So what's the verdict on helmets, yay or nay?

Both.

I lean toward the fact that helmets do at least work to some degree so I say yay. Sure if your hit you head into a car at 65 mph a helmet won't do much good, but they are effective at lower speeds.

I would also only buy a helmet now with the new MIPS technology, not too many helmets have it yet but they are some out there. If you read about the MIPS testing it shows a head without a helmet, one with a helmet, and one with the MIPS in the helmet, and it shows a dramatic image of the brain under impact, without a helmet the brain suffers far greater damage areas then with even a normal helmet on, that image alone proves helmets have some value; then the next image shows the brain again under impact with a MIPS helmet on and the brain damage is once again reduced further then just a helmet without the MIPS.

I do believe though that with all the controversy that we will be seeing better helmets in the near future, so the controversy will be a good thing for riders. This same thing happened years ago with seat belts, a huge controversy arose about the effectiveness of seat belts so the manufactures came out with shoulder belts. But even when new helmets do surface promising superior protection from the old ones they still won't keep you alive if you hit your head into an object going 65 mph, but neither will a motorcycle helmet help in that situation either. You only go so far with head protection, and with bicycles you're limited to weight because no one is going to want to ride a bike with a 2 to 3 pound helmet on ones head. But since most bicycle accidents are low speed impacts a helmet is effective to some degree and MIPS will make it more effective...still not perfect, but a helmet will never be perfect. If you want perfect head protection then don't ride a bike.

I deleted about 3 pages of recent posts.

Trolling is against the forum guidelines. The only forum where it is allowed is Trollheim, and what goes on in Trollheim needs to stay in Trollheim.

CbadRider
Forum Admin

Helmets work, you just need to know what they work for, which isn't what most people think they work for. Like any other equipment, some will find them more useful than others.

I'm (obviously) of the opinion most adults doing road-riding won't see a lot of benefit.

OMG... We are making progress... :thumb: or, Are we making progress? :p

I've always said that. :p

There's even a picture of me wearing a helmet in my avatar!

This speaks to FBinNY's point about the misnomers given to the "anti-helmet" group. I'm pretty sure most of us recognize that helmets work at what they are tested to do, we just reject that they do any more than that.

If I think I may be in a situtation where I am more likely to fall over and bang my head up a bit, I'll don a lid (first rain of the year is the big one... Fresno is dry, and it gets even more slippery during the first rain here than most places). I just don't expect it to save my life, and I don't feel like I need it in most normal riding conditions. But the latter is a decision everyone needs to make for themselves. Just don't frame it in the light of being a life-saving situation in order to get some non-existent moral high ground, and I'm good.

You will be positively incontinent to learn that I have been wearing a helmet every day the past few months. I got the crazy idea to race cyclocross this winter, and being as a helmet is necessary while racing, I might as well get used to it in training.

The only benefit, so far, is that the A-holes have stopped yelling things at me while riding.

six

Well--------------let me ask this. In races and rides helmets are almost always required. Does this say something about helmet use?

Helmets in races makes sense because there are a high number of bike on bike crashes. In a race the incidence of crashing is unavoidably high.

Helmets on organized rides, speaks more to the legal system. It's a CYA issue since in the event of a head injury (even to an adult) there will be an attempt to blame the organizers (put the blame where the money is) and the first question will be "why didn't you require riders to wear helmets?". Complex data analysis doesn't play to juries.

However, for experienced adult riders, cycling is a relatively safe experience, with or without a helmet, and the added margin (if any) of injury prevention helmets provide is lower than helmet proponents suggest.

The key to personal safety on bikes is to have goon stuff between the ears rather than above them.

Bicycling accounts for about 2% of all head injuries, so not cycling still leaves you vulnerable to the other 98% - hardly perfect protection. And if you stop cycling you might well be doing more of some of the other activities such as driving and walking that contribute to the head injury numbers.

recumbant bicycles and safety
 

I completely agree, and will add this. Falling off a recumbant is always to one side, and is more like sliding into second base than a fall. There is no way to go over the handlebars on a long-wheelbase recumbant too, as he stated above.

