Maybe it is, maybe it isn't but what we do know is that it's extremely rare for a cyclist to suffer a serious injury or death from a simple fall, something you have said was likely to happen had you not worn your helmet.

The likelyhood that you would have suffered a serious injury in the circumstances you described would parallel the same chances of your receiving the same injury while on foot, that is to say, very rare indeed

"but what we do know is that it's extremely rare for a cyclist to suffer a serious injury or death from a simple fall"

Based on what evidence? I would argue that most accidents involving any kind of injury to a cyclist aren't necessarily logged and reported. A simple fall could happen at 5mph or 30mph. I dont remember the speed I was doing when the accident happened, but it was far more than walking pace and from the dent in the helmet, I can assure you my head did not land on a flat surface.

As for helmet foam compressing easily, I don't about yours, but mine isn't made from jello. Helmets are designed to compress so that your head doesn't.

Mountain biking is one of the situations where I'd actually recommend wearing a helmet: the surface you're riding on tends to be loose or slippery, with the result that you're more likely to simply fall off. There are also things sticking out of the ground to bash your head on, as evidenced by the dent in your helmet. None of these apply on the road, however, where you're far more likely to get flattened by a bus than to simply fall over, and there don't tend to be jagged rocks sticking out of the road.

Based on hospital and fatality records. There are very few deaths to mountain bikers who had fallen on trails.

And those accidents cyclists have that aren't reported? They usually aren't reported because the resulting injuries (if any) are minor and require little to no treatment.

Don't get me wrong, cyclists do die and/or suffer serious injury from simple falls, but in over 90% of the cases where they do die, it's because they were hit by a motor vehicle at a speed far above what a helmet was made to help with. They also die from injuries other than head injuries (even when cause of death is listed as ahead injury)

Same thing with pedestrians. They fall over, hit their heads, and die too, but it's pretty rare. Most often when pedestrians die or suffer serious injury, they were hit by a car as well.


EPS (the foam inside a helmet) is made to crush, and it crushes with far less force than a skull does. Just because it crushes, doesn't mean you avoided a serious injury, it could mean you avoided a minor injury.

THis doesn't mean a helmet is useless, it just means it has limitations, and you should consider these limitations when making claims of efectiveness

The last few posts demonstrate what I say about the antihelmet trolls. A person writes in and says a hemlet helped prevent injury. Then all the well known anti helmet trolls pile on and give all sorts of reasons why the cyclist is wrong. Worst of all they end up saying this person shouldnt even be riding a bike!!!

Really pathetic trolls!!!

Unless I'm mistaken, closetbiker did say in an earlier post that he was pro-helmet. I do agree with his last post though. sorry . :)

I might also point out that the person the trolls trashed, and said shouldnt be riding a bike is a newcommer to this site. He has only posted 15 entrys. His being trashed so roundly by the anti helmet trolls may cause him to quit this site. That would be a shame. Again bad show trolls!!!!!!

I'm actually neutral on helmet use but against false information being spread about them.

I wore a helmet for over 20 years before I decided to remove it and I can respect anothers choice if they want to wear one.

I may have an argument with some of the reasonings people give for wearing helmets, but I wouldn't denigrate another just because I don't agree with them.

Denigrating others doesn't help people understand an issue; more often it fosters alienation, feeds ignorance, and makes things worse.

That's an odd impression to have.

This is a bit disingenuous. He appears to believe the "cons" outweigh the "pros" (overall) regarding helmets, which is OK. Calling that position "neutral" isn't.

And he probably won't even see the irony.

You'll note that I pointed out that helmets are useful for mountain biking, which is where the incident in question occured. That's right, I agreed with someone who claims a helmet reduced injury. I think there's only one troll here, and in an exercise in non-troll-feeding, I for one will be ignoring him from now on.

If you think I'm arguing against helmets, you are mistaken...

You think loss of memory of getting home is not "serious" just because rider did not seek emergency services to classify it as such?!?

Six-shooter, this is typical of what I was pointing out previously, but just as the rider here can't really claim that their helmet saved them from more serious injury, the bare-head brigade can't say the helmet did not help in this particular situation. If they do, like some have in the past, they are as wrong as any helmeteer misstating the protective abilities of helmets.

I think you don't need a helmet, but if people wear one I really don't care, but Like closetbiker I am against false information being spread about them.

I wore a helmet for years before I decided to remove it and I can respect anothers choice if they want to wear one.

I may have an argument with some of the reasoning people give for wearing helmets, but I wouldn't denigrate another just because I don't agree with them.

Denigrating others doesn't help people understand an issue; more often it fosters alienation, feeds ignorance, and makes things worse.

That's a good point.

Frankly, though, people posting things like (and I paraphrase here) "I'm likely to injure myself through incompetence, so I think helmets are great!" really yank my chain. I grew up racing in an era and place where cyclists were a rare and elitist bunch. We prided ourselves on being as thoroughly competent as we could and we worked hard on improving ourselves. Now cycling is a common activity, and the average cyclist is, well, pretty average. That in and of itself doesn't bother me too much, but when those folks start holding forth on how things should be done, I tend to forget what few manners I have.

