Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Advocacy & Safety
Reload this Page >

Helmets cramp my style

Notices
Advocacy & Safety Cyclists should expect and demand safe accommodation on every public road, just as do all other users. Discuss your bicycle advocacy and safety concerns here.

Helmets cramp my style

Old 03-29-07, 07:21 AM
  #1251  
John C. Ratliff
Senior Member
 
John C. Ratliff's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Beaverton, Oregon
Posts: 1,914

Bikes: Rans Stratus, Trek 1420, Rivendell Rambouillet

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by closetbiker
I'll watch the video, but I watched the stage. You're looking for something that wasn't there. Sort of like the last time I was hit by a car. The insurnce agent asked if I was wearing a helmet, but my injury was my knee. Why people get wrapped up in non-issues is more of a psychology issue than a safety issue, if yoy ask me.
It sure looks like Kessler went over the guard rail, and onto his head to me. Why do you think this is a non-issue, when there are rocks imbedded in his helmet? It seems that you are in some kind of denial from my perspective.

John
John C. Ratliff is offline  
Old 03-29-07, 09:02 AM
  #1252  
closetbiker
Senior Member
 
closetbiker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 9,630
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Liked 18 Times in 6 Posts
Looks pretty much as I remembered it. One rider sliding along (doing a bit of a roll on the ground) and the other doing a great job avoiding him and minimizing his crash into the gaurd rail.

Looks like he landed on his trunk (if you ask me) but the view isn't the best. Gravel in his helmet would have been lodged in there from the roll on the other side of the barrier.

If you want to see a video with a better view of a head hitting the ground, try this

https://youtube.com/watch?v=AQm3o3UoSl4


If you feel I'm in some kind of denial, I've got to think you're reading things into something that's just not there. It seems, to some helmet proponents any fall to a rider, who is wearing a helmet, has validation that his life has been saved by the helmet, but no one looks at all the other riders, who are not wearing helmets, falling and not sustaining injuries. Not really very objective consideration, is it? The helmet issue is very inconclusive. People have to look a life with their eyes open and not in just one direction. I don't think some proponents are doing that.

The example of the Tour crash is pretty good for this point. Just how many thousands of crashes have there been in the Tour for the past 100 years? Recently they started to wear helmets, but for just about all of the history of the Tour there haven't been any helmets. How can you turn a blind eye to all of those examples? How is it now that the helmets are now the reason these riders continue on? How is it the riders had continued on in previous years? Who's in denial?

I had a friend at work (he's been transferred since) who was riding his bike without a helmet on the wrong side of the road and (suprise, suprise) ran right into a car that had come out from a side street, looking to make a right, and the driver was checking left for oncoming traffic. He hit the car head on and blacked out.

My wifes cousin had a simliar story. He was wearing his helmet and in a slip, fell full force into a parked car, and blacked out.

Now the cousin swears the helmet saved him, but I have to wonder, what's the deal with my co-worker? Both hit cars with a similar force and both ended up in the same condition. Did the helmet make any difference?

From what is known about the limitations of a helmet, I don't think the experiences were within the abilities of the helmets to make any difference at all but if you wre inclined to believe in a helmets ability to exceed what they are able to do, I guess faith guides you. It sure isn't rationality.

Last edited by closetbiker; 03-29-07 at 01:29 PM.
closetbiker is offline  
Old 03-29-07, 02:06 PM
  #1253  
closetbiker
Senior Member
 
closetbiker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 9,630
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Liked 18 Times in 6 Posts
... and speaking of denial, I just re-visited that study of deaths of cyclists in BC posted on the BHSI website (https://www.helmets.org/bcstudy.htm) and the denial there is in full force.

It's a study of bicycle rider deaths in 1986 to 1995 and recommended measures by the British Columbia Coroner and in the introduction they are plain n the studies purpose:

The report's first and perhaps most important recommendation was for legislation requiring cyclists to wear helmets.

The report reviews coroners' reports on cycling deaths between 1986 and 1995 and summarizes their recommendations. It was requested by the Attorney General in response to the death of Nathan Gemiano in a cycling accident in Oak Bay.

It goes on in the introduction to say,

Personal tragedies and individual suffering resulting from cycling accidents are not factored into the statistics nor are the costs of these preventable deaths.

scores of children's deaths may be preventable each year. Indeed, such needless death causes all involved to reflect on what could have been done differently.

