalps. It's very unlikely, given their construction, that they save many people from death or serious brain injury, and that seems to be borne out by the accident statistics.

So like I say, people should do what they want to do. But the case for helmets is very far from being as obvious as anecdote would lead you to believe.

I agree there are two sides and like I said the two sides simply look at the world differently. The only real studies we have are the NHTSA, Consumer Product safty comission, IIHS and the New England Journal of Medicine. And while they all support helmet use they can't say what a person should do. In fact there are many people today that still don't believe in Seat Belts as seen by the many tickets that are issued every month.

But as for club rides most I know of still require a helmet to join the group. Still people have to admit that if your head is sliding along the pavement enough to scrape the side of a helmet down a 16th of in inch the same slide would give someone more than a haircut. Not that they don't have to right to take that risk.

But just as an aside, many motorcycle helmet laws have been overturned in many states and I now see far more motorcycle riders without them. So there will never be an agreement between people on what makes anything safer.

Still I am pretty sure the accidents described so far like mine would have been more serious had the rider not been wearing a helmet even if some others might believe my head alone would have punched through a car rear window without injury to my head.

We all need a reminder from time to time. Its getting warm out there and the temptation to let the breeze drift over the top of my bald head is alluring. I do owe my life to a helmet. I did the lawn dart over the handle bars on a mountain bike ride. Suffered a Hangman's/Christopher Reeve break C1 and C2. And it happened suddenly at a moderate speed. Glad you are OK. Helmets are cheap compared to loss of mobility or life.

Glad you are ok. I'm still wearing my helmet.

I agree there are two sides and like I said the two sides simply look at the world differently. The only real studies we have are the NHTSA, Consumer Product safty comission, IIHS and the New England Journal of Medicine. And while they all support helmet use they can't say what a person should do. In fact there are many people today that still don't believe in Seat Belts as seen by the many tickets that are issued .

The problem with many of the studies is that their methodology suffers from obvious shortcomings. And their hypothetical findings tend to conflict with real-world data about the frequency of accidents.


Still I am pretty sure the accidents described so far like mine would have been more serious had the rider not been wearing a helmet even if some others might believe my head alone would have punched through a car rear window without injury to my head.

There is no doubt that our experiences shape our appraisal of the evidence. In my own case, when I was much younger and even more foolish, I was barrelling down a hill in the wet, had to snatch at my brakes to avoid something and skidded into a panel truck. First contact was made by my head at (a very conservative estimate) upwards of 15mph. I put a serious dent in the door of the truck and was completely unscathed. Had I been wearing a helmet, I have no doubt that I would have assumed that it saved me. But I wasn't. So much for anecdote and assumptions.

Anyway, I'm going to withdraw from this discussion now because we've done very well to keep it civilised so far. And people should draw their own conclusions.

The problem with many of the studies is that their methodology suffers from obvious shortcomings. And their hypothetical findings tend to conflict with real-world data about the frequency of accidents.



There is no doubt that our experiences shape our appraisal of the evidence. In my own case, when I was much younger and even more foolish, I was barrelling down a hill in the wet, had to snatch at my brakes to avoid something and skidded into a panel truck. First contact was made by my head at (a very conservative estimate) upwards of 15mph. I put a serious dent in the door of the truck and was completely unscathed. Had I been wearing a helmet, I have no doubt that I would have assumed that it saved me. But I wasn't. So much for anecdote and assumptions.

Anyway, I'm going to withdraw from this discussion now because we've done very well to keep it civilised so far. And people should draw their own conclusions.

Once again I agree we have done well. Because I tend to bookmark sites on these issues like I did for NHTSA and New England Journal of Medicine studies have there been any studies showing the phisical safety advantages of not wearing a helmet from organizations or other sources with equal weight we can look at? I know it is hard with only a 2 percent share of the accidents but has anyone bothered or do they care?

Once again I agree we have done well. Because I tend to bookmark sites on these issues like I did for NHTSA and New England Journal of Medicine studies have there been any studies showing the phisical safety advantages of not wearing a helmet from organizations or other sources with equal weight we can look at? I know it is hard with only a 2 percent share of the accidents but has anyone bothered or do they care?

