Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Advocacy & Safety
Reload this Page >

The helmet thread

Notices
Advocacy & Safety Cyclists should expect and demand safe accommodation on every public road, just as do all other users. Discuss your bicycle advocacy and safety concerns here.
View Poll Results: Helmet wearing habits?
I've never worn a bike helmet
178
10.66%
I used to wear a helmet, but have stopped
94
5.63%
I've always worn a helmet
648
38.80%
I didn't wear a helmet, but now do
408
24.43%
I sometimes wear a helmet depending on the conditions
342
20.48%
Voters: 1670. You may not vote on this poll

The helmet thread

Old 07-05-12, 06:01 PM
  #2826  
Senior Member
 
closetbiker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 9,630
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Liked 18 Times in 6 Posts
Originally Posted by Doohickie
?.. I feel pretty strongly about wearing a helmet. For myself anyway...

I'll do my own analogy: It would be like me saying people can smoke if they want and then going on to say "but I value my lungs enough to not smoke"...
Except that it can be clearly proven that smoking damages lungs. You're assuming that by simply wearing a helmet, it protects your noggin. This hasn't been clearly proven. In fact, there is evidence that when helmets are worn, injuries increase.

Last edited by closetbiker; 07-06-12 at 08:41 AM.
closetbiker is offline  
Old 07-05-12, 06:03 PM
  #2827  
You gonna eat that?
 
Doohickie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Fort Worth, Texas Church of Hopeful Uncertainty
Posts: 14,723

Bikes: 1966 Raleigh DL-1 Tourist, 1973 Schwinn Varsity, 1983 Raleigh Marathon, 1994 Nishiki Sport XRS

Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 164 Post(s)
Liked 67 Times in 44 Posts
Originally Posted by hagen2456
There's a subtle but important difference between the noggins statement and the lungs statement: We're supposed to use our brains to decide whether it's stupid or not to ride helmetless. See?
No. No I don't.
__________________
I stop for people / whose right of way I honor / but not for no one.


Originally Posted by bragi "However, it's never a good idea to overgeneralize."
Doohickie is offline  
Old 07-05-12, 06:59 PM
  #2828  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Copenhagen
Posts: 1,832

Bikes: A load of ancient, old and semi-vintage bikes of divers sorts

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by njkayaker
It seems highly unlikely.
Or highly likely.

Sort of like Elvis being alive. I'm not required to prove either claim: the people making the claims have that requirement.
Or perhaps the people claiming that helmets are effective should be required to explain why fatal crashes have doubled.

Please provide any data about the speed of the TdF crashes before and after the introduction of helmets you have. Once I see your data, maybe, I'll comment on it.
Aw, I don't remember the exact figure, but it's around a 5% increase.

However, the fatal crashes in pro cycling typically happen at speeds that are very high, and a difference between 60 km/h and 63 km/h is unlikely to make that big a difference.

Edit: What I wrote aboute "increased speed" referred not to the increased speed of the pro races but to the difference in the effect of a helmet at 20 km/ respectively 60 km/h. Sorry about the confusion.

??? So, I'm required to prove it isn't correct but you aren't required to prove that it is correct? That's bizarre too!
That's not what I "required". I tried to show you that you offered no explanation, and in light of that, I offered an alternative, plausible explanation which is in line with what we know about the capacities and drawbacks of helmets. I have now also explained why it probably doesn't have anything to do with the speed. As for the number of crashes, I have no idea. But look at older footage of the Tour, the Giro etc. Plenty of crashes.

(Or look at the Youtube-video I linked to showing Fuente's descent. You may remember that he and Merckx crashed at one time at high speeds.)

Last edited by hagen2456; 07-05-12 at 07:17 PM.
hagen2456 is offline  
Old 07-05-12, 07:06 PM
  #2829  
Senior Member
 
rekmeyata's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: NE Indiana
Posts: 9,107

Bikes: 2020 Masi Giramondo 700c; 2013 Lynskey Peloton; 1992 Giant Rincon; 1989 Dawes needs parts; 1985 Trek 660; 1985 Fuji Club; 1984 Schwinn Voyager; 1984 Miyata 612; 1977 Raleigh Competition GS

Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1071 Post(s)
Liked 219 Times in 178 Posts
Originally Posted by rydabent
Studies show that the higher the IQ the higher helmet useage. That says something.
That's what I've been saying all along, those that don't wear helmets will die, it's just natural selection at work...those that are dumb will die off eventually leaving only the higher IQ people. So I'm all for those people not wearing helmets, go for it!
rekmeyata is offline  
Old 07-05-12, 07:09 PM
  #2830  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Copenhagen
Posts: 1,832

Bikes: A load of ancient, old and semi-vintage bikes of divers sorts

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by rydabent
Studies show that the higher the IQ the higher helmet useage. That says something.
Yes. It says something about how we should approach statistics. Have you for just ONE moment considered that the reason might not be that it's because they're intelligent but because they typically belong to a social class with a generally different life style and different risk assessment (AND have bought into the myths about the life-saving helmets)?

