Interesting study on football helmets concludes that they don't protect the brain from concussion. Different sport, different helmet, but the laws of biomechanics and neurophysiology don't change.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/...t-concussions/

I spent a few years using my head as a battering ram. I think a helmet provides its most protection to the back of the head. Not an area that usually gets hit. But I had one on in an accident and it helped keep me from some injuries that could have been...F-ed up. Or not. Don't know. Helmet between the back of my head and a curb. I'm just saying it's not a big deal to have a helmet on, if only it remindes you of what you don't want to do.

:rolleyes:

Hey, motorcycle helmets protect motorcycle riders' heads fairly effectively. Different vehicle, different helmet, but the laws of biomechanics and neurophysiology don't change. :thumb:

Yes, they do! And if you want to ride a motorcycle helmet while you're on your bicycle, to provide some actual, real protection against the miniscule chance of cycling-related TBI, I say go for it. But don't for an instant try to pretend that your 8 ounces of beer cooler styrofoam provides the same level of protection. It doesn't.

Nobody is saying that, but it does provide some protection, depending on how hard of an impact, it can even be considered good protection if compared to a no helmet impact of the same type ... As can be easily demonstrated to oneself in the test I designed and pointed out in post 3810, :p which nobody has done yet to my knowledge...

No, you missed my point: comparing football helmets and the activity of football to cycling helmets and cycling is about as germane as drawing parallels between motorcycling and bicycling. According to you, since the "laws of biometrics and neurophysiology don't change", anyone should feel welcome to correlate the protective properties of one type of helmet and use for which it was designed to cycling helmets and cycling.

Right?

Otherwise, I'd wonder why you posted something like that study of football helmets in this thread about bicycle helmets...

Well, I posted that link largely out of academic interest, figuring that those of us who so ceaselessly yammer about the matter might also be attracted to the similarities and dissimilarities of the issues. What struck me most about the article, however was how the researchers said that helmets protect the skull, but not the brain -- which may be a useful distinction for us to make, if we don't already.

On my part, when I read or listen to pro-helmet arguments, I see the two getting intermingled all the time. Skull and scalp injuries are different, qualitatively, than brain injuries, yet often -- most frequently in anecdotal reporting -- those two types of injuries are equated with TBI, a type of injury with more severe consequences. The article in question makes an important conceptual point in establishing that the two are, in fact, seperate.

That, and for general education, were why I posted that link. Of course, if you'd rather remain ignorant, that's no skin off my scalp.

Weak sauce, dude. Posting a football helmet study in a bike forum is nonsense. Whether on not football helmets protect the skull or brain is completely irrelevant to the bike helmet discussion. Don't pretend that it is in any way pertinent, like you continue to do.

The distinction between injury to skull/scalp and TBI has been made, frequently, in this very thread, regarding bicycle helmets.

But hey, anyone can post what they want regardless of actual relevance to the thread at hand, so knock yourself out. To that end, I'll go right along in agreeing that there could very well be a correlation between skateboarding and bicycling regarding helmets and the fact that helmets may actually reduce instances of TBI in a crash by mitigating rotational axonal injury.

Or perhaps instead of throwing all evidence in the world out that doesn't pertain directly to cycling, we could look at some of the principles behind these studies and see how they may/may not apply or may/may not be different to the cycling helmet discussion.

I don't think the link was intended as proof cycling helmets don't work, and it shouldn't be taken as such... but it can act as proof that at least the concepts we're talking about here aren't crazy. That doesn't go all out the window because you change some details... just how it applies might. It isn't an all or nothing deal. Now, what from that study may pertain to us is certainly up to debate... but I think it certainly has enough similarities to at least be relevant to our interests, yeah?

Not really. Football helmet construction and bicycle helmet construction are very, very different. Not even the same ballpark. Football and cycling are very, very different activities. Not even the same ballpark. Apples and oranges.

Not considering the heaps of scorn dumped on those who would cite motorcycle helmet studies in this particular thread. Motorcycle helmets being more similar to bicycle helmets than football helmets; motorcycling being more similar to bicycling than football.

The helmets do the same thing, put a barrier between your skull and a hard object. Football helmets are made for repeated use. You got to figure a FB player has also built up his shoulder and neck muscles to absorb the impact.

Don't wear a football helmet while cycling, it won't help with concussions.

Neither will a space-suit helmet.

Wear one if you like, it's as useful as a bicycle helmet probably.

Football (and ski and hockey) helmets have been promoted widely as providing protection from concussions. It was OBVIOUS to anyone with common-sense that you were safer wearing one. Turns out not to be true. Whould'a thunk it? Turns out that maybe those engaged in such sport were fooling themselves with a head placebo, assuaging and dampening their worries when they might have been better off changing the way the game was played.

All those scabby little sport shops selling the danger and its "cure" wouldn't like that though, would they?

