Article in the Jan./Feb. issue of Bicycling Magazine about helmets.
 

First let me note I am not spouting pro-helmet doctrine here. I am not saying everyone should wear a helmet, it is your choice simple as that. I am simply writting a thread on an magazine article & what my personal opinion & beliefes are as a result of the article. I am simply sharing information with you, not saying you have to believe or follow or share the same opinions & beliefs I do. So before you start an all out attack on this thread & the pro/anti helmet debate please understand what it is about first.

The article is in the Handbook section of the magazine & is titled "Skull Savers". It explains what each part of the helmet is & does.

The article also states "2/3rd's of cycling deaths are from traumatic brain injuries, according to the Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute, & at least half of those could be prevented with the right noggin protection." Some of these are the authors words by the way.

I truely believe this info. & is part of why I wear a helmet. Again I am not saying you should believe it either or advising you to wear a helmet.

In the explanation of the foam core it states how it works to protect your head in the event of an impact. It states that it "gives your head more stopping time - about 0.06 of a second more then a naked skull. That instant can be the differance between life & death." Again some of this is right from the article.

I believe this info. to be true as well & is a reason I wear a helmet. But let be clear one more time. I am not suggesting or advising anyone to wear a helmet unless you choose to. It is your choice not to or your choice to do so.

I do encourage everyone to read the article though if you have the chance to. But unfortunatly I do not have a link to post in the thread. I looked on Bicycling's web site & could not find the story. So you'll probably have to read form the magazine itself.

Now does everyone understand I am not touting a pro-helmet agenda here, before you get on the war path & yet another heated debate is created over this? This is purely for informational purposes only. Got it?

Personally I don't give a crap how you skew the statistics. In the type of accident *I'M* most likely to be involved in, a helmet will do little to nothing to help me. I'll pass.

If someone else feels they can't keep their bike upright, and are likely to fall off and land on their head (The EXACT type of accident that helmets are designed and TESTED to protect against) then fine, wear one.

Oh, and have a nice ride. :)

I seen the article and was surprised with that .06 of a second figure. It doesn't sound like much does it? I never used to wear a helmet until I started commuting to work semi regularly. Now I like it and the mirror I attached to it. I figure if I do crash, it won't hurt as much. Now I know I also have .06 of a second longer to enjoy my ride before the pain begins!

I have 2 questions for you. What type of accident are you most likely to be involved in? What exact type of accident are helmets desigend & tested to protect against? Regarbding the second question I assume you mean the type of injury that could be caused in an accident.

Helmets won't stop the car from hitting you, but they will stop the pavement from scalping you.

Do ya think, that maybe, just maybe, the Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute might be remotely biased in their numbers? If 2/3rds of cycling deaths are from traumatic brain injuries, what about the other 1/3rd where
death was not from a traumatic brain injury, and how many of that 2/3rds where there was a traumatic brain innjury, were the riders wearing a helmet at the time. Anyone who has taken a college statistics course can tell you that what is missing from a statistic is often more important then what is there.

I could say more, but I owe, I owe so off to work I go....

and also, how many of those 2/3 of cycling deaths were the results of impacts with motor vehicles and can a bicycle helmet prevent brain damage from a collision with a motor vehicle travelling faster than 14mph?

Did the article report that the BHSI mentions

Hey, even the coyote opens that tiny umbrella before the boulder lands on his head. It must help... he always comes back for more.

Admittedly a helmet is not going to help if you are creamed by a vehicle moving at high speed and hitting you directly... but that is not the only type of accident out there...

Fender benders are quite common amoung vehicles on the road... and a simple "bump" is enough to send a cyclist flying off their bikes, or even falling off their bike... in the case of these more common collisions, a helmet may indeed help.

But bottom line, it is the cyclists choice... and no law should be made effecting that choice.

A helmet may help in "typical" crash, for sure but that's a long way from saying, "2/3rd's of cycling deaths are from traumatic brain injuries, according to the Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute, & at least half of those could be prevented with the right noggin protection."

That's a pretty misleading pairing of information.

Nothing like yet another helmet troll to start off the bikeforum week...:(

Gospel.

:roflmao:

With me it depends but currently I wear a helmet since it's winter and quite icy. I fully agree with all the anti helmet arguments: i.e. the helmet does make me less likely to want to go into a store.

One convincing argument I saw once (some Web site from a guy working at one of the helmet testing labs) is that the helmet is supposed to help in a fall off a bicycle; taking under consideration solely the vertical drop height and gravity. If my front wheel goes in a rut while I'm going 40 km/h, the forward speed shouldn't matter in the helmet's ability unless I hit a bridge pillar: the vertical drop is the same hence the vertical speed at which I hit the ground is the same. The helmet will actually help me skid on the ground. If I happen to wrap my leg around the handle bars and my 40km/h forward speed is translated into angular velocity then I will hit the pavement much much harder: the helmet will not help.

So this is my thinking. Wonder if it's about right. Makes sense to me.

You must not like the word helmet or any mention of it in general. So you post a response such as this. Ever hear "if you don't have anything nice to say keep your ****ing mouth shut?!" Well, follow that advice!

He stated his opinion - deal with it by practicing what you so rudely attempted to preach. :rolleyes:

Instead of troll he should have said thread. Then I would not have taken such an offense to it & would not have posted anything about it.

If he wants to retract what he posted or change the wording then I'll retract what I posted.

Same is said about supcom. He *****ed & cried about it first.

He made an observation, you cried (and are still crying) about it. Freakin grow up already. You got anything else to add to your latest helmet troll thread?

I think it's pretty clear... no amount of disclaimers can prevent anti helmet sentiment from some at the mere mention of a helmet even possibly helping to prevent (or lessen) an injury. I guess that's what makes it so fun to read!:p

Classy

Why even worry about it... there is a sticky thread here on A&S and anyone wanting to know more about helmets can look up that thread. Those that don't like them have made their own personal choice.

Just let it go and walk away.

For the record, I do wear a helmet.

Whatever! :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I think it's pretty clear... no amount of disclaimers can hide a dingy nanny's intent to troll the same ole issue for the umpteenth time. There isn't an iota of intent to help anyone with these endless trolls on the same subject, from the same source. It's all about browbeating; screw the alleged "disclaimers," they don't mean poop from the OP.

I'd actually like to read the article because there's a good chance of misleading information being spread hurting cycling advocacy in the name of trying to make some extra profit by fooling a bunch of gullible suckers to hand over cash for something that can't do what the gullible ones get the impression that it can.

Kinda works hand in hand with a lot of what Bicycling magazine stands for. Selling people something they don't really need.