Last edited by hagen2456; 07-05-12 at 07:19 PM.
hagen2456 is offline  
Old 07-05-12, 07:12 PM
  #2831  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Copenhagen
Posts: 1,832

Bikes: A load of ancient, old and semi-vintage bikes of divers sorts

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by rekmeyata
That's what I've been saying all along, those that don't wear helmets will die, it's just natural selection at work...those that are dumb will die off eventually leaving only the higher IQ people. So I'm all for those people not wearing helmets, go for it!
Beautiful parody
hagen2456 is offline  
Old 07-05-12, 09:13 PM
  #2832  
Observer
 
jjamesstrk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 62

Bikes: 2000 LeMond Buenos Aires

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by njkayaker
It appears that the only differences is that crashes are more common in MTB biking and those crashes never involve cars. Outside of that, there's a lot overlap of crash properties between the two activities. That is, if helmets are useful for some MTB crashes, then they are useful for some road cycling crashes.

Of course, we don't really know (that is, assuming the events are similar is risky but assuming that they are different is equally risky).
You should look at the numbers of cycling fatalities, specifically what portion occur because of collision with a motor vehicle. The risk is significantly different. Even if it was the only difference (which I don't believe it is) it is a very significant difference.
jjamesstrk is offline  
Old 07-05-12, 09:25 PM
  #2833  
Senior Member
 
rekmeyata's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: NE Indiana
Posts: 9,107

Bikes: 2020 Masi Giramondo 700c; 2013 Lynskey Peloton; 1992 Giant Rincon; 1989 Dawes needs parts; 1985 Trek 660; 1985 Fuji Club; 1984 Schwinn Voyager; 1984 Miyata 612; 1977 Raleigh Competition GS

Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1071 Post(s)
Liked 219 Times in 178 Posts
Originally Posted by hagen2456
Beautiful parody
Ah, you see you missed my point, and that's my point.
rekmeyata is offline  
Old 07-05-12, 09:44 PM
  #2834  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 6,401
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 11 Times in 11 Posts
Originally Posted by Drummerboy1975
Th death rate is up due to pro cyclist taking bigger risks and being able to go faster due to better bikes and component. I honesty can't believe y'all would argue this!
Only somebody completely clueless about average speeds in the TdF could post something that stupid.
Six jours is offline  
Old 07-05-12, 10:37 PM
  #2835  
Senior Member
 
Stix Zadinia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 224
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I wear a helmet because it's law in my city and makes me feel a bit more safe, psyche-wise at least. It could be useful someday, or block my view from some imminent danger coming from the side some other day, who knows.


However, it'll do pretty much nothing, should a truck decide to run over my torso. Or my head, for that matter.

/thread.

Last edited by Stix Zadinia; 07-05-12 at 10:46 PM.
Stix Zadinia is offline  
Old 07-06-12, 05:06 AM
  #2836  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Copenhagen
Posts: 1,832

Bikes: A load of ancient, old and semi-vintage bikes of divers sorts

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by rekmeyata
Ah, you see you missed my point, and that's my point.
Unlikely.

hagen2456 is offline  
Old 07-06-12, 05:31 AM
  #2837  
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 29,917

Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,496 Times in 1,019 Posts
Originally Posted by rydabent
Studies show that the higher the IQ the higher helmet useage. That says something.
First approach would be to ask the poster of the snippet of helmet-IQ "info" to provide a reference a little more substantial than the vague and unsubstantiated "Studies show..." It takes very little IQ to post rumors and fabrications about "studies" and even less to believe them without question.

Last edited by I-Like-To-Bike; 07-06-12 at 05:38 AM.
I-Like-To-Bike is offline  
Old 07-06-12, 07:48 AM
  #2838  
You gonna eat that?
 
