Bekologist<


The "helmets kill" quote you have mentioned was meant as irony. I was poking fun at the anecdotal stories of life saving helmets.

A critical look at the evidence surrounding helmet use is currently inconclusive. There have been some studies that have been favourable, some not. You are free to draw any conclusion that you like from this - and your own personal experiences. All that I can tell you is that many of the claims made on this forum are scientifically unsupported. Combine that with the very low risks involved in cycling (like 1 in 6,000,000 per hour of cycling as posted elsewhere) and I, personally, remain skeptical about their use. Anyone else who wants to use them, should.

By the way, with no sarcasm intended at all, thanks for the civil post.

Bekologist<


The "helmets kill" quote you have mentioned was meant as irony. I was poking fun at the anecdotal stories of life saving helmets.

A critical look at the evidence surrounding helmet use is currently inconclusive. There have been some studies that have been favourable, some not. You are free to draw any conclusion that you like from this - and your own personal experiences. All that I can tell you is that many of the claims made on this forum are scientifically unsupported. Combine that with the very low risks involved in cycling (like 1 in 6,000,000 per hour of cycling as posted elsewhere) and I, personally, remain skeptical about their use. Anyone else who wants to use them, should.

By the way, with no sarcasm intended at all, thanks for the civil post.

Almost ALL claims that helmets arent useful are either unscientific or anedoctal. The fact that closetbiker provided a source with hundreds of studies and sources saying that helmets are beneficial is just more evidence of how some people are just too subborn to admit to it. When the new england journal of medicine says helmets are beneficial the majority of the time, it's discarded as "a flawed study." But when some no-name researcher publishes two paragraphs that say helmets don't work, some people jump all over that.
I'll let the public make the call.

slvoid:

It depends on what you mean as "useful". I'm not sure that anyone has claimed that they are completely not useful. But there are a lot of criticisms regarding the claims to the degree of protection they offer and the necessity of wearing them. And the data the disputes these perhaps exagerated claims are very compelling. The New England article is 15 years old now, and it was a good start to an empirical look at the issue. However, their conclusions have been disputed by reputable sources since.

Their conclusions have even been changed by the original authors.

slvoid:

It depends on what you mean as "useful". I'm not sure that anyone has claimed that they are completely not useful. But there are a lot of criticisms regarding the claims to the degree of protection they offer and the necessity of wearing them. And the data the disputes these perhaps exagerated claims are very compelling. The New England article is 15 years old now, and it was a good start to an empirical look at the issue. However, their conclusions have been disputed by reputable sources since.

Not old enough to remember when smoking was good for you? I'm sure there's reams of data scientific data proving the benefits of smoking. If you knew someone was going to hit you with a car and knock you off your bike tomorrow at 11:42 AM, would you choose to wear a helmet? I'd pose the same question to your buddy, if he ever comes out of the closet and gets on a bike.

Not old enough to remember when smoking was good for you? I'm sure there's reams of data scientific data proving the benefits of smoking. If you knew someone was going to hit you with a car and knock you off your bike tomorrow at 11:42 AM, would you choose to wear a helmet? I'd pose the same question to your buddy, if he ever comes out of the closet and gets on a bike.


Actually, there ARE benefits to smoking. However, they are outweighed by the negative effects. And how was that discovered? Careful scientific studies and empirical evidence.

As to your question about 11:42 AM. Assuming I couldn't just stay home at that time :p , I would, in fact, wear a helmet. A motorcycle helmet. In fact, I would go to the sporting goods store and buy a full set of hockey pads and wrap pillows all around myself as well. I bet you would do something similar. But how about this: would you wear the pads, pillows, and motorcycle helmet if you knew that there was a 1 in 6,000,000 chance you would get hit on that ride?

The New England article is 15 years old now, and it was a good start to an empirical look at the issue. However, their conclusions have been disputed by reputable sources since.

1 out of the 40 sources on the site closetboy presented is 15 years old, the rest are a lot more recent. So I guess only 39 more to "prove wrong" before he's right. While he's at it, the statistics and number theories he uses when quoting odds are at least a hundred years old.

1 out of the 40 sources on the site closetboy presented is 15 years old, the rest are a lot more recent. So I guess only 39 more to "prove wrong" before he's right. While he's at it, the statistics and number theories he uses when quoting odds are at least a hundred years old.

