+1 Exactly this.

See post #597.

I'd like to see you prove that.

(Or, to put it a little differently: you have totally misunderstood what science is.)

Sorry, no, you don't get to say that after waving around Dr. Walker's study -- either that, or give up "drivers pass helmeted cyclists closer." After all a drivers consideration and attitude matter more, right?

So much fail in one post...

Plenty of "anti-helmet trolls" will in fact argue that:
- Useless is a step up from them what state that helmets will exacerbate or cause some injuries.
- They will argue that there is no evidence that helmets protect from non-serious injuries.
- maximum protection on a bike does not include use of a helmet
- Helmet use is actually detrimental to safe cycling.

You drastically misrepresent arguments put forward by the bare-head crowd.

Dude helmets are magic. Their magic force fields save people from concussions. Those same helmet rays (HRs) MAKE drivers pass you closer because the helmet concentrates ley-lines by acting as a fulcrum.

Dr. Walker and Closetbiker will probably try to blind you with science and statistics and claim that helmeted riders are passed more closely because the drivers SEE the helmet with their EYES and that that affects their ATTITUDE and consequently BEHAVIOR, but that's just Walker and Closet trying to fool you.

Keep the faith brother. (And keep making money selling helmets in your shop too.)

Oh dear. Does it hurt?

I wonder if, for the good of the cycling community, Brother mconlonx sells helmets below his cost?

Y'know, because he's concerned for the safety of cyclists.

Really? I read that post as an entirely reasonable and level headed summation of a contentious issue; an issue that utterly lacks in controlled data to back up either side, and is fueled on both sides by statistical studies with contradictory conclusions. I think that Monster Pete hit the nail on the head.

First off, I really wish that people would stop misusing the word troll. It doesn't mean "someone who disagrees with you." Y'all keep using that word; it doesn't mean what you think it means. Second, I numbered your points for easier response:

1) Some people have asserted that helmets are useless, this is true. But those who've asserted that helmets are useless do so, not because they don't believe that helmets mitigate minor injury, but because they don't believe that helmets are necessary (see point 3). These people are just using the wrong word, useless instead of unnecessary, but you can understand what they mean from context. Many of these have been argued into admitting that helmets are useful in reducing minor injuries, and most of us always admitted that anyway.

But it is possible that helmets can exacerbate some injuries. It has been recently established that rotational injury is the method of injury for a whole class of brain injuries; including concussions, which had previously been though to be resultant from lateral force, coup-countercoup injuries. Is it possible that helmets can exacerbate rotational injury? Yes. Is it proven? No. Is it proven that helmet straps can cause choking deaths in children? Sadly, yes. Is it possible that the injurious qualities of a helmet outstrip it's protective qualities? Maybe, it hasn't been studied.

I can only think of one poster who outright asserted, repeatedly, that helmets cause more injury than they prevent (and even he admitted that they prevent some injury). But I've only been keeping track since the last 10 or so pages of the third helmet thread (this is the fifth one, yes?), so maybe some sentiment or posters that you're referring to pre-date than that.

2) Since non-serious injuries from single party bike crashes rarely show up at hospitals and in injury reports, this is hard to prove either way; but I really doubt that you'll find someone who won't admit that helmets can prevent minor injuries like scrapes, cuts, contusions (bumps and swelling), and just straight up pain (yes, it hurts more to hit your head bareheaded than while wearing a helmet; no one needs a study to prove or disprove this). I personally go as far as believing that helmets can prevent some minor skull fractures, but again it is hard to prove or disprove the absence of injury.

3) Again, almost no one states that helmets do not prevent any injury (I can't remember a single poster holding that stance, honestly; feel free to look back through the threads to correct me, since it's your claim). And with the admission that helmets provide some level of protection comes the admission that maximum protection can only be obtained with a (full face) helmet. And knee pads. And elbow pads. Wrist guards, shin guards, body armor, steel toed boots, armored gauntlets, goggles, leathers, those little rubber things that boxers bite down on, and maybe even a compressed air driven full body airbag that will envelope the user in case of ejection from the bike. Oh, and that helmet should probably be a motorcycle helmet, for maximum protection.

What people are debating here is necessary protection, not maximum protection. They're not the same thing. If I thought that I needed maximum protection every time I got on the bike, I would never ride.