Interesting point. I've heard the same argument advanced for why women hockey players have higher concussion rates than men: in general their neck muscles are less developed. Don't know if it's true.

"Helmeted motorcyclists were significantly less likely to experience a traumatic brain injury."

"Helmet use consistently has been shown to reduce motorcycle crash–related injuries and deaths,..."

"Helmets decrease the severity of head injuries, the likelihood of death and the overall cost of medical care."


^^^ Posted out of a sense of academic interest, in the hope that comparing helmet use across different disciplines will shed some light on the whole bicycle helmet debate. :innocent:

You show some progress... not much for years of study it's true ... but here's hoping that you can come back in another two years and tell us which of the following group together:

a) smooth, thick, heavy, head-encasing, TBI-reducing motorcyle helmets
b) small, light, non-TBI-reducing ski helmets
c) small, light, non-TBI-reducing bicycle helmets
d) small, light, non-TBI-reducing hockey helmets
e) small, light, non-TBI-reducing football helmets

Take your time. You've got another two years. I feel confident that a man of your abilities will eventually get it.

Well, Richard, I think I'm going to have to go with bicycle helmets and motorcycle helmets, since construction of each is more similar and the activities they are made for are more alike. :thumb:

We should also talk about skateboard helmets, which have been proven to reduce angular rotation to the skull and thus mitigate TBI -- such helmets and activity again being closer to cycling than, say, football helmets.

Concussion rate for helmeted riders half that of unhelmeted riders.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed...030382/related

Helmets mitigate severity of TBI
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/23030382/

Yeah, and by their same logic helmets cause foot dislocations and reduce upper-arm abrasions. But you knew that because you'd actually read the paper.... hadn't you?

Did I say two years? I take it back, you're probably going to need four. See ya later.... after you've done some serious work.

Yeah, and a study about football helmets has everything to do with cycling helmets...

Actually, I think skateboard helmets are quite relevant as you can even reasonably use them for the same activity. While you missed my point before about the biomechanic principles being relevant as opposed to the engineering principles, and thus I still have a hard time seeing skateboard helmets reducing concussions, I'd still be interested to see some studies on effectiveness in other areas. I'd bet they do better, and it seems certain they do in terms of rotational issues. But we still see most people in the bike helmets because, as everyone, they're willing to sacrifice safety for the convenience (board helmets get bloody hot and are heavy).

Which has been a point of mine from the jump: If we've established that people are willing to sacrifice safety for convenience, such as wearing inferior helmets because they are cooler and lighter, why is that step away from safety to convenience acceptable, but the step from wearing one to not wearing one so inherently unacceptable? Debating where that line resides is totally fair game, but attempts to dismiss it with tacts like "I care about what's in my head, do what you want" are stupid; you've already made the same sacrifice by choosing to wear a helmet proven to be less effective because you don't want to wear the hot brick on your head. So you care about your head more than me, but others do more than you, too :p.
(btw, "you" isn't directed to you at all, and I don't think you've been guilty of that attitude; just using that as a diving board to a broader rant over arrogant attitudes. Sorry.)

...my point being that if we're comparing things based on the biomechanic aspects, we might as well open the door to any and all helmets as relevant. Yes? So why not include motorcycle helmets in this discussion? Even though, such comparisons get shouted down by the bare-head brigade any time the proven efficacy of motorcycle helmets is mentioned.

So great: Football helmets are pertinent in this discussion; so are motorcycle helmets... Glad we established that...

Personally, I wear a skate-style helment, Giro Section, but I see where you're going with this. So the debate again boils down to minutiae again what style of helmet will provide any kind of protection; if a helmet which provides less protection is selected then what's the point. There's still them what would claim something's better than nothing...

Both pediatric populations. Not applicable.

Try again.

Try reading my previous response to you. What I thought was interesting was the way they segmented the types of injury. My intent was absolutely not to claim that this study's results had any pertinence to cycle helmet statistics. But, as I said before, what was interesting was how they seperated two types of head injury: skull injury and TBI.

All too often, people like you, either through stupidity or intentional obfuscation conflate those two. Like the idiot who just plugged in with the latest OMIGOD MY HELMET SAFED MY LIEF!! story. He took a knock on the noggin which didn't cause loss of consciousness and didn't even cause any concussion, yet if he hadn't been wearing his helmet, he would have been dead or eating out of a straw the rest of his life.

Besides being death-defyingly stupid, what that post highlighted was the all-too-common mixing of skull injury with TBI. Thus my post to try to show the difference between the two.

But you're so tied up in defending your point of view, even though it is supported by frighteningly little research, that all you can do is try and twist things around until they stop causing you cognitive dissonance. Don't worry, when you grow up enough to be able to objectively analyze the research, it will be all there waiting for you.