Enjoying this discussion. My point, and I think his point, is that the data does not support either side enough to prove who is right or wrong here. That is why, these discussions seem to last forever - no one can deliver a coup de grace and end it. In terms of the number theories and stats, they aren't his studies. The statistical analyses you can do is limited by the quality and quantity of the data. It will be (and has been) very difficult to gather the kind of data that will support the claims that get tossed around in here. Or to "prove" that helmet use is "wrong" for that matter.

Actually, there ARE benefits to smoking. However, they are outweighed by the negative effects. And how was that discovered? Careful scientific studies and empirical evidence.

As to your question about 11:42 AM. Assuming I couldn't just stay home at that time :p , I would, in fact, wear a helmet. A motorcycle helmet. In fact, I would go to the sporting goods store and buy a full set of hockey pads and wrap pillows all around myself as well. I bet you would do something similar. But how about this: would you wear the pads, pillows, and motorcycle helmet if you knew that there was a 1 in 6,000,000 chance you would get hit on that ride?

I'm sure someone will come up with benefits for crack too. Will you smoke that? Can you actually name a benefit of smoking that can't be duplicated by another food/chemical that is non-toxic or non-carcinogenic?

I don't know where you get your figure of 1 in 6,000,000. Sounds like another useless statistic to me. I guess I'd need to see the study that you pulled it from. Must have been a lot of work to figure in the time I spent actually riding, the distance I travelled, and the traffic conditions. Is that figure for a ride to the corner market, which is 150 metres, or a ride to the beach in early morning holiday traffic for 30km's? I put my odds at 50/50 everytime I go for a ride. Either I will get hit, or I won't. I'd say everyone else has roughly the same odds, and that's why the majority of informed riders wears helmets.

Too many people get all caught up in numbers and statistics, and can't see the forest for the trees.

Finally, no I would not go out in hockey gear and pillows. I accept that there is a certain amount of risk in almost any activity I choose to undertake, and protect myself accordingly. I appreciate the fact that you're at least willing to engage in intelligent conversation, and I'll go so far as to apologize for that comment about talking out Uranus.

Cheers

I put my odds at 50/50 everytime I go for a ride. Either I will get hit, or I won't. I'd say everyone else has roughly the same odds, and that's why the majority of informed riders wears helmets. Too many people get all caught up in numbers and statistics, and can't see the forest for the trees

OK, so what would be your odds going out for a drive? 50/50 seems just as reasonable. In my province there are about 5 deaths of cyclists every year and about 400 deaths of motorists and for the last 3 years that they have been keeping track, there have been just as many deaths of cyclists wearing helmets as there are not wearing helmets. That sounds like an even risk with or without.

There is enough evidence about helmets (including the dutch experience of much less head injuries than Canadian, American or Austrilian cyclists despite their high rates of helmet use to the almost 0% use amongst dutch cyclists) to have a question about the effectiveness that is often claimed in favour of the helmet wearing approach to safety. I read a published study done in my area that put a head injury as 8% of all injuries of cyclists colliding with cars. Colliding with cars was only 17% of all cycling accidents. Even if the claim of 85% reduction in head injuries for helmet wearing cyclists was true - a real stretch at best - that would still only account for less than a 1% reduction in injuries to cyclists if there was a 100% compliance rate.

A far greater action to increase the safety of cyclists and reduce all cycling injuries - not just 1% of them - would be to get everyone to use the road wisely.

I think there is nothing particlarily wrong with wearing helmets, they're just not the panecea that they are made out to be.

Your problem is that you are totally unable to think for yourself. Do you really think no helmet is better than wearing a helmet? Forget all your ridiculous statistics taken out of context. You're a family man, right? What do you tell your kids? "Statistically, a helmet is not going to provide you protection from all impacts, and my buddy Mars says your odds are only 1 in 6 million of getting hit (or was it crashing on a bike?) so don't bother wearing a helmet"? Really. What do you teach your kids?

Your problem is that you are totally unable to think for yourself.

I have problems, but that's not one of them.



Do you really think no helmet is better than wearing a helmet?


Have I ever said otherwise? I ask why it is more important to wear one on a bicycle only and not walking around the house, street or in a car?

How can you say one won't receive a head injury walking on the street or driving a car or using the stairs if there is no information avalible that shows cyclists receive more head injuries than other activities?


Forget all your ridiculous statistics taken out of context. You're a family man, right? What do you tell your kids? "Statistically, a helmet is not going to provide you protection from all impacts, and my buddy Mars says your odds are only 1 in 6 million of getting hit (or was it crashing on a bike?) so don't bother wearing a helmet"? Really. What do you teach your kids?

