Originally Posted by
Simon Cowbell
FWIW I've voted twice against MHLs for motorcyclists. It's their head, I'll mind my own business.
It might affect your insurance though. I don't know if it does but it's a thought.
Originally Posted by
tony_merlino
So the question is: Do helmets do more harm than good, more good than harm, an equal amount of good and harm, or nothing at all? I'm particularly asking from the point of view of a city/utility cyclist. And again, I'm not looking for any new laws or rules one way or the other, just trying to figure out if I'm baking my head for no good reason.
I think that's a decision every person has to decide for themselves, assuming there are no mandatory helmet laws. When I rode a bikeshare bike in the streets on Copenhagen I had no qualms riding without a helmet. I will almost always ride with one where I live. The exceptions being certain rides, all less than 4 mi.
Originally Posted by
closetbiker
all the information on this is in the paper I linked but to boil things down in a very simple way, it's the movement of the brain within the skull that causes DAI (concussion is the mildest, and most common form of DAI).
Any kind of jarring motion (such as whiplash, or what happens in "Shaken Baby Syndrome" can cause this movement.
Helmets are designed to adress only linear impacts and not the oblique impacts that cause so much trouble, thus the quote from the linked paper...
Ok thanks. Makes sense. I wasn't clear on the semantics of DAI and concussion. But you can't then say that impacts don't cause concussion. That's what had me really confused. Certain impacts (oblique) cause concussion, and helmets don't do well preventing oblique impacts.