Doohickie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Fort Worth, Texas Church of Hopeful Uncertainty
Posts: 14,723

Bikes: 1966 Raleigh DL-1 Tourist, 1973 Schwinn Varsity, 1983 Raleigh Marathon, 1994 Nishiki Sport XRS

Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 164 Post(s)
Liked 67 Times in 44 Posts
I'll throw this into the mix from another thread:



His "helmet was absolutely smashed" but his only injury was a broken left leg. And to answer the question I had, no, that's not a pedestrian crosswalk; it's a dedicated bicycle path.

While there is a lot of debate about the methods used to determine helmet safety, this is a pretty clear example of a helmet at least helping prevent a more serious head injury.
__________________
I stop for people / whose right of way I honor / but not for no one.


Originally Posted by bragi "However, it's never a good idea to overgeneralize."
Doohickie is offline  
Old 07-06-12, 08:37 AM
  #2839  
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 29,917

Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,496 Times in 1,019 Posts
Originally Posted by Doohickie
I'll throw this into the mix from another thread:



While there is a lot of debate about the methods used to determine helmet safety, this is a pretty clear example of a helmet at least helping prevent a more serious head injury.
It may be clear to you that the picture confirms your pre determined conclusion/opinion that smashed helmets mean serious head injury without.

But thanks anyway for posting the URL for the thread. I don't normally read anything on that list. It was interesting and provided some good/useful information about insurance coverage limitations.
I-Like-To-Bike is offline  
Old 07-06-12, 08:48 AM
  #2840  
Senior Member
 
closetbiker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 9,630
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Liked 18 Times in 6 Posts
Originally Posted by Doohickie
I'll throw this into the mix...
While there is a lot of debate about the methods used to determine helmet safety, this is a pretty clear example of a helmet at least helping prevent a more serious head injury.
it is a clear example of a circumstance in which the helmets limits have been exceeded (those limits are exceeded beyond simple falls - helmets are not intended for impacts with motor vehicles)

As much as people would like to thnk otherwise, once a helmet has exceeded its limits, it can't help

Last edited by closetbiker; 07-06-12 at 10:13 AM.
closetbiker is offline  
Old 07-06-12, 01:00 PM
  #2841  
Senior Member
 
NCbiker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 353
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by closetbiker
it is a clear example of a circumstance in which the helmets limits have been exceeded (those limits are exceeded beyond simple falls - helmets are not intended for impacts with motor vehicles)

As much as people would like to thnk otherwise, once a helmet has exceeded its limits, it can't help
I tend to think it's a perfect example of a helmet doing what a bicycle helmet is designed to do. The rider is thrown from his bike, goes upside down and lands on his head. Is this not basically the standard of which bicycle helmets are tested. That being, dropped upside down from a few feet. The rider says he suffered no head injury, yet the helmet was destroyed. I'd say the helmet did it's job.
NCbiker is offline  
Old 07-06-12, 01:05 PM
  #2842  
Senior Member
 
closetbiker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 9,630
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Liked 18 Times in 6 Posts
Originally Posted by NCbiker
I tend to think it's a perfect example of a helmet doing what a bicycle helmet is designed to do. The rider is thrown from his bike, goes upside down and lands on his head. Is this not basically the standard of which bicycle helmets are tested. That being, dropped upside down from a few feet. The rider says he suffered no head injury, yet the helmet was destroyed. I'd say the helmet did it's job.
A helmet is tested by a simply drop only. It is not tested by a drop that involves an acceleration outside of the force of gravity acting upon the drop.

A helmet is destroyed when it passes it's maximum capacity. This happens at far lower forces than most people think.
closetbiker is offline  
Old 07-06-12, 01:22 PM
  #2843  
Senior Member
 
NCbiker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 353
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by closetbiker
A helmet is tested by a simply drop only. It is not tested by a drop that involves an acceleration outside of the force of gravity acting upon the drop.

A helmet is destroyed when it passes it's maximum capacity. This happens at far lower forces than most people think.
I agree, bicycle helmets have limits of protection and one would provide little to no protection if your head were to bounce off the windshield of a vehicle at 35 mph, or even much less perhaps, but won't you concede that in the subject crash, the helmet probably provided some measure of protection considering the rider suffered no head injury?
NCbiker is offline  
Old 07-06-12, 01:36 PM
  #2844  
Senior Member
 
closetbiker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 9,630
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Liked 18 Times in 6 Posts
Originally Posted by NCbiker
I agree, bicycle helmets have limits of protection and one would provide little to no protection if your head were to bounce off the windshield of a vehicle at 35 mph, or even much less perhaps, but won't you concede that in the subject crash, the helmet probably provided some measure of protection considering the rider suffered no head injury?
I think it's reasonable to expect a helmet to protect within the area tested (1 to 2 inches above the bottom-most portion of the helmet - a very small area indeed) up to it's tested capacity (a straight line, linear blow up to 12mph).