I'd rather see my kids ride a bike and get exercise without a helmet than not ride a bike at all because as the BMA says, the benefits outweigh the risks by a ratio of 20 to 1.

There are risks in everything in life but a bad risk is to not do something beneficial because of a fear of a remote risk that is no greater than any other activity outside of the feared activity. In short, my kid could go outside and be just as likely to be hit by a car on foot as on a bike or he can stay inside and slip in the tub and hit his head too.

Have I ever said otherwise? I ask why it is more important to wear one on a bicycle only and not walking around the house, street or in a car?


Not to question your upbringing or whatnot, and I'm sure you're sincere, but when you say it like that, it's almost as if you're making fun of people for wearing a helmet. Might wanna work on that a bit...
I understand what you're saying but there are much better ways to put it.
Kind of like me asking why don't you use a roll cage and fire suppression system when driving. No one's been able to answer that one either. Kind of like me going on a racing forum and when someone crashes their car, I make a post saying, "now why aren't you using a roll cage in your personal car???" See what I mean?

I have problems, but that's not one of them.
Have I ever said otherwise? I ask why it is more important to wear one on a bicycle only and not walking around the house, street or in a car?

I can only hope you're not serious.

How can you say one won't receive a head injury walking on the street or driving a car or using the stairs if there is no information avalible that shows cyclists receive more head injuries than other activities?

We're back to that whole "thinking for yourself". I'm well aware of the level of risk for the activities you've mentioned, and like the majority of free-thinking people today, I'm aware of which activities are inherently dangerous, and which ones require no safety gear.

I'd rather see my kids ride a bike and get exercise without a helmet than not ride a bike at all because as the BMA says, the benefits outweigh the risks by a ratio of 20 to 1.

You didn't answer the question posed to you. What's your wife's take on this? Have you two put up a united front, and forbidden the ruggies from wearing helmets until they're 18 and can make their own decisions?

There are risks in everything in life but a bad risk is to not do something beneficial because of a fear of a remote risk that is no greater than any other activity outside of the feared activity. In short, my kid could go outside and be just as likely to be hit by a car on foot as on a bike or he can stay inside and slip in the tub and hit his head too.

It is utterly usesless trying to have an intelligent discussion with you. [edited out personal attacks - joe] When logic fails, why do you spout such stupidity? I think you just like to argue. Go somewhere else and flog your dead horse of nonsense. Return if and when you have something intelligible to say.

I say we lock this thread, it's gotten way off the OT and its pretty much pointless to talk sense into some people.

Good idear!

You can read post #50 on this thread for my response of "have I ever said otherwise?"

As for risk of head injury on a bike, the hospitals are full of head injury victims who were injured when not on a bike.

According to the Canadian Institute for Health Information, of the hospitalizations due to a head injury in Ontario,
almost half were caused by falls (49%), followed by motor vehicle collisions (31%), homicide and intentional injuries which refers to homicides, assaults, suicides, or self-inflected injuries, accounted for 6.2% of hospital injury admissions, pedal cyclists (5%).

Now I say it's how you do something that'll lead to an injury not what you do. It's clear that head injured cyclists make up a tiny portion of this class of injury. We do get head injuries, but only our fair share.

As for if I let my kids ride without helmets. You bet. I taught them how to ride, went out with them when they used the bikes to get around, and coached them for a long time before they went out on their own. They've never had accidents and went on to be excellent drivers. Almost all of the other parents in the neighbourhood taught them to "balance" bought them a helmet and let them go. Guess who were getting into accidents?

I'm sure someone will come up with benefits for crack too. Will you smoke that? Can you actually name a benefit of smoking that can't be duplicated by another food/chemical that is non-toxic or non-carcinogenic?


You got an itchy trigger finger there, Expatriate. No I wouldn't. Take another look at the thread. slvoid asked me if I thought there were any benfits to smoking cigarettes, to which I replied that there actually are. Then added that the bad greatly outweighs any good. I certainly don't advocate smoking cigs, crack, and have no doubt that other substances provide similar benefits as nicotine.


I appreciate the fact that you're at least willing to engage in intelligent conversation, and I'll go so far as to apologize for that comment about talking out Uranus.

Cheers

I appreciate that gesture. I am always up for an intelligent exhange of ideas.

When I trained my step daughter to ride a bike, she wore a helmet. I felt/feel that as a beginning cyclist, there was a good chance she could wipe out and hurt herself. I also had her use training wheels for a while.