This is what we call an engineering control in the heirarchy of controls used in professional safety and health. It is higher than administrative controls, like training and procedures. And, it is higher than the use of personal protective equipment, like helmets, biking shorts (protection from abrasion is sensitive spots) and gloves. However, I always wear a helmet (and I have written extensively here about why).

Another control is those flags, and I use the American Flag, as I am a veteran and have found that the drivers who don't like cyclists are sometimes those who respect the American flag--they pass further away.
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y76...y/IMG_3975.jpg

John

Exactly, so why subject yourself to a 2% greater chance? Besides the data you refer to cannot be accurately determined because they lump head injuries in bicycle accidents as motor vehicle/traffic accidents, in that vein the percentage is 17.3% which ranks that category in the top 3 reasons for head injuries; and of the top 5 causes for head injuries bicycling is rated #2; see: http://www.sixwise.com/newsletters/0...avoid-them.htm So your data is incorrect.

Also 80% of all fatal bicycle crashes are caused by head injury, the weird thing about that statistic is that 90% of those that died on a bicycle WAS NOT WEARING A HELMET; see: http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread...8#post15763028. Those are statistics, and they seem to indicate something that I can't just seem to point my finger to, maybe you can figure it out what that means. Then of course Snell said this in 1996: http://www.smf.org/docs/articles/report.html And here is a yearly compiled stats for 1994 to 2010 of people killed while riding a bicycle and how many of those were killed not wearing a helmet vs those that were, there is a glaring difference that is trying to tell me something but I can't figure it out, again maybe you can: http://www.helmets.org/stats.htm

Because study after study has shown that marginal increased likelihood of injury is easily offset and then some by the benefits of cycling? Are you new here?

Your the one who's new here. If your hit in the head, as you apparently have been, the benefits of cycling or not does not judge if one will die or not die if both are hit in the head at the same speed with or without a helmet. Read the sites I gave before you go off on some wild tangent and address the issue of why helmets according to all the sites I gave show studies proving that not wearing a helmet increased the chance of death a lot. Don't go off the subject about physical fitness, what a...

No.

Considering your spelling and syntax, you really aren't in a position to accuse others of posting while brain injured.

I dont give a rats arse ABOUT my speling, and since your so flipant aboutit i just mispel whatever the faulk I want here...but do tak the liverty of correction it all.

I know what the problem is here... Us helmeteers are/probably are, brain injured... As most of us seemed to have had crashes involving the head bouncing off the pavement... Just imagine how we would be if we didn't wear a helmet... That could be you guys when you crash without a helmet, is that what you want? To be worse off than us? :innocent:

Your wit bites. Please, spare me.

I honestly have no idea what you're trying to communicate, here.

What wild tangent? You asked a question, and I answered:
Q: Why take that 2% greater risk of head injury from cycling
A: Because that 2% greater chance of injury is vastly offset by lower chances of dying by other means, such as heart attack.

If you give me $2 and I give you $10, is that a bum deal for you?

The bottom line remains-------------------------a majority of regular bike riders wear helmets. Also unless they want to be stiff necked anti-social outcasts, the anti helmet cult has to wear helmets to take part in organized races and rides. Yup-------------no matter how hard they argue, they are wearing them folks!!!!!!!

Let me state the obvious, you have no wit, which is why you've been unable to answer my post about all the statistics I found on the internet, so the most you can do is attempt to insult others. What a child. I will no longer respond to your childish comments unless you can intellectually (assuming you have intellect) discuss and prove the sites I gave are incorrect, all other discussion will not be of any interest to me or my time.

What?!?

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-r_yxAz0J9l...flying_pig.jpg

You forgot: "And your father smelt of elderberries!"

Ok, that statement is worth my responding; you shouldn't be that close to my father to sniff his odor of elderberries.