That ain't easy, my own view is that the data on both sides of the argument is pretty sketchy. But I have found this site (http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1139.html)to be a useful resource. Irrespective of one's view on its particular perspective, it offers a lot of links to such information as is out there. And again, people should draw their own conclusions.

That ain't easy, my own view is that the data on both sides of the argument is pretty sketchy. But I have found this site (http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1139.html)to be a useful resource. Irrespective of one's view on its particular perspective, it offers a lot of links to such information as is out there. And again, people should draw their own conclusions.

Thanks, Bookmarked. I have never been on a Motorcycle, snow mobile or hang Glider without head protection so I know I am biased. I used seat belts before it was the law and bought ABS and Air bags as soon as they became available. I will admit I have supported the Child helmet laws in my state even when they don't include adults. I do understand the idea that helmets tend to keep some people from riding but I never understood why, still don't. I have never taken the safety gard off of my power equipment either yet I know people who do. Too many years working in a ER has made me jaded. This issue does tend to devide us as a group but so do many other issues.

Thanks, Bookmarked. I have never been on a Motorcycle, snow mobile or hang Glider without head protection so I know I am biased. I used seat belts before it was the law and bought ABS and Air bags as soon as they became available. I will admit I have supported the Child helmet laws in my state even when they don't include adults.

Damn, you're making it difficult for me to withdraw from this thread, as I intended. For the record, I am in favour of small children, and adults who are learning to ride, wearing helmets. They are exactly the group that is most at risk of simple toppling over and banging their heads, and those are exactly the accidents that helmets are designed for. There is no point in people being discouraged from cycling by an early unpleasant experience. As for laws, I dislike compulsion unless the evidence is overwhelming, and it isn't.

Motorbike helmets work, the evidence seems incontrovertible. So do seat belts. But bicycle helmets are a different matter, they provide very little protection. In particular, the physics is clear -they absorb only a tiny fraction of the energy involved in a typical collision with a motor vehicle, and those are the collisions that kill.

Damn, you're making it difficult for me to withdraw from this thread, as I intended. For the record, I am in favour of small children, and adults who are learning to ride, wearing helmets. They are exactly the group that is most at risk of simple toppling over and banging their heads, and those are exactly the accidents that helmets are designed for. There is no point in people being discouraged from cycling by an early unpleasant experience. As for laws, I dislike compulsion unless the evidence is overwhelming, and it isn't.

Motorbike helmets work, the evidence seems incontrovertible. So do seat belts. But bicycle helmets are a different matter, they provide very little protection. In particular, the physics is clear -they absorb only a tiny fraction of the energy involved in a typical collision with a motor vehicle, and those are the collisions that kill.

You are right again but in the case of motorcycle helmets and child helmets it didn't end the debate as some of those manditory laws are being removed. The two sides in thise cases are still two sides. That is all I am saying. We as a cycling community can't agree on clothing, saddles, what material is best or clipless verses platforms. We can't agree on tire size, or spoke count why should helmets be any different?

Helmet has saved my head on a few occasions--when I was college age and in the present.

But bicycle helmets are a different matter, they provide very little protection. In particular, the physics is clear -they absorb only a tiny fraction of the energy involved in a typical collision with a motor vehicle, and those are the collisions that kill.

I think you're wrong in this respect. While it's quite clear that no styrofoam and plastic helmet is going to help in a high speed collision with a car, a low-speed impact with the ground is a much more likely occurrence, and that's the kind that a helmet is designed to address. Wandering off the road, tumbling over a pothole, brushing a curb, or the infamous Tombay make up the great majority of falls. And I would much rather encounter the ground in a helmet during one of those falls than without. Helmets certainly don't have the magical properties that the media ascribe to them. Nonetheless, I don't leave the driveway without one.

I agree there are two sides and like I said the two sides simply look at the world differently. The only real studies we have are the NHTSA, Consumer Product safty comission, IIHS and the New England Journal of Medicine. And while they all support helmet use they can't say what a person should do. In fact there are many people today that still don't believe in Seat Belts as seen by the many tickets that are issued every month.