Later, when her skills increased I took off the training wheels. Then, she reached an age where I felt she could make up her own mind about this issue. We had a chat, similar to the one enacted here (less name calling though). She decided to wear the hlemet for about another year, then took it off. I support either decision, as both have their merits.

Expatriate, a question for you:

I see that you are an Aussie. I played rugby up in Canada for about 10 years after my so-called football career ended. Great game, lots of physical contact, no helmets. In fact, I credit my rugby training for lessoning injuries in a recent high speed crash (RR track). And, wow, the Australian rugby team ROCKS!

Anyways, do you think that rugby players should wear helmets? I'm guessing your kids played some rugby, did you make them wear helmets when they played?

I played rugby in high school. Great game. I played prop and butted heads all the time. Lots of open field hits right on the noggin. Couldn't count the number of times heads were cracked, but we all survived.

I played rugby in high school. Great game. I played prop and butted heads all the time. Lots of open field hits right on the noggin. Couldn't count the number of times heads were cracked, but we all survived.

I should comment, but no. Oops, too late. 'Nuff said.

Expatriate, a question for you:

I see that you are an Aussie. I played rugby up in Canada for about 10 years after my so-called football career ended. Great game, lots of physical contact, no helmets. In fact, I credit my rugby training for lessoning injuries in a recent high speed crash (RR track). And, wow, the Australian rugby team ROCKS!

Anyways, do you think that rugby players should wear helmets? I'm guessing your kids played some rugby, did you make them wear helmets when they played?

I guess you'll need to go look up the definition of expatriate, and then maybe re-think that whole question. PM me for clarification if you still don't get it.

That's rather useles don't you think?

I don't think so because I've read the case files of all cyclist deaths for a 10 year period in BC and understand what it was that led to the deaths and it wasn't the lack of helmets. Since our MHL was enacted, we keep track of helmet use and head injuries to cyclists and it's an even split for helmet or no helmet. The experience is far below what was the promoted reduction of injury when the law was enacted.

The 5 deaths to 400 could also be shown in a different way. In BC, cyclists make up 2% of traffic, yet only account for only 0.9% of traffic injuries.

HERE'S THE PROBLEM WITH STATISTICS - REPORTING AND SAMPLING

OK, I'm the original poster, I'm taking this thread back.

During World War One, some British Army officers came out against steel helmet use, because they observed that the number of soldiers admitted to hospital with head injuries skyrocketed. Their conclusion - helmets are dangeous, we shouldn't use them. Keep using the traditional soft headgear.

Their fundamental error was that the without helmets, someone who would have simply died in the field was now surviving long enough to make it to hospital. They did not count the total number of people involved in incidents, and examine outcomes for them all.

I'm sure there were countless cases of people who entirely avoided injury due to helmet use; shrapnel bounced off steel, or penetrated helmet but not head. We've all seen these pictures.

Same with me. If I didn't have a helmet on, I would've been a hospital admission, clearly, obviously. But I did have a helmet on, so I just went home and basically self-treated. I will never show up on anyone's roster of people who survived head injury due to helmet use. But I know I did, and I know many people with a similar experience; they fell, they cracked their helmet, they walked away. And they might've been a hospital admit or fatality without one.

So you can't really determine the value of helmets by looking at accident and hospital statistics; the sampling is all wrong. You don't sample successful failures!

Helmets significantly reduce impact forces on victims; they don't have any downsides to their use; why on earth would anyone argue that they are not worth using???










I don't think so because I've read the case files of all cyclist deaths for a 10 year period in BC and understand what it was that led to the deaths and it wasn't the lack of helmets. Since our MHL was enacted, we keep track of helmet use and head injuries to cyclists and it's an even split for helmet or no helmet. The experience is far below what was the promoted reduction of injury when the law was enacted.

The 5 deaths to 400 could also be shown in a different way. In BC, cyclists make up 2% of traffic, yet only account for only 0.9% of traffic injuries.

I know I'm not arguing against their use or that they don't have some value. I'm arguing exagerated claims of effectiveness outside their capabilities and the exagerated claim of specific need for cyclist head protection over and above all other head injuries that happen to everybody else.

By all means wear one and they'll work up to their design capabilities, but I'm skeptical of some claims of the effectiveness and perceived need. I also think if you wear one only on a bike, you're doing yourself a disservice by not wearing one in the car, but it's a free world and we should be able to live with all kinds of irrational decisions.