But don't take my word for it. Take the word of the director of the largest facility in Europe that tests helmets to make sure they meet standards:

the protection helmets provide is for the kind of accident where the rider falls to the ground without motor vehicles being involved...

The tests cycle helmets currently go through mean they should offer similar protection to a pedestrian that trips and falls to the ground...
https://www.cyclehelmets.org/papers/c2023.pdf

Last edited by closetbiker; 07-06-12 at 01:41 PM.
closetbiker is offline  
Old 07-06-12, 01:43 PM
  #2845  
Senior Member
 
NCbiker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 353
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
The tests cycle helmets currently go through mean they should offer similar protection to a pedestrian that trips and falls to the ground...
Or, apparently similar to a bicycle rider that is struck by a motor vehicle broadside at low speed, where the rider is thrown inverted and strikes his head on the ground.
NCbiker is offline  
Old 07-06-12, 01:45 PM
  #2846  
Senior Member
 
closetbiker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 9,630
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Liked 18 Times in 6 Posts
Originally Posted by NCbiker
Or, apparently similar to a bicycle rider that is struck by a motor vehicle broadside at low speed, where the rider is thrown inverted and strikes his head on the ground.
not really. Passed it's capacity, a helmet bottoms out and can offer no more protection. Cyclists survive such impacts without helmets all the time. The presence of a broken helmet is no proof of anything other than the helmet passed it's limits
closetbiker is offline  
Old 07-06-12, 01:48 PM
  #2847  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 922
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by NCbiker
I agree, bicycle helmets have limits of protection and one would provide little to no protection if your head were to bounce off the windshield of a vehicle at 35 mph, or even much less perhaps, but won't you concede that in the subject crash, the helmet probably provided some measure of protection considering the rider suffered no head injury?
I know someone that put their head through an SUV windshield. Their jaw and some teeth were broken. Nothing else. I know someone else that was struck from behind and somersaulted over the vehicle onto their head. Scalp lacerations were the only result. Obviously the fact that were both carrying mastercards in their wallets protected them. Wouldn't you concede that?
RazrSkutr is offline  
Old 07-06-12, 01:59 PM
  #2848  
Senior Member
 
NCbiker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 353
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by RazrSkutr
I know someone that put their head through an SUV windshield. Their jaw and some teeth were broken. Nothing else. I know someone else that was struck from behind and somersaulted over the vehicle onto their head. Scalp lacerations were the only result. Obviously the fact that were both carrying mastercards in their wallets protected them. Wouldn't you concede that?
You can't be serious? Show me some pictures of how they had their heads up there ass at the time of the accidents and maybe and I'll concede that the card in their back pocket may have provide some protection to their heads.
NCbiker is offline  
Old 07-06-12, 02:55 PM
  #2849  
Senior Member
 
curbtender's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: SF Bay Area, East bay
Posts: 8,613

Bikes: Miyata 618 GT, Marinoni, Kestral 200 2002 Trek 5200, KHS Flite, Koga Miyata, Schwinn Spitfire 5, Mondia Special, Univega Alpina, Miyata team Ti, Santa Cruz Highball

Mentioned: 52 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1562 Post(s)
Liked 2,394 Times in 1,145 Posts
I'm going out on a limb (the one that supports a head) and I'll say that a head covered with some styrofoam will have less damage then one without if it meets a hard surface (concrete ,asphalt, car, tree). I've watched them drop eggs off two story buildings, and the ones in some sort of packaging tend to do better. Doesn't make sense to argue that point. The point most non-helmet people have is that they've chosen not to use one when they ride in low risk situations.
curbtender is offline  
Old 07-06-12, 03:15 PM
  #2850  
Geck, wo ist mein Fahrrad
 
Rx Rider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Front Range
Posts: 715
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
safety IS the reason I don't wear a helmet. the noise a helmet creates makes it impossible to hear anything else. faster than 40 mph and it's just one long LOUD whistle. 50- 60 mph and hearing loss would be a larger concern. you can argue how a foam hat can save lives all you want, but I'm not eliminating my second most used sense for safety, for safety equipment.
Rx Rider is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.