4) Well, this is debatable. There is some evidence that MHLs lead to reduced cycling numbers, and there is some evidence that reduced cycling numbers lead to increased risk for all remaining cyclists. Does this mean that your personal decision to don a helmet hurts cycling as a whole? No, but engendering a cultural acceptance of bareheaded cycling as irresponsibly risky might.

On a personal level, risk compensation could be also a factor. Studies have proven that it exists, but it hasn't been quantified for cycling or cycle helmets. Maybe the amount of risk compensation from wearing a helmet doesn't outstrip the protective abilities of the helmet, maybe it does, maybe it depends upon the person. No one really knows, so that certainly leaves it up for debate. As for the Walker study, it is certainly interesting and deserves further study; but it was a tiny experiment that has never been repeated, and as such needs, in my mind, further experimentation to support his conclusions (as I believe Dr. Walker admits in the study).

And for those who don't understand why this issue has gone on for so long, that's why; in the absence of controlled data, and the presence of contradictory or weak statistical data, the debate will rage on as long as people feel strongly one way or the other.

No, you do, by taking the most extreme representation of the helmet skeptic crowd and presenting it as an average stance. To be guilty of the same I would have to lump all pro-helmet posters in the same boat as rydabent. And that would be disingenuous, as some reasonable and intelligent folk have come into these threads to defend the idea that wearing a helmet is the only reasonable thing to do.

Hagen

How about all the companies that do "research" that has the outcome that their product is wonderful?

Do you mean to tell me that a couple of researcher get together and just try something with NO idea what the out come will be??

Er.... no. First off, to some extent you do right in having "research" in quotation marks when it comes to what some companies are doing. Not least companies that sell dreams, like the make up industry. But, most other research - like physics, the pharmaceutical industry, climate etc. - is peer reviewed and in some cases controlled by public institutions, which means that there's very little room for hocus-pocus. You can read more about it here: http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy...appendixe.html. As you will see, that is quite far from your idea that "research projects are entered into with a preconcieved outcome".

Not really. Peer review is just an editorial process which means that a piece of published research meets some minimum standards of reproducibility, clarity, etc. It's no guarantee that the work is devoid of hocus-pocus, intentional or otherwise, merely that it sets out its methodology clearly enough that someone can attempt to replicate and falsify its findings. The pharmaceutical industry especially is guilty of sponsoring a large amount of work of dubious quality. Useful references include Ioannidis [1] and Nieuwenhuis [2].

Rydabent is generally a sad, old-man riding a silly-looking bicycle with a silly looking piece of beer-cooler on his head, but he's probably onto something with the idea that in the area of helmet research you can find NO CONSENSUS.

1. http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/...l.pmed.0020124

2. http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/...l/nn.2886.html

Helmets are useless for mitigating death and serious brain injury. The manufacturers and engineers say so. They're useful for preventing minor scrapes and cuts at the expense of possibly causing serious rotational injuries.

Sure it does. Every helmet wearer is sending a clear message that cycling is an abnormal, dangerous activity which requires special protective equipment. Like beekeeping, or sado-masochistic sex.


Ah, yes, the truth MUST be moderate. It's a law of nature that compromise is truth. Fact is: Rydabent and his fellow hammock-jockey septuagenanarian fear-mongers have no evidence that widespread adoption of helmets results in a widespread decrease in serious head injuries. The experiment has been tried for over 15 years in Australia, N.Zealand and large parts of Canada and it's an effing failure. Time for them to shut the eff up and wear it if they want.

Peer review is good in some cases. But a lot of it is politics. Its kind of like two professors each write a book.
Then they put each others book one the mandatory read list.

Any way there is so much research out there that anyone can find research to prove his or her point. A persons own logic, common sense, and experience quite often is just as good or better than tons of research papers.

In my case when a truck pushed me over in a low speed accident, while my helmet hit the ground and had gravel pits in it, and the visor broke off, I didnt recieve a scratch.

No. Peer review is the process whereby your academic peers determine if your proposed publication meets the minimal editorial standards for the publication on whose editorial board they are active. It means that they: 1) check for originality; 2) check for proper description of methodology (so that other researchers can attempt to repeat the experiment); 3) check for references; 4) there is, often on controversial topics, a more abstract debate concerning the validity of the study but in general it needs to be grounded in objections based on the previous 3.