In Victoria, Nathan's death sparked an outcry among drivers and cyclists alike.

Since Nathan's death, his family has been asking the questions "why?" and "what are we doing about reducing these types of tragic consequences?"

The accident happened in the blink of an eye...Nathan was riding his bike...He was wearing a helmet... the truck and bicycle collided...Nathan's left bicycle handlebar came into contact with a 4" X 4" piece of wood being carried under the truck bed. This undoubtedly would force the handlebar into a hard right turn, overturning the bike and thrusting Nathan under the wheels of the truck. Nathan was fatally injured...Although the use of helmets is critical in reducing the number and severity of head injuries, ... Nathan's case illustrates the importance of "sharing the road" education and the unfortunate results when both cyclists and drivers fail to recognize clearly dangerous scenarios, where even a helmet will not provide enough protection to prevent death.

So, here we have an arm of the government writing a report primarily to support mandatory helmet legislation, using as it's feature case example, a story about a helmeted cyclist being killed and admitting that helmets have limitations that will not provide enough protection to prevent death.

Talk about denial.

This has to be a joke, right?

Last edited by closetbiker; 03-29-07 at 02:11 PM.
closetbiker is offline  
Old 03-29-07, 06:06 PM
  #1254  
John C. Ratliff
Senior Member
 
John C. Ratliff's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Beaverton, Oregon
Posts: 1,914

Bikes: Rans Stratus, Trek 1420, Rivendell Rambouillet

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I'm still asking about the Tour de France injuries, and the questions I asked that you do not answer. Is in not possible that the helmets helped prevent head injuries in this situation. I looked at the video very closely, and to me it appears that the first cyclist to go down hit on his shoulder/head first, then rolled over onto his back, and bounced off the guard rail. He impacted the guard rail with his head, helmet first, then bounced away. Kessler went over the top of the guard rail, head first, impacted on his head with enough force to imbed rocks in his helmet, then flipped onto his back, where he was shown laying still just after the impact. The third rider went over the guard rail and broke his femur in the process. He went further down into what looked like berry bushes down the hill. None of these cyclists had head injuries.

Why is this important to this discussion? Well, Closetbiker said that the helmet would cause ratational forces which would injure a rider because of their larger radius from the center of the head. This did not occur to the one rider who was seen with his head against the ground at over 20 mph. I'm also wondering whether anyone would like to bury their head into gravel with enough force to imbed rocks into it?

Concerning this study that Closetbiker just brought up, read the whole thing. Yes, they were emphasizing helmets, but that was not the only thing that they recommended. Here is another quote from that study:

Bicycle Safety Education and Awareness Program
From the general to the particular. Discussion concerning the OIP and its approach to accident prevention leads us directly to a program that has been developed on the basis of the principles enunciated by the OIP. Whereas there is very serious ongoing concern about the safety of cyclists, it must at the same time be recognized that major steps are now being taken to reduce accidents, such injuries and deaths. The Motor Vehicle Branch (MVB) of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways initiated its Bicycle Safety Education and Awareness Program in the Spring of 1994.
The MVB is now into its third year in the development and operation of a multi-year, province-wide education and awareness program to promote safe cycling within the province. Its primary objectives are as follows: 1. Improve cycling skills, knowledge level and attitude of young B.C. cyclists; 2. Promote the use of proper safety equipment among cyclists of all ages; and 3. Improve the road sharing relationship between cyclists and motorists.

The education and awareness campaign is being implemented by an advisory group to the MVB called the Cycling Education Committee (CEC). Represented on this committee are a number of organizations from the fields of cycling, health, education, government and injury prevention medicine who have a vested interest in the promotion of safe cycling in B.C. Membership includes the coordinating manager for the Office of Injury Prevention.

With the guidance of the committee, the MVB will pursue three streams in its goal to reduce the frequency and seriousness of cycling related incidents and fatalities in B.C.: education programs; public awareness campaigns; and stakeholder involvement


Safe Cycling Education Programs
While most safe cycling programs target people of all ages, young cyclists have been identified as a very important group. By reaching the eight to 16-year-olds and their parents, there is a real opportunity to instill safe cycling practices such as wearing bicycle helmets and handling a bicycle safely and competently for life.
Therefore, one of the CEC's primary activities is the development of a standardized cycling education program for schools and communities. An educational program design consultant was contracted to develop the 'Bike Smarts' cycling skills instruction program. Modular in design and geared to elementary school students in Grades 3 to 7, this program covers rules of the road, the importance of protective equipment such as bicycle helmets, bicycle handling skills, understanding traffic signals and hands-on practice in group bicycle riding sessions.

