N_C

Keep in mind the Hand Book part of the magazine is only for information that is short, sweet & to the point. I think they have, in the past done full multi page articles on helmets. Maybe they ought to do another specifying what we are talking about here. From both sides & detailing where the resources of the stats & what the circumstances of the accidents where a death occured form a TBI. Not to mention discuss mandatory helmet laws & the opposition against them, plus opposition to helmet usage as well. There is after all plenty of that here too.

Would someone like to contact Bicycling to encourage them to do such an article?

closetbiker

They said a helmet can prevent 1/3 of TBI deaths, when they could have said a helmet can prevent superficial injuries from simple, low speed falls. That's short and to the point.

Then again they did say that helmets are tested by a simple fall. They didn't say a helmet interferes with the mechanics of brain injury.

It'd take a real moron to conclude that a simple fall is the same thing as being struck by a motor vehicle and forces that cause brain injury are prevented by the current design of bicycle helmets.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science...069370d1e6f59f

https://members.pcug.org.au/~psvansch/crag/h-i-mech.htm

Trevor98

How can you possibly know that? Did the Magnificent Carnac tell you?

Helmets have their uses, however, articles and threads like this undermine real bicycle safety by focusing on a last hope device and distracting people from the real issues. Most pro-helmet arguments rely on increasing fear of cycling rather than on focusing on any real benefits helmets provide. The net result of most of the pro-helmet arguments is that they convince people that cycling is unsafe under all circumstances. This irrational focus on the sensational dangers rather than true danger compromises safety in many endeavors and cycling is no exception.

closetbiker

This focus also ignores the fact that cycling, despite all inherent risks, is a net gain for health. Not a risk to your health as the impression is given.

N_C

For one after one of the accidents I had a concussion, despite the helmet. Had I not had the helmet I'm pretty sure death would have occured. Second the ER. dr., who happened to be a cyclist & a head trauma specialist as well told me so. I certainly believe & have more faith in what the dr. stated over what anyone in here says. And no I do not think the dr. stated this fact to get me to continue to wear a helmet, to make me feel better about wearing one, etc. nor do I think he was lying to me.

I have no illusions as to the benefits a helmet provides. I know it does not make a cyclist safer & has nothing to do with how a cyclist handles a bike. I know that it does not mean cycling is a dangerous sport, or that it is not, it in fact isn't, far from it, but a helmet has no bearing on it. A helmet may be considered by some non-cyclists to be a symbol that shows cycling to be a dangerous sport. But those people are ignorant to the facts of helmets & their uses, etc.

Simply put all a helmet is is a device that is meant to protect a persons head from certain types of injuries should an impact to the head occur, nothing more, nothing less.

In all honesty I do not think the full extent of what types of injuries & head trauma a helmet can help protect against has been explored. I think there may be more types of both that a helmet may protect against that have not been studied yet.

Is cycling a risky sport? Then again so is hunting, golf, softball & other sports that amatuers can participate in. But that doesn't make it dangerous & a helmet will do nothing to change that.

pyze-guy

Perhaps the best post I've read regarding helmets.

I used to be a strong advocate of helmet use and how they contributed to ones safety. After developing a more serious interest in riding and reading some of the opinions in BF (hate to admit it but Closetbiker makes a lot of sense), and having an open mind on the topic, I've come to realize that helmets are not the be all of saftey, and that they are low on my list of things to make my ride a safer one.

I will admit that I have my brand new Trek sonic on right now because these 'helmets save lives threads' make me laugh so hard I might fall out of my chair and hit my head. I will be saved though because the helmet is being used for it's proper purpose.

jakub.ner

You got it! +1

Hehe... good one.

Yeah, I definitelly got a helmet education on A&S.

closetbiker

That's great, but what about these doctors?

