closetbiker

sadly, yes.

WaltPoutine

I'm sorry. That's way too simplistic. Yes there are people doing lots of crash-test modelling and also simulations. The results of many of these studies show that rotational injuries from helmets are serious and that helmets do little to mitigate the most serious injuries. Given your ready dismissal of empirical evidence with no serious attempt to justify your stance I'll point you Google with the keywords: "biomechanical impact head injury helmet". You might like the 2005 IUTAM symposium on the subject and also be interested in the Bicycle Helmet Research Foundation commentary from 2007 https://cyclehelmets.org/mf.html?1182

Given that you've stated that you're just going to believe what you believe without much prior knowledge I suspect the above will be of little value to you though.

joejack951

Maybe I'm just cheap but $25 (minimum) every few years (based on manufacturers recommendations) to protect against the small chance that I might fall off my bike and might get a small bump on my head, just doesn't seem worth it to me. If I did consider the chances worth the cost, I'd get a lot more use out of it when working underneath cars where I bump my head often.

crhilton

No, you're putting words in my mouth. I admitted that torsion incidents are ugly. I said they're uncommon. A.K.A. unlikely. Is there some reason you see this otherwise? Honestly I don't hear about a lot of head injuries anyway, usually I hear about other bodily injuries. Head injuries seem to generally end up in reports of dead cyclists.

I probably also mentioned that bicycle helmets aren't for the worst injuries they're for the most minor head injuries. The 10-12mph solo crashes.

PS - Your argument tactic is called ad hominem: I must be wrong because I appear to be hypocritical and uneducated. Please do something a bit more productive in the future. Like posting your own reasoning instead of a history of helmets.

crhilton

Swing a rubber mallet at your hand at 10mph. Then tell me you do that to your head on your job. You're understating even these minor scrapes. A better defense would be: Learn how to fall. Which is a good idea!
Anyway, this sort of fall is probably something people who wouldn't call themselves "cyclists" need to worry about and not something "cyclists" need to worry about. "Cyclists" probably have more to fear from torsion forces, as the previously posted link talks about.

Isn't it 5 years by CSPC recommendations? Which makes little sense to me, it is Styrofoam; a substance which takes epochs to degrade.

crhilton

Until today I thought the main concern for torsion injuries was ill-shaped areas on helmets that forced the head to turn. But it seems there's also concern about the friction of the helmet forcing the head to turn or not allowing it to turn in a skid (essentially in a nasty enough accident that you have no significant control over your fall, otherwise you wouldn't be allowing your head to skid).

Wouldn't a good solution be a material for the outter skin of helmets which simulates the way the head deals with this: Something tears off and lubricant sprays everywhere (lubricant being blood, and tearing off being parts of your scalp and hair). Has there been and talk/research into this sort of thing?

Plastic isn't really a very good skid surface on textured pavement. You need something that'll tear apart I think.

Edit: I see the end of the link talks some about this.

crhilton

I've been reading on cyclehelmets.org. I'll read more later, but it's a very interesting site. Anyway, I wanted to take a crack at why this topic pisses off the side that says nay to helmets (sorry to generalize a probably broad group of differing opinions): Basically helmets are pushed hard to get joe "I just bought a bike" sixpack to wear one so he doesn't fall on his head during his first few months on yee old bike path.

Then it becomes sort of religion to wear them and encourage them to make it cool. Cause let's face it, if it looks dorky no one will wear them. If everyone wears one it won't look dorky. So the folks who don't wear one because they believe they do more harm than good, or don't do much for them are irritated because people give them dirty looks and say negative things about their lack of helmet.

To make matters worse, our utterly irresponsible "journalists" include it as the lone fact in most cycling accident reports. Does that narrow down some of the palpable tension?

Edit: It collapsed my paragraphs!

Edit2: s/palatable/palpable, I feel dumb.

WaltPoutine

There isn't one single "side that says nay to helmets".

There are people that say that helmets should not be compulsory because there is insufficient evidence that they achieve significant levels of protection.