The initial Bike Smarts cycling skills instruction course was conducted in two schools in Fall 1994. An expanded pilot program was conducted in the Spring 1995. It included conducting one to two courses in each of the MVB's four regions throughout the province and a "Train the Trainer" pilot instruction program to develop Bike Smarts course instructors for each community. Members of the Advisory Committee and the educational community will be consulted on an ongoing basis to ensure the program meets technical and educational standards. Currently, the program is available to teachers and instructors for children ages 7-13, to teach skills on safe handling of bicycles. The Bike Smarts Handbook outlines five bicycle safety sessions with a sixth road component given by a certified instructor.

As the educational program grows and community demand for consistent cycling instruction increases, the Committee will begin the process of transferring stewardship to one or more organizations committed to safe cycling education to ensure long-term, community-based program delivery and further development.

It is the Advisory Committee's long term education goal to provide fundamental safe cycling skills instruction to all B.C. elementary school children.

Based on the success of Bike Smarts program, partnerships with like-minded organizations, the Committee and the MVB hope to establish community cycling resource centres throughout the Province by 1997.
This is much like a program that is being implemented here, in the Portland area. I'll have more on that later. But again, this is a helmet thread, and I think Closetbiker is trying to divert attention away from questions he cannot answer.

John
John C. Ratliff is offline  
Old 03-29-07, 07:08 PM
  #1255  
closetbiker
Senior Member
 
closetbiker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 9,630
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Liked 18 Times in 6 Posts
Oh, be reasonable John and read what is posted. I've gone over this and you have selective memory that a re-reading would correct. I answered your queries. I think you look for things that aren't there. You think they are. Fair enough. Where in the world have I said those injuries on the video were rotational injuries? A larger circumferance leading to them? I said the heads weren't involved in the falls. Diverting attention? I think some people can't pay attention to what the issue is and the questions that are surrounding it. It's responses like this that shows how the helmet issue is used by proponents to exploit the limited ability of understanding the issue to build customer loyalty through limited understanding. It's best customers are loyal because they can't see both sides of the issue. Reasonable people understand there are limits.
closetbiker is offline  
Old 03-29-07, 07:44 PM
  #1256  
John C. Ratliff
Senior Member
 
John C. Ratliff's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Beaverton, Oregon
Posts: 1,914

Bikes: Rans Stratus, Trek 1420, Rivendell Rambouillet

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I think this is your quote from post #1231:
Yeah it is, but lets not get confused over a fall that is a pain and requires stiches and traumatic brain injury. There's a world of difference between the two and it's often misunderstood that a bicycle helmet significantly reduces traumatic brain injury. It does not.
Two posts later, you quote Wikipedia as saying that helmets contribute to traumatic brain injury. That is what this whole discussion is about. You are right, in that you did not quote the part about the helmet causing more damage; it was in the section you cited though, and upon reading it, I quoted it and discussed that. I am a be a bit jet-lagged, so I hope you'll pardon me for that. But it is central to this argument about helmets that the Wikipedia post states, and so I associated it with you. Do you feel that helmets can cause this rotational injury? If so, then how do you take into account a bicycle mishap where a fellow drags his head against the pavement, which according to the Wikipedia quote, should contribute to traumatic brain injury, and come up without any traumatic brain injury? This issue is not that you said that this particular injury would cause traumatic brain injury; it's that this particular mishap should have resulted in a traumatic brain injury according to the understanding that you are trying to espouse, and it did not. That is the disparity between your theory and what has actually happened. Again, how do you account for it?

Finally, do I have to go into that film clip and post pictures of it here for you to see the impacts, or can you do a bit of analysis frame-by-frame and see what actually happened, using the pause control that they have on the video.

John
John C. Ratliff is offline  
Old 03-29-07, 08:29 PM
  #1257  
closetbiker
Senior Member
 
closetbiker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 9,630
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Liked 18 Times in 6 Posts
The rider goes down, slides on his shoulder/side/butt, rolls and hits the guard rail bike first John. Show me different. Show me that his head dragged on the pavement and he hit the guard rail head first.
closetbiker is offline  
Old 03-29-07, 11:41 PM
  #1258  
John C. Ratliff
Senior Member
 
John C. Ratliff's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Beaverton, Oregon
Posts: 1,914

Bikes: Rans Stratus, Trek 1420, Rivendell Rambouillet

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Closetbiker,

You don't like doing any work at all, do you? Maybe tomorrow, after I've had some rest.