But as for club rides most I know of still require a helmet to join the group. Still people have to admit that if your head is sliding along the pavement enough to scrape the side of a helmet down a 16th of in inch the same slide would give someone more than a haircut. Not that they don't have to right to take that risk.

But just as an aside, many motorcycle helmet laws have been overturned in many states and I now see far more motorcycle riders without them. So there will never be an agreement between people on what makes anything safer.

Still I am pretty sure the accidents described so far like mine would have been more serious had the rider not been wearing a helmet even if some others might believe my head alone would have punched through a car rear window without injury to my head.

Unfortunately many of those organizations draw the same conclusion the OP did, that a battle scarred helmet saved one from uncertain death. This may or may not be true, for a couple of reasons. One is that the helmet adds weight to the head, so the physics of motion in a crash are altered. It's the difference between a 3½ lb object and a 4½lb object. Second of all, if a helmet cracks or breaks, that helmet failed to do it's job.

The only way to prove that a technology will prevent injury, is the same testing the NHTSA forces the automobile companies to go through, crash testing. You only really need 6 tests, a crash where the rider hits a solid object, helmet first. A crash where the rider hits a breakaway object (like a glass window) helmet first. A crash where the rider lands face first, a crash where the rider goes over the back, landing on the rear of the head, a crash where the rider lands on their side.

These tests would need to be carried out, first without a helmet, then repeated with the helmet in question, to see what the difference is. I think you would see a major redesign of helmets, if you carried out such tests. Crash Test Dummies could be used for these tests.

One is that the helmet adds weight to the head, so the physics of motion in a crash are altered. It's the difference between a 3½ lb object and a 4½lb object. Second of all, if a helmet cracks or breaks, that helmet failed to do it's job.



I hope this is an unsuccessful attempt at humor because it is bordering on utter nonsense.....

I hope this is an unsuccessful attempt at humor because it is bordering on utter nonsense.....Nonsense only to the uninformed. It is helpful to read the information available first, before the declaration of what one considers nonsense.

Unfortunately many of those organizations draw the same conclusion the OP did, that a battle scarred helmet saved one from uncertain death. This may or may not be true, for a couple of reasons. One is that the helmet adds weight to the head, so the physics of motion in a crash are altered. It's the difference between a 3½ lb object and a 4½lb object. Second of all, if a helmet cracks or breaks, that helmet failed to do it's job.

The only way to prove that a technology will prevent injury, is the same testing the NHTSA forces the automobile companies to go through, crash testing. You only really need 6 tests, a crash where the rider hits a solid object, helmet first. A crash where the rider hits a breakaway object (like a glass window) helmet first. A crash where the rider lands face first, a crash where the rider goes over the back, landing on the rear of the head, a crash where the rider lands on their side.

These tests would need to be carried out, first without a helmet, then repeated with the helmet in question, to see what the difference is. I think you would see a major redesign of helmets, if you carried out such tests. Crash Test Dummies could be used for these tests.

I contend that it wouldn't matter one bit who or what did the test or how it was done. People that are anti helmet will be anti helmet until they are looking at the wrong side of the grass. It didn't matter to the motorcyclists in several states. It didn't matter to many before the seat belt laws even after the testing. Think of it, people have said here that if a helmet cracks it hasn't done it's job but what if the head without the helmet cracks? When the NHTSA and consumer protection people released their studies they had no agenda and they used the results of those studies to develope child helmet laws. The New England Journal of Medicine and the IIHS might be biased I can't say but I believe even if the test and statistics are there it wouldn't matter to those who believe they don't need a helmet. That is just the way some people are.

We know people shouldn't drink and drive, but people do. We know we shouldn't talk or text while driving but some people do. I know people who will not ride organized cycling events because you have to wear a helmet. That is just the way people are. Is it more dangerous to wear a helmet? If so why force children to wear them? So there is no real answer to this because those of us who believe a helmet offers some protection will see a helmet that has the side scraped down into the foam as saving us from losing part of our skin. Those that don't believe in them will not believe that a helmet would have saved then even while their skin is scabbing over. That is just the way people are.

