SteveSGP

How is there any debate about wearing a helmet? A helmet can't prevent all injury but it WILL lessen the damage caused by ANY impact.

It's also not all about concussion, there's also the small issue of splitting your skull open. I crashed last year on a solo ride and without my helmet I'd have likely been knocked unconscious or best case I'd have been heading to the ER for stitches.

Don't want to wear a helmet, don't, but don't go around telling others they shouldn't or don't need to.

LesterOfPuppets

It's a personal thing. I guess that's why they call it Personal Protection Equipment

I wore a helmet for EVERY ride from approx 1987-1998. After a while I decided to wear one only when engaging in riding styles with higher crash rates. I usually tell people, if in doubt, wear a helmet. I always instruct beginners to wear a helmet.

Even pros don't wear helmets for EVERY ride.



Just as race car drivers don't wear one to pick up the groceries.

FBinNY 

I don't think there's anyone out there urging folks not to wear helmets. As to saying they're not necessary, no one has proven that they are. Yes, they will lessen the risk of injury in a crash (though there's some legitimate debate even about that) but that same argument could be made for wearing one full time, since the biggest single cause of head injury is a simple fall.

The debate about helmets centers on two issues, the degree of protection actually offered, and the risk of head injury in cycling relative to the other risks of injury in our everyday lives. Given the nature of the issues, these are something everyone has to evaluate and decide for themselves.

When friends ask about helmets, my answer is that if you're asking you should probably wear one. OTOH, if you've made a reasoned judgement and decided to wear one or not, I respect either decision equally.

I-Like-To-Bike

Baloney, again.
Cite documented real life examples of court cases where your fantasy has become true. Don't care what some random blogger said about some random driver who claimed anything about bicycling helmet.

Cite real life examples (not generated in fantasy land) of cases where the bicyclist lost because he/she was legally not wearing a helmet.

Or just continue to rant and rave about helmets and your recumbent til you are blue in the face, and give everyone a good chuckle.

License2Ill

The Harborview Study:

Major findings include:

• Helmets decreased the risk of head injury by 69 percent, brain injury by 65 percent, and severe brain injury by 74 percent. These results, using emergency room controls, are the same as the results obtained in our 1989 study. Had it been possible to use population controls in the current study, the overall protectiveness rate of 85 percent for head injury and 88 percent for brain injury reported in our prior work would in all likelihood have been obtained.
• Helmets work equally well in all age groups examined. There is no evidence supporting the need for a separate standard for young children.
• Helmets were equally effective in protecting cyclists in crashes involving motor vehicles and those not involving motor vehicles.
• Helmets provide substantial protection against lacerations and fractures to the upper- and mid- face, but appear to offer little protection to the lower face.
• Involvement in a motor-vehicle crash was the most important risk factor for serious injury.
• Hard-shell, thin-shell and no-shell helmets had similar protective qualities. Hard-shell helmets, however, may offer greater protection against severe brain injury.
• The major site of helmet damage was to the rim in the frontal region.

Despite the overwhelming protectiveness of helmets, a few helmeted cyclists did suffer head injuries. This may be due to inadequate coverage by the helmet, improper wearing of the helmet because of poor fit or incorrect wearing behavior, movement of the helmet at the time of the crash, or crash forces that exceed the helmet's ultimate protective capacity.

Snell and ANSI approved helmets provided similar protection against head and brain injuries. However, Snell helmets decreased the risk of severe brain injuries by 81 percent and ANSI helmets by 72 percent.

By comparing the injuries suffered by helmeted cyclists with the injuries to those who were unprotected, it was found that helmets reduce the overall risk of serious facial injuries by 50 percent. Helmets were most effective in preventing injuries to the upper and middle facial regions.

Studies of the effectiveness of bicyle helmets, including this one, have reported that a number of helmeted cyclists have sustained head injuries. This study found that 29 percent of cyclists who sustain head injuries and 30.5 percent of those who suffer brain injuries were wearing helmets at the time of the crash.

Of the injured cyclists, 52.1 percent sustained one or two injuries, 37.1 percent had three to five injuries, and 10.8 percent had more than five. Injuries to the upper extremities were most common (suffered by 59.6 percent of injured cyclists) followed by injuries to the lower extremities (46.9 percent). Slightly more than one-fifth of the injured cyclists sustained head injuries, and one-third had facial injuries (see Figure 22).