John
John C. Ratliff is offline  
Old 03-30-07, 12:22 AM
  #1259  
closetbiker
Senior Member
 
closetbiker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 9,630
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Liked 18 Times in 6 Posts
Believe me John, it's plenty of work trying to make heads or tails of your posts.
closetbiker is offline  
Old 03-30-07, 07:53 AM
  #1260  
John C. Ratliff
Senior Member
 
John C. Ratliff's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Beaverton, Oregon
Posts: 1,914

Bikes: Rans Stratus, Trek 1420, Rivendell Rambouillet

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Okay Closetbiker, here are the photos, from screen prints off the video of this mishap. The first several photos show the cyclist hitting on his shoulder and sliding over his head, which would indicate an impact on his helmet at high speed with the pavement. Picture 9 and picture 10 show his head against the guard rail. He then rebounds, and you see him end up away from the guard rail. But his head and shoulder had the first impacts with the guard rail.

They also show the other cyclist going head-first overt he rail, and coming up with a helmet full of rocks. That indicates an impact on the helmet.

In accident investigation, you really need to go over these several times, using stop action to see what in real time our minds have a hard time processing.

John
Attached Images
File Type: png
Picture 2.png (74.9 KB, 16 views)
File Type: png
Picture 5.png (54.0 KB, 20 views)
File Type: png
Picture 6.png (44.2 KB, 12 views)
File Type: png
Picture 8.png (37.3 KB, 11 views)
File Type: png
Picture 9.png (37.1 KB, 11 views)
File Type: png
Picture 10.png (35.3 KB, 8 views)
File Type: png
Picture 11.png (48.4 KB, 8 views)
File Type: png
Picture 12.png (54.4 KB, 7 views)
File Type: png
Picture 13.png (59.6 KB, 7 views)
File Type: png
Picture 14.png (56.2 KB, 12 views)
File Type: png
Picture 15.png (44.7 KB, 14 views)
File Type: png
Picture 16.png (71.2 KB, 104 views)
John C. Ratliff is offline  
Old 03-30-07, 08:47 AM
  #1261  
closetbiker
Senior Member
 
closetbiker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 9,630
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Liked 18 Times in 6 Posts
Lets start with the easy stuff.

It's pretty hard not to acknowlege the rocks in the vents, but if you think that proves he landed on his head, I think someone has rocks in his head. You cannot get a good view of how how landed beyond the barrier, but it sure looks to me that he didn't land head first.

I've had experiance with this type of crash. 2 of my last 3 crashes were somewhat similar to this one. I had been looking over my shoulder for traffic coming up in a tricky area and when I looked ahead again, there was a wrong way rider directly in front of me. Now, I didn't hit him exactly head on, but pretty close and I did a flying arial landing on my back a number of yards away. More recently, I had a BMXer pull directly in front of my path at a right angle so I contacted his rear triangle with my front wheel and did a 180 that seemed the slowest flip in the world. I remember thinking, "OK, now lets see if this helmet works out like everybody on the boards have been posting about". I landed on my back, got up and the first thing I did was take off my helmet and look for damage. Guess what? Not a scatch. Just like the previous crash where I did a flip. I looked at the BMXer, saw he was OK and the first thing I said was, "See this helmet? Not a mark. All those stories about needing helmets and them saving your life is b###s###t"

Point is, Kessler may have had rocks in his vent but that doesn't prove he landed head first, just that his helmet did roll around in loose gravel. As best can be shown in the video/pictures, he was lying on his entire body.

Now for the other part, maybe we need a third party here or maybe one of us needs new glasses, but it's evident to me, that the rider did not slide on his head nor hit the barrier with his head. he slid and hit as I remembered and posted he did. If I don't need new glasses, maybe someone else does.
closetbiker is offline  
Old 03-30-07, 09:23 AM
  #1262  
John C. Ratliff
Senior Member
 
John C. Ratliff's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Beaverton, Oregon
Posts: 1,914

Bikes: Rans Stratus, Trek 1420, Rivendell Rambouillet

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Anyone else see it the way Closetbiker sees it? If so, I'll draw some arrows about the head against the rail.