Just another site I book marked besides the one posted earlier. http://www.bhsi.org/stats.htm#effectiveness

And in real truth in most cases I don't care if people don't feel they need protection it will not stop me from wearing a helmet, gloves and good glasses to protect my eyes. But when someone that feels like I do as the OP did I will always give him a thumbs up for doing and believing as I do. We have something in common that non helmet users do not and that too is just how people are.

Just another site I book marked besides the one posted earlier. http://www.bhsi.org/stats.htm#effectiveness



OK, here I am again. I can assure you that I would be influenced by data. The problem is that much of what is presented as data is so flawed. So, for example, the linked site states that helmets have been estimated to reduce head injuries by 85%. That's true. What it does not say is that the 85% estimate, which is widely quoted, came from a study that has been discredited because it relied on researchers assumptions about helmet effectiveness rather than real-world data.

There's another stat in there that is pretty striking. It claims that 23% of cyclists killed in accidents were drunk at the time. If that is anywhere near true, it gives us a pretty good clue that there are other things we can do to keep ourselves safe. And in one sense it would be a very encouraging statistic. It is already very unlikely that you will be killed while cycling. If you can cut by one quarter that already slim chance simply by staying sober, that just emphasises how safe you really are. In the UK, there is one cycling fatality for every thirty million miles cycled, according to Department of Transport figures. And if one is sober, visible, competent, stays away from the inside of large vehicles at intersections, one can considerably improve even those staggeringly good odds.

And, just for the avoidance of doubt, I'm quite clear that helmets do save some people from injuries to their scalp. But the evidence does not indicate that they save lives or brains. And the risk of my simply falling off my bike while just riding along is fantastically low, I'm not a mountain biker. So the bottom line is, if despite all the precautions i can take, I am hit by a car or truck, a helmet isn't going to make any difference. And the very small risk of my sustaining a minor head injury for another reason is one I am perfectly happy to take. Cycling is very safe.

Nonsense only to the uninformed. It is helpful to read the information available first, before the declaration of what one considers nonsense.

Sorry, but I am an old retired engineer who spent most of his life considering the reality of physics in the solution of real world problems and when somebody spouts ignorant nonsense ....Well , I cant resist even when I know its totally useless ! The products of our educational system don't really want to consider any facts, their mind is made up!

I contend that it wouldn't matter one bit who or what did the test or how it was done. People that are anti helmet will be anti helmet until they are looking at the wrong side of the grass. It didn't matter to the motorcyclists in several states. It didn't matter to many before the seat belt laws even after the testing. Think of it, people have said here that if a helmet cracks it hasn't done it's job but what if the head without the helmet cracks? When the NHTSA and consumer protection people released their studies they had no agenda and they used the results of those studies to develope child helmet laws. The New England Journal of Medicine and the IIHS might be biased I can't say but I believe even if the test and statistics are there it wouldn't matter to those who believe they don't need a helmet. That is just the way some people are.

We know people shouldn't drink and drive, but people do. We know we shouldn't talk or text while driving but some people do. I know people who will not ride organized cycling events because you have to wear a helmet. That is just the way people are. Is it more dangerous to wear a helmet? If so why force children to wear them? So there is no real answer to this because those of us who believe a helmet offers some protection will see a helmet that has the side scraped down into the foam as saving us from losing part of our skin. Those that don't believe in them will not believe that a helmet would have saved then even while their skin is scabbing over. That is just the way people are.

Just another site I book marked besides the one posted earlier. http://www.bhsi.org/stats.htm#effectiveness

And in real truth in most cases I don't care if people don't feel they need protection it will not stop me from wearing a helmet, gloves and good glasses to protect my eyes. But when someone that feels like I do as the OP did I will always give him a thumbs up for doing and believing as I do. We have something in common that non helmet users do not and that too is just how people are.

Very well said! And I can only add that pushing up daisies before my time, just to show how macho I am, is not in my genes!