Prevention is by far a more effective measure for safety. I wish a bike helmet would save as much as some claim they do, but from what I've read and seen I don't buy much of what is being claimed. The 85% reduction rate in injury that was proported before our MHL came into effect has never been realized. Not even close.

Taking back the thread is a good idea because the original issue was resolved. The thread has changed. Helmets work * is more appropriate for the last bit of posting that has gone on here.

Yesterday I was wearing street shoes (leather loafers) on rat-trap pedals, no toe clips. I think my foot slipped off the left pedal as I was accelerating hard, and down I went. It was like a giant hand grabbed me, I don't even remember the descent, that's how fast it was.

The left rear quadrant of my head struck the concrete pavement. The helmet was totally shattered, a very wicked concentric circular bulls-eye fracture in the styrofoam centered around the point of impact... like you see where a bullet hits metal and fractures but does not disintegrate it.

Did not lose consciousness. I had no surface wounds on my head; did feel rattled, disoriented for a few minutes after impact. Had a mild headache and dizziness, no other neurological symptoms. Took Tylenol, went to bed early. Am now at work, next day. Still feel dizzy, slight headache.

Undoubtedly, I would've have a concentric bulls-eye skull fracture, probably a depressed fracture at that, absolutely a neurosurgical intervention, very possibly a brain injury with temporary or permanent impairment, maybe death.

You naysayers do what you want, but I've been wearing helmets since 1977, and I ain't going to stop now. This one saved my bacon. Best $30 I ever spent.


I'm sure someone else mentioned this but the worst thing you can do after a head injury is take a nap. Why? Because you could have a bleed underneath the skull, lose consciousness, and never wake up, ie. die. It almost happened to a friend of mine. He went down hard on his helmet, fortunately broke his collar bone, otherwise would have refused a trip to the ER. While at the ER, he lost consciousness, they did emergency brain surgery to relieve a massive subdural bleed.

On the topic of no helmet, you can read below about a local cyclist who suffered a head injury while riding without a helmet. It is a sad story of health insurance, lost wages, emotional trauma for loved ones, and the slow and painful recovery, breathing tubes, memory loss, friends encouraged because he is able to count to 10 and say a few words, etc. It all could have been prevented by wearing a helmet.

http://stlbiking.com/ivb/index.php?act=ST&f=50&t=8058&st=0

Bill, I learned after the fact that I really should've gone to the ER immediately. Thanks for reinforcing that. But, I did know enough to have my wife come in periodically and check on me, to make sure I was responsive to stimuli; she was shining flashlights into my eyes, checking my pupils, etc.


I'm sure someone else mentioned this but the worst thing you can do after a head injury is take a nap. Why? Because you could have a bleed underneath the skull, lose consciousness, and never wake up, ie. die. It almost happened to a friend of mine. He went down hard on his helmet, fortunately broke his collar bone, otherwise would have refused a trip to the ER. While at the ER, he lost consciousness, they did emergency brain surgery to relieve a massive subdural bleed.

It all could have been prevented by wearing a helmet.

http://stlbiking.com/ivb/index.php?act=ST&f=50&t=8058&st=0

That IS a sad story. I didn't read your comments all the way through before I clicked on the link, so I was half expecting Tracy to take a turn for the worse and die. :eek: Glad that didn't happen.

Now, about your final statement. That is just the kind of thinking that I have been advocating against. You don't know, nor does anyone else, that a helmet would have prevented this sad injury. People receive TBI's every day while wearing helmets (and not wearing helmets). Closetbiker and I have provided a ton of empiriacl evidence that wearing a helmet does NOT rpovide the kind of blanket prtection that many people think/believe. Would it have helped? Maybe. Maybe not. Or if it did help, it may not have made much of a difference at all. Or it could have made a lot of difference. If he didn't ride bikes at all eh wouldn't have fallen in the first place. Is the cautionary tale to warn people to not ride bikes?

In my research class, I call these "Oprah stories" becaue they tug your heart strings and have a cautionary component. However, the data under discussion provides the outcomes of hundreds or even thousands of cases like Tracy, and they just do not support your final statement.

You're right, I overstated it, but I think most people believe that if Tracy had been wearing a helmet, his injuries would have been less severe.

Yeah, it really was a simple story - I wrecked, look at all the kinetic energy the helmet (not me) absorbed, isn't that great!

All of the dang carpetbaggers with agendas had to hijack it!

This has been discussed enough. Thread closed.