Neck injuries were quite infrequent. Injured cyclists most commonly had abrasions, lacerations and contusions, while one-fourth of the study group suffered fractures. Brain injuries (defined as concussion or more severe brain injury) occurred to 6.0 percent of riders. Injuries to internal organs and to blood vessels and nerves were un-common.

Researchers correlated circumstances of crashes with injury severity (ISS) to determine the importance of various risk factors. Collisions with motor vehicles increased the risk of severe injury (ISS>8) by 360 percent and markedly increased the risk of fatal injury. Riding at speeds greater than 15 mph increased the risk of severe injury by 40 percent. Children under the age of 10 were most likely to sustain injuries to the head and face, while teenagers and young adults were more apt to suffer injuries to the extremities.


Cyclists who sustained neck injuries (2.7 percent of the study group) tended to be more severely injured, with 22.3 percent having ISS>8, compared to 6.4 percent of cyclists without neck injuries. Neck injuries included sprains, cervical spine fractures, and nerve-cord injuries.

There was no correlation between neck injury and helmet use or helmet type.


Of 14 fatal injuries, 10 were suffered by cyclists hit by motor vehicles, and only one, a 6-year-old child crushed by a truck, was helmeted.

https://smf.org/docs/articles/report

Six jours

If I post a study sponsored by Phillip Morris, will you believe that cigarette smoking is harmless?

rekmeyata

Wow, just because a group of supposedly pros are riding around in a parking lot without helmets on is telling us they won't wear a helmet in a race? BS! USA Cycling requires ALL riders to wear a helmet in races, as does the UCI. Get a freaking clue.

Six jours

Way to completely gut an argument that NOBODY MADE!

rekmeyata

Of course they would! Because if they want to smoke and like to smoke they will find a study to prove smoking is fine, and all the other vast majority of studies that disagree are simply trying to push some sort of agenda.

rekmeyata

I try.

chasm54

This study, and the 1989 study it attempts to substantiate, has been debunked long ago. Its methodology and statistical analysis is profoundly flawed. See here: Rivera Thompson study

And reflect on this. If helmets really had such a dramatic protective effect, how come trends in the rates of injury suffered by cyclists appear to have continued undisturbed by the increase in numbers of helmets worn? https://www.cyclehelmets.org/1155.html

RazrSkutr

Please specify this range.

Whereas it appears that you do and it would be awesome if you could post some specifics.

Here is the link you posted. Please indicate the specific sections to which you are referring. I've read through it (again, at your importunate request) and I can find nothing that refers to these "ranges in use":
https://smf.org/docs/articles/report

Please help. You are very obviously an expert and you could save so many of us from certain death if only you could make us listen to you.

LesterOfPuppets

EI could post youtube clips of pre 2004 tdfs, and training ride vids from last year. Most races around here EVEN ban riding in the parking lot sans helmet. REREAD MY POST maybe you can get the point this time.

Six jours

Ah, the triumph of hope against experience.

License2Ill

The testing standards have shown that the range is based basically on thickness of the EPS up to a point. The lower impact energies always result in lower g's transmitted below the levels of impact energy used for testing. Above the impact energy used for cycling helmet standard you get into thicker helmets like motorcycling helmets and auto racing helmets. It works the same for those as well. All will transmit less g's with lower impact energy hits down to zero. There was concern over Snell levels being too high to continue to pass at DOT levels(which are nearly identical to B90 or CPSC impact energy and anvils), but this was with lighter head forms in smaller sizes and current protocols specify headforms and weights that correspond so that the better-performing helmets don't transmit more g's in smaller sizes with current standards. That was never an issue for bicycling helmets which are only being tested at DOT levels of impact energy anyway.