Arguing this is as pointless as arguing religion or politics. Or global warning. People will cite the studies that favor their position, and you're not changing any minds. Not too long ago, there was an internet argument for weeks over whether the correct answer to a 5th grade arithmetic problem on order of operations was 2 or 288. :lol:

I wear a helmet. I don't know whether it will save my life. But until someone convinces me that it's more dangerous to wear one than go without, I'll keep on wearing it. I know it's saved me a couple of nasty lumps on my noggin, and those hurt for days.

I hope this is an unsuccessful attempt at humor because it is bordering on utter nonsense.....

Especially the "if a helmet cracks or breaks, that helmet failed to do it's job" part.

With the prevailing bicycle helmet design of in-mould microshell, the styrofoam liner dissipates energy by destructive deformation, i.e., cracking. If impact is severe enough, the thin, tough outer cover will crack too.

I was riding a familiar section of single track on my mountain bike Saturday afternoon. Going downhill at moderate speed when all of a sudden I was on the ground with my helmet grinding along the gravel-strewn trail. Aside from some minor abrasions and torn Lycra, I was fine. My helmet was another matter -- it was destroyed. I tried to imagine that damage to my head had I not been wearing a helmet. At best I would have been in ICU with a traumatic brain injury and at worst... Oh, and the bike was fine.

If you want to see what happens to your head hitting the ground without a helmet, try dropping a cantaloup from an 8-foot step ladder. Guess I just became the new "poster boy" for bicycle helmet safety! :thumb:

I've never understood why people won't believe in proven safety equipment until they get hurt. In you case, I'm glad you're alright and your story may help someone else start using safety equipment.

I had no idea that helmet wearing is controversial. I've had two falls where my helmet hit the pavement hard enough to crack the styrofoam lining. I'm glad my helmet and not my head took those blows. I think I'll keep wearing a helmet when I ride.

The reason it's controversial is not necessarily that anyone is "anti helmet" or stupid (which is name-calling result of these conversations). It's just that some of us believe that lore and "conventional wisdom" has inflated the perception of danger associated with cycling beyond reason. We don't feel that cycling is so dangerous that it requires any more safety measures than other sources of head injury such as driving a car, walking in the winter or after a rain, or stepping in and out of a bath tub. Therefore, anyone who makes the personal choice to not wear a helmet is not an idiot or organ donor, but simply someone who makes a rational decision about the necessity for safety equipment.

People can disagree with this, but I'd bet that if you did some research into threads on the subject that the nasty labels and insults are almost always aimed at those who don't agree that cycling is dangerous as if they're clueless idiots.

I think the real point is that Old School was simply pointing out his experience while wearing a helmet. The conclusion was based on observed information, IE: the damage to the helmet. It was easy to translate, by the observer that whatever damage was sustained by the helmet would have been transferred to the head were the helmet not worn. If wearing one while riding MTB is considered a "safety measure" then the observer would easily say, the helmet saved me from road rash, skin removal, loss of hair, ear or whatever. No one said everyone should wear a helmet only that they believe in them. And I still say no proof will be enough for anyone that doesn't want to wear a helmet as seen by the resistnce to motorcycle helmets. Some have said they are proven protection but still there are enough non helmet wearing motorcyclists to get the laws removed in many states. This whole debate has not been about who should or shouldn't wear a helmet it is about what a particular person wearing a helmet experienced and observed. No one not there has a position worthy of consideration because they can't speak to the effectiveness of to protective value in that particular case. To many it is a political issue and for them no study, no testing will be enough. To others it is a safety issue and no more testing and no more studies need to be preformed. I used to be an avid Motorcyclist to the point of riding a motorcycle everywhere for 8 years running and off and on for another 8 years. This helmet issue has been going on since my first BSA in 1966. Any study and any testing presented will have to be run past the infamous animal the "yabut" maybe if they hadn't done this or if they tested it a different way. Happened with ABS brakes, seat Belts, Motorcycle helmets and in now in full debate with manditory cornering control in new cars. That is just how we as a society are.