Not really. There are some areas in which research suggests that all the evidence is pointing very clearly in one direction: anthropogenic climate change and cold-fusion being two extrema. There are other areas in which there is a paucity of data: most cycling-related matters fall here.


I'm glad you were not hurt, but if the blow to your head were strong enough to give you anything other than a few cuts and scrapes then your helmet would have made no difference. That's according to the specs of the engineers that design and test them. Glad you're OK. Now, stop trolling.

Clearly, you have done little scientific research. Else, you wouldn't be making such baseless claims.

There's no guarantee, but the fact that anyone is supposed to be able to follow the same procedures and methods is a strong incentive for scientists to be honest and carefull. It is (most times) ruinous for a scientist's career to be caught cheating.

Well, no, there's no concensus, but the most extreme of the pro-helmet research HAS been shot full of holes. As have the claims made by official safety campaigns. Apart from that, you're right, there's a wide field of uncertainty.

Edit: Darned interesting articles. Bookmarked, with thanks.

This is true. However, it is very difficult to formulate a good null hypothesis. Statistics are difficult and there are many scientists who do not understand them.

Agreed 100%. Anyone claiming that it is self-evident, or obvious, that helmets work is lamentably underinformed.

Yeeeeeeah, that's what I just said. Thanks for the repetition? Monster Pete said that no was claiming that helmets were useless. mconlonx said that some people were. I was attempting to place both statements in the same context, by explaining that posters who've called helmets useless weren't stating that helmets were incapable of preventing injury, but were instead stating that they were unnecessary. When posters respond to other posters who're responding to still other posters, that means that there is a string of conversation; please follow, place statements in proper context, and keep up. When you just pull random statements out of their conversational context, it can become frustrating.

Regarding the "just scrapes and cuts..." comment, the product quality standards as I've understood them indicate that helmets are built to absorb enough lateral force to prevent minor skull fracture. Maybe such an accident is at the far end of the bell curve for accidents in the real world, where the fall is just right so that the helmet is utilized optimally (proper fit, user falls in just the right way at just the right speed, no manufacturing defects, etc...), but that still would mean that it's possible. And since there is, as far as I know, zero data on helmets exacerbating rotational injury (I'm not saying that this isn't possible, but just that it is at the moment an untested hypothesis), whether one is more likely than the other remains debatable.

It could be that a case where a helmet causes injury is as rare or rarer than a case where a helmet prevents injury, yes? And if you personally justify forgoing a helmet because you feel that cases in which a helmet prevents injury are so rare as to not justify use of a helmet, does it not follow that if helmet caused injury was as rare or rarer, it would not justify the eschewing of a helmet?

Every helmet wearer? Really? Because +50 mph downhill mountain biking is totally the same as someone riding to the store, and since riding to the store isn't dangerous, high speed mountain biking isn't dangerous? Or BMX, or trials riding, or races with mass starts, or big air freestyle? Some forms of cycling are dangerous, and to state otherwise is to set yourself up for unnecessary deviation from what I imagine is your real point, which is that the average casual recreation rider or transportation cyclist isn't exposed to enough risk to require a helmet. Blanket statements that are demonstrably untrue do not help your argument.

No where did I say that the truth is moderate, nor do I (or anyone with any understanding of objective truth and the derivation of such from rational examination) believe that "compromise is truth". I was referring to what the people who discuss helmets in this thread believe, not what is. For, as has been repeatedly observed in this thread, there is no scientifically derived objective truth regarding the efficacy and necessity of helmets (the is in the previous sentence, in case you need help following along), just a lot of contradictory data. And until there is scientifically derived objective truth, no one is going to shut the eff up.

Btw, you are pretty much what mconlonx was describing, and my only real issue with that is that he was presenting your stance as that of the average helmet skeptic. And, in my opinion, you are no more average than rydabent; you both occupy extremes of belief on this particular issue. There are helmet skeptics among us who don't believe that helmets are completely useless, that they have their place, and that it's up to each individual to decide where that place is.

If this could be the general consensus among the cycling public I think threads like this would cease to exist.

Everything is possible. The question is how probable is it. And population-level data suggest that helmets make no difference to concussions whether caused by rotational or other forces.

True, but several manufacturers (e.g. Phillips) seem to believe that it's a serious enough problem that they've designed for it.