With this, whatever supposed debunking has happened with the Harborview study, which I have yet to dissect and properly critique in any way, the DOT standard has been developed with substantial evidence, the CE standard has been developed with substantial evidence of efficacy, the BSI standard, and Snell standards regarding helmet use in any particular activity. The ideas that helmets are having no effect is silliness to the point that the only thing that truly shows in any study is that helmets that handle greater impact energies are safer in terms of death and profound brain injury. The only critique of that was about the possibility of lower impact energies causing greater injury which was again, dealt with in the motorcycling standards to reflect more accurate head representations and only at energies well above what bicycling helmets are made to deal with. The real compromise in helmets is making them thick enough to work while not too bulky and hot to wear. Current bicycling helmets share any of the same qualities as DOT motorcycling helmets, which have substantial evidence of working.

Here's some more to read: https://smf.org/docs/articles/pdf/imp...ing_policy.pdf

License2Ill

It's pretty silly to finish off an abstract summary with the idea that race car drivers wear helmets, but daily drivers don't. No, daily drivers now have a much lower fatality rate due to crash testing structural designs, air bags, and seat belts. Race cars don't use air bags and are not designed around crashes as much as a modern car is designed around crash data. Some race cars crash better than others, but we have actual data that cars of today that are designed with external crush space around the driver have better results than cars that don't regardless of expectation of crashing. The other obvious point is that driving fast or on the limit ups the frequency, and riding ups the frequency of falling well over that of pedestrians, and makes it harder to catch a fall. It's no different than other sports that up the penalty and up the skill needed to avoid. This is absolute silliness with no basis in reality, and again, with every other activity where helmets are used we have data that they work and that wearing them saves lives and reduces injuries and injury levels in the same ways, in the same places, at the same speeds, against the same energies.

howsteepisit

Just how do the implications of the Snel M2000 testing policy apply to bicycle helmets? M2000 is, according to Snell, for For Use With Motorcycles and Other Motorized Vehicles.

License2Ill

IIRC, that paper talks about the impact energy levels and the g-force levels reached, as well as the origins of the g-force threshold, previous methods of measuring force transmission, the basis of the methods of testing like the skull fracture limits, and methods of testing equipment to create impact energy and different anvil use to create pointed loads that offer range from flat to pointed surfaces, the two-drop protocol, etc. There's a lot of overlap, and as I said, current CPSC and Snell bicycling helmet standards use impact energy similar to DOT motorcycling helmet requirements, and all current standards use the 300g threshold for transmission. DOT also uses a controversial time aspect where the g-load cannot be over 180g or 200g, which was a debated issue for motorcycling helmets meeting other standards without a time requirement, but that has been hashed out and is not really an issue with any helmets anymore. Just because a helmet is specified for bicycling doesn't mean it doesn't have anything to do with other crash helmet tech or testing standards. They are all related and all use various amounts of impact energy and all use the same threshold for g-load. The only real differences are concessions to the activity, but as it turns out, those concessions in current bicycling helmets make them nearly identical in performance levels as DOT motorcycling helmets. How they got there is basically the same, and they seek to achieve the same results through the same basic properties and coverage areas. Some of the motorcycling helmet use and technology has been backed by bicycling info, and vice versa. The Snell motorcycling helmets only differ in added in a bit more coverage area and a bit thicker EPS and shells to deal with higher impact energy. The reason higher impact energy is used in motorcycling helmet tests is mostly because the industry and riders will concede that extra weight and thickness that bicyclists won't due to the nature of the activity, as well as some info that as speeds increase so do the chances of harder hits.

sudo bike

I'll confess, I spent way more time than I should have trying to find this clear information you're talking about that bicycle helmets work, and for the life of me I can't even find exactly what impacts they can take while still crushing. I can find the speed at which the helmets are dropped (11-14mph), but nothing else.

Upon researching impact forces that impart brain damage, even that isn't so clear cut. It appears as though they were previously using some numbers as a rough estimation of the level of impact that causes concussions, but it is no longer widely accepted. Just how we damage the brain has become a lot more complicated.

The only other location I actually found numbers to work with was a website commonly posted here that is skeptical of helmet claims. It critiques a study that used thresholds for damage and whether a helmet prevented this, but the study never addresses where these arbitrary numbers come from, and indeed the only damage threshold I can find is no loner widely accepted.