Sorry, but I have personal experience with my head hitting the ground during a crash. I know if I had not had helmet and had hit my unprotected head on the road as hard as had with the helmet, I would've definitely had a moderate to severe concussion. In fact, when I was 12 I got a new bike and my father took me and the bike to the gas station on base to fill the tires. He let me ride it home and followed to protect me from vehicles. I was going fast down a hill, lost control, and crashed. The rest my father told me. He helped me up and had to support me as I could not walk on my own. My dad took my bike and me home where he gave me a bath to clean me up and was put to bed. I awoke 3 hours later, first memory since just before hitting the pavement, with a bloody pillow began and kept on puking. I ended up in the hospital overnight for a concussion.

My ear doc guarantees that I probably broke one of the small bones in my left ear and the concussion is a big contributor to my severe hearing loss in that ear.

What if you knew for a second before that you were going to fall. If given the choice, would you prefer a helmet or not?
For what its worth, I always wear helmet while on road bikes. I seldom wear a helmet when riding my cruiser , touring bike or hybrid. Everybody needs to make their own decisions and hopefully live with them.

Hybrid, road, cruiser...I wear a helmet.

I look at the motorcyclists I pass on the road without a helmet and figure that they must know what their head is worth if they aren't going to do anything to protect it. The same goes for bicyclists.

Helmets look dorky! They are too expensive! They are too hot in the summer! They weigh too much! Don't you dare tell me I must wear one!

Currently, I ride with the one that replaced this one.
http://i194.photobucket.com/albums/z90/gearloose_2007/IMG_1297.jpg

Sorry, but I am an old retired engineer who spent most of his life considering the reality of physics in the solution of real world problems and when somebody spouts ignorant nonsense ....Well , I cant resist even when I know its totally useless ! The products of our educational system don't really want to consider any facts, their mind is made up!Good post explaining why some bridges just fall down.

Good post explaining why some bridges just fall down.

Better start really worrying then, I have never bothered with a bridge......I did power plants , conventional and nuclear , refineries and chemical plants ! But then what would you know, you're from an island that specializes in pineapples and liberals.......

But then what would you know, you're from an island that specializes in pineapples and liberals.......

As I predicted, this thread has gone the way of so many of its helmet thread predecessors. Rather silly to turn helmet-wearing into a subject for political abuse, don't you think?

As I predicted, this thread has gone the way of so many of its helmet thread predecessors. Rather silly to turn helmet-wearing into a subject for political abuse, don't you think?
Political abuse??!! Grow up! Try to find some humor in things! Life can really be hard for anal retentives!

Political abuse??!! Grow up! Try to find some humor in things! Life can really be hard for anal retentives!

Ah, more abuse. See, some people simply cannot discuss this issue without becoming overwrought.

OK. It's clear there is little chance of progress here, because it just seems obvious to people that helmets work. But the more one looks at it, the less obvious it becomes. The central question that must be answered is, if helmets are so effective at preventing injuries, how is it that there seems to be no real-world correlation between increased use of helmets and reductions in serious injury? In Australia, for example, making helmets compulsory has not resulted in a lower rate of injury to cyclists.

We can debate that here if anyone wants, but there's a perfectly good thread on the subject in A&S. It's about ninety pages long, which might deter the casual reader. But for the benefit of those who think the issue is cut-and-dried, here's a link to a post in that thread (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php/771371-The-helmet-thread?p=14177392&viewfull=1#post14177392)made by a BF member who is a doctor treating patients with neurological injuries. As you'll see, he doesn't recommend helmets on the grounds that while they prevent abrasions etc, they may actually increase the chances of the type of injury that causes brain damage.

I'm not qualified to judge, but I have read widely enough on the subject to know that he is far from alone in that opinion.

Second of all, if a helmet cracks or breaks, that helmet failed to do it's job.

Incorrect, the physics tells you that the energy that was absorbed by the helmet would have been transferred to the skull/brain. All the actual testing of motorcycle and bicycle helmets is to failure mode so you know how much energy can be absorbed before it breaks or energy wave transfer through the helmets shell's and inner liner's medium and go into the skull/brain.

OK. It's clear there is little chance of progress here, because it just seems obvious to people that helmets work. But the more one looks at it, the less obvious it becomes. The central question that must be answered is, if helmets are so effective at preventing injuries, how is it that there seems to be no real-world correlation between increased use of helmets and reductions in serious injury? In Australia, for example, making helmets compulsory has not resulted in a lower rate of injury to cyclists.