And do you imagine that wearing a helmet mitigates the risk of +50mph downhill mountain biking? Are these the same helmets as people would wear "riding to the store"?

People riding to the store, and tipping off in a quaint sideways motion, might actually benefit from a helmet, whereas the looneytunes doing +50mph downhill on mountains are engaging in risk compensation of the highest order.



Yeah, you're just wanking your logical phallus off there. You clearly suggested that there were poles of belief, or extrema, or whatever, in between which logical little chappies like yourself wore helmets in order to protect their belief organs while bombing down hills at 50mph+



Sure, but as a freshman, and to reiterate your pretentious point previous to this, there's a big distinction between "is" and "ought". Until there "is" good data, mconlonx (who sells helmets for a living), rydabent, and whoever else *ought* to shut up and wear it.



And you've clearly indicated the value of your opinion when you suggest that wearing a helmet for doing 50mph+ down a mountain is of value while wearing one while pootling to the local shop is not of value.

Who was talking about concussions? I was talking about the fact that engineering data implies that helmets are built to absorb enough lateral force to prevent some injuries for which the mechanism of injury is lateral force; specifically skull fracture, which is a lateral force injury. This would be the highest level of injury that helmets are designed to mitigate, and what I was saying was that whether or not helmets do more harm than good is a question of whether the probability of injury prevention is higher than the probability of injury causation.

In the case of injury prevention, population studies cannot show the rate of success in preventing injuries for which people don't seek medical attention and are therefor not reported, which could certainly include contusions and minor fractures. In the case of injury causation, there is no data that I'm aware of. So it remains debatable, which is more probable than the other. Which is what you said. Which is what I said. Since this is what we're both saying, what's your point?

Bully for them. What's your point? That injury causation by helmets by way of increasing rotational force is possible? Didn't I already say that?

Being that I believe that helmets do mitigate some injuries, yes I believe that wearing a helmet mitigates some of the risk for the injuries for which it is designed to mitigate, regardless of the activity. Helmets designed to the same standards will prevent the same injuries, regardless of whether the user is hucking a backflip tailwhip off of a dirt ramp (I saw this the other day on a video; it was awesome), or the user merely slips in the shower (provided the user is wearing a helmet in the shower). If you don't believe that helmets can prevent any injuries, then obviously you will disagree.

Regarding whether DH helmets are built to the same as standard bike helmets, I don't know. I thought that all bike and skate helmets were built to the same standard.

Which doesn't mean that they aren't benefiting from mitigation of some injuries. Just because some of the injuries received in high risk activities are beyond the protective capacities of a helmet, doesn't mean that they all are. Sometimes you bite it doing 50, sometimes you bite it after dumping a bunch of speed, sometimes you bite it out of the gate and perform a low speed but enthusiastic headplant.

We all engage in risk compensation; you could argue that by using powerful brakes DH riders are running a higher risk, as they ride at higher speeds to compensate for the increased stopping ability. In safety equipment this only becomes detrimental when the compensation outstrips the protection. People have been cycling at speeds that outstrip the protective abilities of helmets long before there were helmets, and people engage in high risk behavior in activities where helmets are accepted protective gear, but still forgo helmets. Helmets don't make people engage in high risk activities; the fact that high risk activities are wicked fun makes people do them, and the presence of helmets is only indicative of the level of safety nanny-ism and corporate helmet sponsorship in said activity.

OK, this is why I don't like debating with you (that and the fact that you cut arguments out of context and then forget or misunderstand what you're arguing against): you use emotional language to try and force your points. This is a logical fallacy (appeal to emotion, in case you're curious), not to be confused with a logical phallus, which is just insulting. Stop it.

I did clearly suggest that there are extremes of belief. In fact I stated it twice, because the first time you misinterpreted that statement as suggesting that truth is compromise (how you made that connection, I do not know), and so I restated it for clarity. The questions that are being debated here, "Are helmets necessary for cycling?" and "Are helmets useful for preventing cycling injuries?", can be answered 'yes', 'no', or 'maybe' (or 'some', in the case of the latter question). This can be represented as a range of values, with 'yes' and 'no' at opposite ends (extremes, if you will), and 'maybe/some' in between the two since it encompasses both yes and no.