Whether cyclists decide to wear or not wear helmets is truly none of my business, but there is a pretty fine line between "I wear a helmet because I think it's a good idea" and "so I think you should wear one too" - especially when posting on a thread like this one.

There's the other fine line within this thread as well: "I don't wear a helmet for whatever personal reasons" and "you're stupid for wearing a helmet."

Do you have a reliable source for that? Better, multiple sources?

Either way, your statement goes back to my post about helmet design/standards on the last page. What, precisely, is a "simple fall"? After all, unless you're an unusually talented person, you have to be moving at some speed to be cycling :)

Where do helmet companies or standards organizations explain precisely what this "simple fall" is or say that's all a helmet is designed to handle? Iirc, those standards I referenced don't discount the interaction of automobiles in a bike crash with a helmet.

OTOH, this standard (I could only find it quoted second hand), does make that distinction:

-- http://www.cyclehelmets.org/papers/c2023.pdf

But, according to BSI's web site, this standard has been subsequently withdrawn and revised multiple times. Anyone have the text to the new one? BSI wants to charge 96 pounds for a copy; I think I'll pass on that :)

The UK's Directgov site, linked from the Department of Transport, merely says

without specifying causes or types of falls, interaction with other vehicles, etc.

-- http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAn...ng/DG_10026401

What are helmets' specific limitations?

I neither think nor implied that :) My point was this: given what I've read of bicycle helmet testing standards, it's hard to either over- or- underestimate the protection a helmet is "designed" to provide. I keep seeing statements in this thread implying that a helmet is only "designed" to do X, and anyone suggesting it can do Y must be mistaken. Yet I'm not seeing evidence to support those claims or insinuations.

...which is why when the bare head brigade chide someone for conferring protective abilities to a helmet that it might not have, they need to be reminded that in any given situation they can't claim a helmet did not help or wouldn't have helped.

I'm still waiting for an explanation of why the death rate of cyclists is so skewed toward the helmetless in the NYCDoT and IIoHS figures posted earlier...

I tend to ride hard, and I hold on and try and save myself and the bike until the last possible second when I am endanger of going down, so I wear a helmet and gloves at a minimum all of the time. I also wear DH pads when riding off-road during the icy seasons, in extreme conditions, and even when commuting on-road in seriously inclement weather.

You don't want to wear a helmet thats fine, but don't be an a$$ and blindly claim that the helmet is unwarrented when riding a bicycle. You don't know how or where I ride. If you want to cruise your MUPs without helmets who can argue, but if you want to ride where and how I ride you would be a fool not to wear one.

I've got a collection of helmets (both cycling and motorcycling) that show obvious signs of serious contact with solid objects over the years. They sit on a shelf in my garage to remind me and others that "safety gear" is worn for a reason.

As noted earlier, "simple" falls can not only cause traumatic brain injury, but are its leading cause:

http://www.cdc.gov/traumaticbraininjury/causes.html

Where helmet testing is concerned, consider the US CPSC standard:

-- http://www.cpsc.gov/businfo/frnotices/fr98/10mr98r.pdf

They're testing impact acceleration in G's for collisions without specifying scenario.

Compare G forces tested and sustained in auto accidents:

-- http://www.vcu.edu/cppweb/tstc/crash...n/kinetic.html

-- http://www.iihs.org/ratings/protocol...es_frontal.pdf

Yes. So it is only logical then that it should pedestrians, who suffer the vast majority of head injuries because of these simple falls that should be the focus of helmet usage campaigns, no?

But in that case, this conclusion would also be logical: helmets are tested against "simple" falls, which are agreed to be the leading cause of traumatic brain injury, ergo cyclists should be the focus of helmet usage campaigns :eek: But why these repeated attempts to steer away from the topic at hand and bring pedestrians and so forth into it? The focus is cyclists and bike helmets.

Of which, going back to the article you quoted a few posts back: the author does write that "the tests that cycle helmets currently go through mean that they should offer similar protection to a pedestrian who trips and falls to the ground."

But all that means is that helmets could be of use either to a cyclist or a pedestrian. It does not say helmets can't provide protection in situations a pedestrian wouldn't encounter. The author also neglects to specify which testing standard he is referring to, though his statement comes shortly after quoting a standard that, as noted above, has since been rescinded and replaced*--and is of course is not universal, anyway.

Either way, he goes on to say,
So there is an argument for helmet wearing, and he does not say they don't confer any benefit at higher speeds or with third-party involvement. But, alas, he doesn't back his statements with data or sources. Even if you grant he's an expert, he needs to make his logic and data clear for others to evaluate his claims.

Link: http://www.cyclehelmets.org/papers/c2023.pdf

* Apparently by BS EN 1078:1997, which he alludes to later.

Not the leading cause of traumatic brain injury. The leading cause of head injury. Head injury usually refers to TBI, but is a broader category because it can involve damage to structures other than the brain, such as the scalp and skull. That's a big difference. A difference that can distinguish a minor from a major injury

It is possible to have a major tbi from a simple fall, but it is as rare as receiving the samei from a simple trip and fall while on foot.

The focus here is on cycling, but that's part of the argument; placing the risk of cycling out of context. Without context, speculation is worthless