There are those that argue that the empirical evidence shows that as compulsory helmet wearing goes up then cyclist numbers go down.

There are people that argue that even if they did provide protection then they still don't want to wear them because they feel that they're unlikely to ever need it and their expense and inconvenience outweighs any tiny benefit they may confer.

There are people that suspect that they may actually increase torsional/rotational injuries (which are far more sever than linear impact injuries).

There are people that advocate all or some of the above.

All this and more has already been discussed in this thread.

I don't know why you claim to be so interested in the topic if you haven't read this long thread already. You're going over old ground.

WaltPoutine

And you're failing to either provide a backing for your completely unresearched and unfounded opinion that torsional/rotation injuries are uncommon.

INo you didn't.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with an ad hominem argument. Only false ad hominem arguments are inadmissible. In any event I haven't called you hypocritical or uneducated. You are however by your own admission nearly completely uneducate on this topic. It would be reasonable and respectful if you were to recognize this and go and do a good deal of research before stating "I always say wear one ... it's much more likely they'll decrease the intensity of your injury". A rational, respectful stance has been indicated to be something that you forgo from the outset however when you dismiss empirical evidence and statistics.


See previous posts in the thread. If you can't be bothered to do some basic reading and reasoning before throwing in your 2c then don't be surprized when you're not taken seriously. If you're annoyed at the tone of my posts then tough luck, I don't have any patience for someone that fails to try and understand something before making bold claims about it.

joejack951

I don't hit my head at my job (actually working on cars is just a hobby, I'm a design engineer full-time) and I certainly don't hit my head riding down the road on my bike. Come to think of it, I've travelled almost 20,000 miles by bike over the past 4 years and I've never hit my head while riding. I've hit my head several times getting in and out of one of my hobby cars though, and I did suffer a minor concussion after hitting my head in a car accident as a teenager.

Most people that I've heard of who fall off a bike and get serious injuries do not fall squarely on their head. Usually, they'll stick an arm out to break their fall and quite often break a collarbone (coworker's son did this last year after doing an endo because he grabbed the front brake on his new bike too hard. not a scrape on his head though and no helmet to boot). Learning to fall would help immensely with preventing that injury and so would eating properly (for bone density).

I think you're overstating the chances of hitting your head while cycling while understating the chances of hitting your head while doing anything else (you aren't promoting cycling helmets for any but cycling after all).

If I have any fear while cycling, it's of getting distracted, doing something stupid, and being crushed by an automobile (nothing a helmet would save me from). I do my best to pay attention all the time and to follow the rules of the road at all time so that even if I do happen to get distracted (which is very likely given that I'm human) I'll be doing something predictable and can hopefully count on someone else to bail me out. Note that while driving a car I have the same fear.

It certainly helps them make more money regardless of it's a real concern or not. Seems to be mostly what they are concerned with when promoting helmets.

crhilton

When did I state the chances? I don't remember doing such a thing. I was simply trying to point out that bumping your head while wrenching is not similar to bumping your head while falling!

crhilton

I'm asking for information. It's something people do in a civil discussion.

I suppose I didn't in so many words, but I did speak of minor accidents which go entirely unreported which is where this would fall.

I see nothing wrong with admitting what I tell people when they ask. Should I never speak on a matter I haven't fully researched when asked for my opinion? Most certainly not! When asked for ones opinion everyone should give their honest opinion!

There is something wrong with ad hominem argument. It exists outside of the realm of logic: The messenger has nothing to do with the validity of any argument in logic. Nothing. Only in the case of a witness is an ad hominem argument valid: It's called discrediting the witness, and it works because their credit is what backs their honesty. In a logical argument you have no credibility, only your axioms do. Since I'm witnessing to nothing important here the ad hominem argument is a distraction tactic.