We can debate that here if anyone wants, but there's a perfectly good thread on the subject in A&S. It's about ninety pages long, which might deter the casual reader. But for the benefit of those who think the issue is cut-and-dried, here's a link to a post in that thread (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php/771371-The-helmet-thread?p=14177392&viewfull=1#post14177392)made by a BF member who is a doctor treating patients with neurological injuries. As you'll see, he doesn't recommend helmets on the grounds that while they prevent abrasions etc, they may actually increase the chances of the type of injury that causes brain damage.

I'm not qualified to judge, but I have read widely enough on the subject to know that he is far from alone in that opinion.

Still from the onset of this thread it didn't have to become political. It was simply a comment made by the OP on how the helmet did prevent an injury to their head. It was the very topic of helmets that brought out the anti helmet people not the content. It wasn't the op or anyone that wears helmets, and gave him a thumbs up for surviving or avoiding head damage to whatever degree, that turned this into a debate. Something about cycling helmets brings out far more anti helmet energy than any other sport. Not rehashing and studies just pointing out that no one will make this debate about Batting helmets, Skating helmets, football helmets nor will they say they are afraid people will think it is dangerous because people wear helmets to participate in those sports or activities. Yet non of them have as many head injuries a year as cycling. I don't think cycling is all that dangerous either and went more than 30,000 miles before being launched through a back window head first. So I guess anti helmet people would say since that was a 40 mile trip that I didn't need a helmet for 29,960 miles because I didn't hit my head in those miles.

The real point is whenever people on a bike forum talk about helmets it draws the anti helmet people out like bees to pollen. even if that helmet discussion doesn't address promoting helmet laws or discussing others that don't wear helmets. The other issue is people that believe in helmets aren't going to feel more secure without a helmet no matter what the head only people say or point to. And the reverse is true as I said earlier. It is only one thing that devides us as cyclists. Even here we will support helmet laws for children. We will agree to rules for organized rides and races and not question the wisdom of the organization that mandates such use. we will agree that MTBers should wear a helmet. But when we are in a group like this some will voice their doubts that in their own particular case they would provide any protection. And in this case some seem to be doubting that the OPs contention that the helmet did its job is a true statement. :eek:

As far as my contention that no study would convince a anti helmet devotee that they are necessary comes from some of the same studies they so often quote, it talks about the health benefits of cycling out weighing the chances of a head injury fall. The indication is they would give up cycling before wearing a helmet. And it seems as if the stats they use prove that many do quite cycling when helmets become manditory. So then only those that believe in them will still be on the road I guess?:D

Pretty much the same people, same arguments - that I have read for 13 years now. Few, if any, are ever convinced otherwise from their original beliefs.

Perhaps the listserv computer program should be programmed so that helmets shows as "h*****s"??

And, somehow, the argument always manages to turn to attacks on people and their other beliefs, locations, whatever, rather than on the specific arguments about whether or not and how effective h*****s are, and should they be required or not.

Incorrect, the physics tells you that the energy that was absorbed by the helmet would have been transferred to the skull/brain. All the actual testing of motorcycle and bicycle helmets is to failure mode so you know how much energy can be absorbed before it breaks or energy wave transfer through the helmets shell's and inner liner's medium and go into the skull/brain.

This isn't as straightforward as you make it.

How much energy the helmet absorbed before it broke depends on the extent to which the styrofoam liner compressed before breaking. If it didn't compress at all, that indicates that the helmet fractured pretty much instantly and the helmet didn't absorb much of the impact. If it compressed a lot, fair enough the helmet absorbed some energy before it failed. But the question then moves to how relevant that was in the context of the crash.

Helmets are required to be tested to a very low standard. They are only required to withstand a simple fall onto a flat surface from seven feet at zero forward speed. The amount of energy they can absorb is very limited. Even if they work as well as they possibly can, they are massively and immediately overwhelmed by the forces involved in a collision with a motor vehicle and will make no material difference to the cyclists' safety.