So, would you mind posting the numbers and where you got them? There are quite a few differences between testing standards for cycle and motorcycle helmets, AIUI. As just one example, I believe motorcycle helmets are tested on moving surfaces, simulating a real-world fall. AFAIK, and everything I've seen from both inside the industry and outside (like Consumer Reports), has them merely dropping a helmet onto an anvil, completely flat and onto the crown, at about 11-14mph.

License2Ill

Here's the Snell B-90 standard specifications: https://smf.org/standards/b/b90astd

It specifies the hits and anvils, the minimum coverage area, etc.

Crash helmets are not made to deal with concussion at all. They never have been. None of them, whether for car racing, motorcycle racing, skateboarding, skiing, or cycling. A crash helmet is made to deal with death and profound brain injury, not minor traumatic brain injuries(concussions). There has been discussion in the motorcycling world about concussions and other injuries adding-up to a more critical overall injury state, but what that points to is the fact that protective gear for the torso and limbs becomes more important with high speed impacts on the body, not just the head.

The numbers aren't arbitrary, but the way the history in getting there and the basis for the numbers is heavily extrapolated and arbitrarily lowered from original numbers. It isn't exact science because people's brains change as they age, but the 300g level is considered conservative. They started measuring for outcomes based on skull fracture data which is still controversial in terms of accuracy for skull fractures. Over time the g-force was set to 400g and then down to 300g as an accepted standard for injuries that cause death from internal brain damage. Concussions happen at like less than 100g.

I emailed back and forth with Ed Becker a few years ago to get some better perspective on helmet standard battles within the motorcycling world and had a lot of good info and links to all of these questions, but have forgotten where to find specific bits. The biggest takeaway is yes, helmets absolutely work, and yes, they are absolutely worth wearing, and it is worth paying enough attention to what made them better, which is higher standards. The current best standard for a bicycling helmet is the Snell B95, though most that are even Snell certified are only certified to the B90 standard which is slightly better in both coverage and impact energy than CPSC, and it's also checked for compliance. Specialized is one of the only widely available recognized brands that does more than CPSC self-certify.

Motorcycling helmets are not tested on any moving platform. Also, no helmets or any protective gear is tested to mimic real world. It's tested to work over a range of temps, sizes, and impact energies. This covers more than anything a real world situation of one sort or another could ever achieve. The only thing I can think of where this moving platform idea came from is either the wire guide used for the drop in testing, or the headform angle used in the EC standard that allows a little bit of movement of the head. Older tests on crash helmets used a solid swinging arm, but the wire guided drop is standard across the board now. The helmet can bounce off freely. Neither of those issues has any relevance here.

Any testing Consumer Reports has done would strictly be a direct CPSC standard test to see if models were actually compliant. This is similar to what Snell does with their follow-up testing for their standard. If numbers for g-force were shown in those results, they are irrelevant. The numbers below 300g are irrelevant because just like a helmet working up to a point where it is useless, the same applies to the injury below 300g. Below 300g doesn't cause death or severe brain injury. What matters is how much impact energy a helmet can take. A better helmet is one that can take more impact energy and reduce it below the threshold for injury. In case that still doesn't make sense, it's just like breaking a bone. The bone either breaks or it doesn't.

RazrSkutr

So your answer is that the reference which you cited makes absolutely no reference to the range of impact speeds within which EPS crushes and the assertion that this is actually a very small subset of the potential impacts sustained in an accident.

If you could answer these specific questions instead of posting irrelevant links and vast cut and pastes which do not address the questions posed to you it might advance the discussion.

mconlonx

iflabs

I'm slightly irate at the fact that people are throwing out these blanket statements about helmets having a miraculously ability to save you from any situation. Two cyclists in my city within the last 3 months died from hit-and-run drivers. Both were not wearing helmets but somehow people commenting on the articles think the hit-and-run is a lesser of a crime than not wearing a helmet.

I took a dump a few days ago on my bike and broke the fall with my hands. Only took a minor thud on the head. Since then I've been debating back and forth on whether or not to dump money to get my odd shaped head fitted properly. *Still think you'll die from internal organ injuries before your head splits*

Six jours

Hopefully you washed them thoroughly afterwards!

RaleighSport

I just want to "thank" you guys for having such strong opinions about helmets and "discoursing so maturely" about them that no one can talk about helmets anywhere else on the site....