. . . it is impossible to build a helmet that will offer significant impact protection.
-- Dr. George Shively, The Snell Memorial Foundation


. . . helmets will mitigate the effects of falling off your bicycle and striking your head . . . If a cyclist is accelerated by a car, then the helmet will not work and will not prevent a severe or even fatal injury.
-- Dr. Michael Schwartz, neurosurgeon and member of Canadian Standards Association Committee establishing helmet standards


In situations of a fall they [helmets] are next to useless because they do not protect against diffused brain damage. The damage to the brain would still have occurred because it is the rattling inside the skull that caused the damage.
-- Chief Pathologist Clive Cooke,


At best, cycle helmets protect against a few, mostly minor, injuries.

--Dr Richard Keatinge, MRCGP, MFPH

jwc

...and after my car wreck, I learned from the study I was in that most doctors can't tell the severity of a brain injury without extensive tests and then they can only judge the severity by your actions/reactions. Death can occur without hitting your head, if the jolt is to the brain is enough.

As my specialist told me...nothing can protect you from a concussion that will do serious damage to the brain.

In other words, with a helmet, you'll still be drooling, but you'll look better.

The funniest part of my accident was the fact that my head didn't contact anything. But, my brain did.

N_C

I've yet to conduct my experiment with helmets & melons. I've decided to expand it from just a flat surface to that & a surface with an edge. I'm also going to conduct it from differant heights. The highest point on my roof is something like 20' to 25' above the ground. I'll do the experiment from differant heights with 2 melons & 1 helmet for each height & surface I will be dropping the melons onto. Each height will have 2 surfaces, a flat & an edged surface.

Another experiment I'm going to conduct will be with my Jeep. I'm going to find a way to suspend a helmetless melon so that I hit it with the front bumper of my Jeep at 25 mph then I'll do the same with a melon with a helmet on it. BTW the front bumper of my Jeep is steel, there is no plastic coating or cover to dampen the impact.

To make sure it is is fair & as close as possible all the melons will be the same type, brand, size, weight & shape. Hopefully from the same crop. I will not use any melon more then once, not even if the melon appears undamaged because it had a helmet on it.

I will not use any of the helmets more then once. They will all be the same brand & same size. Probably adult large.

Guess I'll have to make sure to clean up the mess before my sees it or before it gets real sticky & nasty as I'll be doing this next spring or summer. Better make sure the garden hose & simple green are ready.

N_C

Why do you think some of the experiment will be done at a height of 15' to 25'? and why I plan on hitting a suspended melon with my Jeep at bumper level at 25 mph. I think most accidents that occur between a motor vehicle & a cyclist the motor vehicle is moving less then 25 mph.

The melons will be the same or close to the same weight. Each pair used in each experiment will be the same weight, +/- a half a pound.

jakub.ner

Hey that's cool! Looking forward to your results.

Although if I'm reading into a lot of the comments correctly, it's the mush that moves around the melon that's the real problem. Wonder if you can cut open the melons after and do an autopsy , perhaps on the softness of the fruit inside.

One (of many) different variables will be the weigth though. Wonder what the results would be if there was 180 lbs behind the melon .

closetbiker

I'm sure a melon will replicate the interior working of a brain and all it's connecting tissue, blood flow, nerves and spinal cord stump well.

Really, why is everyone so fixated on the exterior when it's the interior and it's working that's so delicate and interconnected? It's like jwc said, with a helmet, you'll still be drooling, but you'll look better.

Helmets are still good and helpful, but it's a long way off from Bicyclings claim (and others) of helmets preventing TBI. There's a reason there's a warning sticker on a helmet that says something like, not for use with motor vehicle. Motor vehicles produce TBIs'.

Here's a story from the USA Today about troops risking permanent brain damage with relatively minor but undiagnosed concussions, often caused by the shock waves from bomb blasts. The injuries frequently go undiagnosed because troops have no visible wounds or may not know they suffered a concussion.

https://www.usatoday.com/news/health/...age-main_x.htm

It shows that even if the exterior is in decent shape after a hit to a head, there can be significant damage within. The exterior is less important than the interior. Bicycling should just have said the helmet might just keep your noggin safer from more scrapes than it would without.