The eighth picture shows Kessler's feet very high over the guard rail, and his head out-of-sight, toward the ground--sure looks like head-first to me. And by the way, the rocks on in the front left part of the helmet's vents, and he was on his stomach when he was "rolling around." Actually, he was not rolling arond after that impact, but laying motionless on the ground on his stomach, head up in the grass beyond the gravel--look at the video.

I have had similar crashes to yours, and it wasn't until I was over 50 that I had my helmet actually hit the ground. But when I was in grade school, I wiped out on lunch break going home from school, and hit my head in the gravel on the right side (time before helmets were available--wasn't wearing one). That was my first migraine headache later that afternoon, when the head injury made me sick and I had to go home early. The whole right side of my face was marked up, and I remember simply laying my head in my hands at class that afternoon before being sent home. If I had been wearing a helmet (couldn't--they simply were not available in the early 1950s), it might have kept me from periodic migraine headaches.

The technique of tucking one's head not only prevents neck injuries, but also minimizes the possibility of hitting one's head against the ground. It is a technique I learned in judo and gymnastics classes. Rolling is a great technique for minimizing injury potential in a fall.

John

Last edited by John C. Ratliff; 03-30-07 at 09:55 AM.
John C. Ratliff is offline  
Old 03-30-07, 10:33 AM
  #1263  
closetbiker
Senior Member
 
closetbiker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 9,630
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Liked 18 Times in 6 Posts
The landing isn't visable. Feet up in the air sure, but head impacting the ground at that point, I don't think so.

What about your claim of the other riders head dragging on the ground and impacting the guard rail? Are you dropping that claim?

I'm a little disapointed you don't know helmets were available when you had your crash. Leather hair-nets were around then. They were used quite a bit. Don't know if it would have helped if it was the side of your face that was marked up though. The hair-nets covered the head, not the face. Or are you claiming helmets prevent facial injuries as well (as the initial claim of TRT Seattle study did)?

If you ask me, I think people are falling into a sense of paranoia a little too easy these days. John, you yourself recently conceeded the point of cycling improving health and keeping people out of the hospital, not put them in it, so I know that's not your problem, right?

Last edited by closetbiker; 03-30-07 at 11:14 AM.
closetbiker is offline  
Old 03-30-07, 11:26 AM
  #1264  
John C. Ratliff
Senior Member
 
John C. Ratliff's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Beaverton, Oregon
Posts: 1,914

Bikes: Rans Stratus, Trek 1420, Rivendell Rambouillet

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Closetbiker,

That the head hitting the ground for Kessler, the evidence is pretty clear to me. Head down, rocks imbedded in the helmet, these are evidence that his head hit the ground.

For the other cyclist, photo #2 shows his helmet on the ground (should have jerked his head, according to those who say helmets contribute to traumatic brain injury through rotation). Pictures 4 and 5 show his head/helmet against the rail (I'll draw you arrows over the weekend, when I get home, as it appears that you simply cannot see this). So no, I'm not dropping that at all. The cyclist on the ground is nearly hit in the head by Kessler's front wheel when it impacts the guard rail (missed by less than a foot). Kessler may have actually steered his bike away from the other cyclist's head at the last moment, as they were in line for a collision right at the guard rail.

Concerning my first fall off a bike, and wearing a leather hair net helmet, I don't recall any kids my age (3rd grade, around 1953) wearing a helmet at that time. I landed on my temple area on the right side of my head, and had scrape marks on my face too.

John
John C. Ratliff is offline  
Old 03-30-07, 12:07 PM
  #1265  
closetbiker
Senior Member
 
closetbiker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 9,630
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Liked 18 Times in 6 Posts
His head, I'll agree, was on the ground, and that's where he picked up the rocks, but landing on his head is another matter. Go get your arrows out, but I don't see where the contact is visable.

I still don't see the other riders head doing as you said it did, I think your thinking helmet, helmet, helmet, so that's what you see. Sort of like after my desciption of my collision with the wrong way rider. I landed on my back some meters away from the collision and right away there were a couple of cars that had pulled over and people came out to help. the first thing I heard from one of them was, "Oh, thank goodness he was wearing a helmet!" where as all I was thinking was, a helmet doesn't have any thing to do with the behavior that led to the collision. My helmet had not been impacted. Look at it. Why hasn't anyone picked up that the other guy was riding on the wrong side of the road at night with no light? Helmet, helmet, helmet. Some people are just obsessed to the point where it clouds their judgement.