I apologize.

crhilton

There are 113 pages of history in this internet forum. I'm sorry, but I cap out at about 2 pages that I'll be willing to read on an internet forum.
My interest forms as I become involved in the discussion, coming in I was simply shocked to see people so avidly against wearing helmets. As if it was a travesty to advocate their use.

crhilton

At $30-$40 for a thin piece of plastic on Styrofoam I couldn't agree more.

joejack951

Above is the history of our discussion. I mentioned bumping my head often while working on cars to which you replied with your statement about swinging a mallet at my head and then asked if I do that on my job. I'll admit to being slightly confused by that statement. The only thing I could make of it was that you were implying that a rubber mallet swung at 10mph was similar to falling off a bike and hitting your head (something that wouldn't happen at my job which I assumed you assumed was working on cars). By making this statement in the context of a discussion about bike helmets, I assumed you were implying that hitting my head while cycling is more common than while doing other things, like my job. I replied by stating how I've hit my head often doing things that no one is suggesting a helmet for but have never hit my head while doing something that many are avidly advocating helmet use for, and in some areas making it against the law to not wear a helmet.

If my analysis of your comments is wrong anywhere in the above paragraph, I'd appreciate you pointing out to me where I went wrong so that we can make some sense of our conversation. Thanks

joejack951

There's some that sell for almost $200. I even own a $100+ helmet.

crhilton

Yea, I see those in Bicycling and I wonder: "why?!" I guess $40 seemed cheap when I bought a $1k bike, so maybe $200 seems cheap with a $5k bike.

closetbiker

with an estimated manufacturing cost of less than $5 for a helmet (https://www.helmets.org/helmcost.htm), and the development of a persuasive "fear" campaign directed towards convincing people cyclists receive head injuries at a greater rate than other people, you can see how manufactures stay in the business.

The trouble is, it doesn't do any good for the people who ride a bike to not address the most prominent causes that hurt them and it doesn't do any good to for anyone ignore the benefits of cycling. The helmet campaign actually makes things worse that way.

dynodonn 

Anecdotally speaking, basing on my two personal experiences of hitting my head, one without a helmet and one with, I would pay a small fortune for helmet if necessary.

closetbiker

well then the question is, if golfers receive head injuries at the same or greater rate as cyclists, would you wear one while golfing?

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/22358.php

dynodonn 

I don't know about golfers, but here's a story about some tough guys bucking tradition.

closetbiker

yeah, well soccer players are being targeted to wear helmets too. Randy Swart of the BHSI mentions that basketball players have a high rate of head injury and could benefit from wearing helmets but he's also realistic in that he mentions that it's concerned people that are going to make a difference in getting people to wear them, not need, but concern.

There's a lot of money to be made in getting everybody to wear helmets, so why not? There's the question on the effectiveness of people wearing them though. Hockey head injuries are up since mandatory use of helmets, football players receive concussions on a regular basis and it's been proven that the one of the most devastating injuries to the brain (DAI - that concussions are a mild form of) cannot be prevented by a helmet

So the question remains, if 90% of head injuries happen to people who fall, are in motor vehicles or are involved in assault, why are we so concerned with cyclists wearing helmets when so many more could be prevented by wearing helmets in cars, in bars, when ascending or descending ladders or stairs, or walking down the street?

crhilton

Because we're cyclists. Not basketball players, or soccer players. We're discussing whether or not cyclists ought to wear helmets, the merits or demerits of such actions, etc.

I don't know what affect helmets would have on those things. And frankly, I don't care: We're talking about cycling.

closetbiker

well, we're people too and when it's been shown the proportion of cyclist injuries which are head injuries is essentially the same as the proportion for pedestrians (at 30.0 % vs. 30.1 % https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_helmet - reference 12) you must be burying your head in the sand about the relative danger to cyclists and the "need" for cyclists to wear them over the "need" to wear a helmet when you're walking has to be assumed to be ridiculous.

dynodonn 

CB, my personal opinion, I guess it boils down to social acceptability/enforceability, in why the areas that could benefit the most from a helmet are not used, today,certain sports activities/motorcycles/bicycles/construction/heavy industries seem to be the accepted norm for wearing a helmet here in the US. For now,there isn't anyone that I know who would walk into bar, dressed to the teeth, wearing a helmet.