Originally Posted by
chasm54
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.