I doubt if any kids did hair hair-nets back then either. Doesn't mean they couldn't have. Just like with todays helmets.

If you landed on the temple area, maybe it wouldn't have helped anyway, as jwc posted a few pages back (post #1029) from the law office site of Swanson, Thomas and Coon about a lawsuit involving the death of a cyclist hitting his temple area at a speed of 9-12 mph and dying because helmet standards only require energy absorbsion distribution from about 1 to 2 inches above the bottom portion of the side of the helmet leaving that most vunerable portion of the skull exposed. If a rider has an impact in an accident which is below the area required to be tested by the "standards," the helmet may not provide sufficient protection to prevent an injury. " Satisfaction of minimum standards that are not true performance standards (but instead only measure certain areas on a helmet which are not involved in the majority of head injury accidents) is not sufficient for making a product safe enough for use on the streets."

Bummer.

Funny what happens in court eh? Sort of like when in Coroner's Court Testimony, in Perth, Australia, Chief Pathologist Clive Cooke, said, "In situations of a fall they [helmets] are next to useless because they do not protect against diffused brain damage. The damage to the brain would still have occurred because it is the rattling inside the skull that caused the damage."

or when in another link I posted about a case in the UK where a respected materials specialist argued that a cyclist who was brain injured from what was essentially a fall from their cycle, without any real forward momentum, would not have had their injuries reduced or prevented by a cycle helmet. The court found in favour of his argument.

Bummer.

Last edited by closetbiker; 03-30-07 at 12:30 PM.
closetbiker is offline  
Old 04-01-07, 12:27 PM
  #1266  
La Chaton
Newbie
 
La Chaton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: NYS
Posts: 3

Bikes: Manga Excitor

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
OMG. My friends are totally idiotic when it comes to helmets. Ny brother and I are the only people I ride with that wear helmets when not being nagged by their parents, and even then they usually take them off. I'm always telling them that if they don't wear them they're going to scramble their brains, but it's about as effective as telling them smoking/ drinking is bad for them. They've heard it so many times they don't care. They just say that as long as the cops don't catch them they're fine, since most are only 13 and not 14 yet. Although none of them do anything more than riding on the street (except for the one who does BMXing but he only wear his helmet competing) they can still do serious damage.
La Chaton is offline  
Old 04-01-07, 01:34 PM
  #1267  
charles vail
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 987
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
a real helmet

If you want a helmet that will work better get a motorcycle helmet! But they are all hot and sweaty....I can't wear that, I'll over heat and pass out! Until about 1975 nobody had bicycle helmets. Almost a hundred years of bicycling progressed without the general population seeing a need to wear a bicycle helmet. Horse people don't generally wear them and neither do runners. I don't know about you but I average only 15 mph on most rides and I can run that fast. If I trip while running do you suppose I need to start wearing a stinkin helmet when running? I wear one while on my bicycle, so don't anyone overreact but they do seem kind of pointless. I like the fact that my head stays warm in the cold and I can mount my rearview mirror on mine. Its an old slick surfaced MSR hard shell helmet.

My helmet and bikes: https://www.myspace.com/eccentriccyclistcharlie
charles vail is offline  
Old 04-01-07, 01:35 PM
  #1268  
closetbiker
Senior Member
 
closetbiker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 9,630
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Liked 18 Times in 6 Posts
Originally Posted by La Chaton
OMG. My friends are totally idiotic when it comes to helmets...I'm always telling them that if they don't wear them they're going to scramble their brains...
April Fools! (right?)
closetbiker is offline  
Old 04-01-07, 01:41 PM
  #1269  
erader
Senior Member
 
erader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: silicon valley
Posts: 1,774
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
no helmet = brain donor.........nt

nt
erader is offline  
Old 04-03-07, 07:33 PM
  #1270  
jwc
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 399

Bikes: Specialized (2) Trek 400, Raleigh 3spd

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by closetbiker
April Fools! (right?)