The only reason I made this argument was to refute mconlonx's assertion that Monster Pete was "drastically misrepresent[ing] arguments put forward by the bare-head crowd." I believe that the arguments of the "bare-headed crowd" are more nuanced and less lock-step than mconlonx implied. I have no idea why you felt like jumping in here.

Fair enough.

As I stated before, the ability of a helmet to prevent injury is the same regardless of the activity. The value of wearing a helmet is some calculus of the ability of a helmet to prevent injury and the likelihood of said injury occurring. I don't wear my helmet "pootling to the local shop" for the same reason that I don't wear my seatbelt when moving my car from it's parking space to the street so that I can shovel out my spot. I do wear my helmet mountain biking because I push the boundaries of my ability and purposefully reduce my window of safety in order to have a little fun, and this means that I crash sometimes.

Thanks to this thread, I have no illusions about the ability of my bike helmet to prevent brain injury, but when I think that it's likely that I'll crash, I wear it to prevent other head injuries (and general head pain). It might not stop my brain from being scrambled, but it could stop my skull from getting cracked.

razr

I guess according to you it would have been just fine if I got road rash and and bruises when I was knocked off my bike. Well no thank you. In my case my helmet did protect me. It did exactly what it was designed to do, and the reason I bought it!!!!

In a way it is the reason that I ride recumbents. On my bike and my trike, I do not suffer pain at all. Pain is for the ignorant. So if a helmet does and has prevented pain, Im all for it. And I say again neither you or I can predict an accident no matter how "safely" and smart we ride. So since a helmet is so benign to wear, and provides other advantages, intelligent people wear one.

You are correct and I apologize.

The context of this thread (and you're correct that context and following along are important) is that many people believe that helmets are useful for preventing concussions. Evidence of this includes the many posts to this and other threads where people state that a helmet saved their life and the explicit justifications for mandatory helmet laws. Denying this context and suggesting that actually, most helmet wearers are aware that the helmet will only save them from minor injuries is a misleading reframing of the thread.

Which is inherently hard to determine as has been stated ad nauseam before on this thread.



I strongly doubt that there is a signficant population of people with minor skull fractures who have not sought medical attention. My point is that helmets are promoted, and believed by the majority of their wearers, as an effective way to prevent serious brain injury including concussions. The fact that populations before/after the application of this treatment show no decrease in serious brain injuries suggests that helmets are useless for this widely held belief.




The point was that while you suggested that the data on rotational injury was so inconclusive that it could be dismissed easily this is not the viewpoint taken by several helmet manufacturers.



I obviously don't disagree that a helmet can prevent some injuries and have never said so. This is an example of your irritating attempt to create two extrema in between which you are a "moderate". The question is not "do helmets prevent some injuries", but rather, is the helmet-wearing hucker encouraged into his bicycle ballet by the false belief that the helmet will prevent him from suffering serious injuries. Does said hucker believe that his risk is the same as taking a shower?


Emphatically not. You have a plethora of standards to chose from. But it should be obvious that a downhill helmet is completely different in form to a road helmet. What my friends wear for it is essentially a motorcycle helmet. Not what anyone would want to wear to the store : http://www.downhill-mtb.com/archives/105



Sounds like one of the ways in which risk compensation might occur: helmets and armor, by shielding their wearers from the normal unpleasant deterrents of cuts and bruises facilitate the ignoring of obvious deterrents to an activity which could lead to death.


1)Sure, some people were hitting high speeds on road descents long before helmets entered the scene, but is this true for downhill MTBing? It seems to me that the pairing of wicked-cool adrenalin activities with supposed safety equipment is a completely recent phenomenon. Did repackers hit speeds above 30mph?

2)On the one hand you admit risk compensation and then you go on to deny it. Helmets may not "make" people engage in high risk activities but they sure as hell seem to _encourage_ them into it.

Because I don't believe you should take it upon yourself to speak for "the bare-headed crowd" when in fact there are a large variety of reasons why we all individually chose not to wear helmets. I find it presumptious and irritating of you to present yourself as some sort of voice of reason.

I find this either obviously wrong or meaningless.

I'd agree with the highlighted part.

And again, I do apologize for my earlier post.



I don't like commenting on *your* choices, so I'd prefer to reframe it more abstractly:

Does wearing a helmet lead the wearer into situations in which the second factor in your equation is increased dramatically?