This may be why helmets, despite all the anecdotal evidence such as one sees in this thread, have made no difference to the casualty statistics. They are likely to be more effective at preventing minor bumps and scrapes than at saving lives or brains, and of course minor bumps and scrapes are much less likely to be reported and recorded.

This isn't as straightforward as you make it.

How much energy the helmet absorbed before it broke depends on the extent to which the styrofoam liner compressed before breaking. If it didn't compress at all, that indicates that the helmet fractured pretty much instantly and the helmet didn't absorb much of the impact. If it compressed a lot, fair enough the helmet absorbed some energy before it failed. But the question then moves to how relevant that was in the context of the crash.

Helmets are required to be tested to a very low standard. They are only required to withstand a simple fall onto a flat surface from seven feet at zero forward speed. The amount of energy they can absorb is very limited. Even if they work as well as they possibly can, they are massively and immediately overwhelmed by the forces involved in a collision with a motor vehicle and will make no material difference to the cyclists' safety.

This may be why helmets, despite all the anecdotal evidence such as one sees in this thread, have made no difference to the casualty statistics. They are likely to be more effective at preventing minor bumps and scrapes than at saving lives or brains, and of course minor bumps and scrapes are much less likely to be reported and recorded.

You needed to add despite what the NHTSA, NEJM, IIHS, CCPA and other agencies that have done funded studies have published "and" anecdotal evidance there is no difference. All of the studies have compared those that were injured and with or without helmets and all have concluded that "chances" of being injured are greater without. But that was not the point either.

Three simple questions can be asked at this point person to person: 1. Do you personally wear a helmet on the street? 2. reading the OPs origional statement, "I was riding a familiar section of single track on my mountain bike Saturday afternoon. Going downhill at moderate speed when all of a sudden I was on the ground with my helmet grinding along the gravel-strewn trail." do you believe he would have been better off without a helmet? 3. Do you believe in child helmet laws?

I am not picking on anyone at this point all I am saying is I am more convinced by the studies and evidence persented by properly funded studies in the US and other countries than I am that they don't know what they are talking about. But I totally understand how people can see things differently. These debates come out whenever we talk about bike saddles, frame material, cycling clothes, and global warming. No one ever changes their mind and aren't likely too in the future. :innocent:

Second of all, if a helmet cracks or breaks, that helmet failed to do it's job.


Nah. Not sure why this comment keeps popping up. It didn't "fail to do it's job". It did its job. The impact just exceeded its design parameters. Unless you think they are designed to provide 100% structural integrity in which case you'd be wrong again.

Styrofoam is there to provide a compressible medium. The plastic is there to help provide abrasion and UV protection and to provide some structural support to the foam. If a helmet cracks it's provided all the cushioning it's designed for and has then come apart because the blow has exceeded it's design capacity. But it HAS provided all the cushioning it's designed for to 100%. It didn't just fall apart from the wind.

It's a lot like auto safety glass, which cracks but stays intact unless the forces overwhelm it and it busts into 1000 pieces.

Only difference between a bicycle helmet and motor cycle helmet BTW is that motorcycle helmets have a lot more foam and a much harder and thicker shell (carbon or fiberglass). Having crashed both, in many cases the blow you receive is identical. People still die of head injuries in motorcycle accidents. Did the helmet fail to do it's job in these cases? Unless you believe a helmet should provide 100% protection from all head injuries, which is tin hat stuff, you'd have to say no.

It's not a terrible leap of reasoning to believe that a bike helmet, in most cases, is better than nothing and provides some mitigation. How much? Depends.

I can raise my hand and say I've hit my head on the pavement without a helmet and with a helmet in nearly identical type crashes. Both produced minor concussions, one produced a giant knot and numerous stitches.

Guess which was which.

Statistical analysis is junk science to apply to this case study. The data is so scattered, diverse, and tiny it's worthless. And any statistician will tell you just because they haven't found a trend, doesn't mean one doesn't exist.

At best we can do the impact modeling and actual testing and come up with X helmet will provide Y impact force reduction in Z scenario.

And FWIW I think if you legislate helmets for motorcycle riders you should make the people in cars wear them too. Brain injuries are the number one killer in car accidents, if you believe the statistics ;)