Yeah, I love April's Fools.
jwc is offline  
Old 04-06-07, 11:31 PM
  #1271  
livingfortoday
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 49
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
So... I guess I don't get why this is even this big of an issue? I wear a helmet because it's no hassle, and it can protect my face and brains and whatnot in an accident. I'm not saying it'll protect me in most accidents I'm likely to be in, but as far as my face and brain go, the odds are high enough I'll damage them without it that it's worth wearing one. I don't wear other protection since it's too unwieldy considering the risk involved, and since most of my insides are repairable or replaceable to a degree, unlike my brains. I kinda need those.

If someone doesn't feel the risk justifies mussing their hair, that's fine, I suppose. I don't think we should mandate helmets through law for anyone over a certain age, again, if they feel the risk is worth not having matted-down hair when they get to work, so be it.

So, I suppose I'll look silly with my helmet for the time being, but I guess I feel I'd look sillier trying to scoop my brains back into my head if I ever did get into that bad of a wreck.
livingfortoday is offline  
Old 04-07-07, 02:15 AM
  #1272  
charles vail
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 987
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by livingfortoday
So... I guess I don't get why this is even this big of an issue? I wear a helmet because it's no hassle, and it can protect my face and brains and whatnot in an accident. I'm not saying it'll protect me in most accidents I'm likely to be in, but as far as my face and brain go, the odds are high enough I'll damage them without it that it's worth wearing one. I don't wear other protection since it's too unwieldy considering the risk involved, and since most of my insides are repairable or replaceable to a degree, unlike my brains. I kinda need those.

If someone doesn't feel the risk justifies mussing their hair, that's fine, I suppose. I don't think we should mandate helmets through law for anyone over a certain age, again, if they feel the risk is worth not having matted-down hair when they get to work, so be it.

So, I suppose I'll look silly with my helmet for the time being, but I guess I feel I'd look sillier trying to scoop my brains back into my head if I ever did get into that bad of a wreck.
Problem is......if you get in a bad wreck no current bicycle or motorcycle helmet will save you. When a car tags you good, you get mangled so bad, you may not want to live. Its a very sobering thing to think about.
charles vail is offline  
Old 04-07-07, 09:57 AM
  #1273  
jwc
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 399

Bikes: Specialized (2) Trek 400, Raleigh 3spd

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
"If someone doesn't feel the risk justifies mussing their hair, that's fine, I suppose. "

I don't have hair.

Wearing a helmet is an issue for some of us because municipallities mandate helmet use and stop there with keeping cyclists safe. They, like so many, believe it is the one most important factor in cycling safety, and I for one don't believe it is.

When a death is reported in the news, the main "safety" tagline is "the rider was not wearing a helmet". They fail to mention if the rider...ran a stop sign or red light....was riding at night without lights....was riding against traffic, etc. Whether a helmet was being worn is the issue with newspapers. To the point it almost seems that mandated helmet use is an agenda by news reporters.

When helmet laws fail to save the lives expected, then restrictions on where cyclists can ride and bike paths become the next course of action. In my town, bike path use is required. We don't even have bike paths in this town.

At the same time that bike paths were mandated, the chief of police was granted the authority to restrict cyclists from any road he deems unsafe for cyclists.
jwc is offline  
Old 04-07-07, 10:16 AM
  #1274  
charles vail
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 987
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by jwc
"If someone doesn't feel the risk justifies mussing their hair, that's fine, I suppose. "

I don't have hair.

Wearing a helmet is an issue for some of us because municipallities mandate helmet use and stop there with keeping cyclists safe. They, like so many, believe it is the one most important factor in cycling safety, and I for one don't believe it is.

When a death is reported in the news, the main "safety" tagline is "the rider was not wearing a helmet". They fail to mention if the rider...ran a stop sign or red light....was riding at night without lights....was riding against traffic, etc. Whether a helmet was being worn is the issue with newspapers. To the point it almost seems that mandated helmet use is an agenda by news reporters.

When helmet laws fail to save the lives expected, then restrictions on where cyclists can ride and bike paths become the next course of action. In my town, bike path use is required. We don't even have bike paths in this town.

At the same time that bike paths were mandated, the chief of police was granted the authority to restrict cyclists from any road he deems unsafe for cyclists.

Kind of forces you to use an automobile or motorcycle to get around. There is something wrong about all that, especially in America.
charles vail is offline  
Old 04-07-07, 10:48 AM
  #1275  
closetbiker
Senior Member
 
closetbiker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 9,630
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Liked 18 Times in 6 Posts
Originally Posted by jwc
Wearing a helmet is an issue for some of us because municipallities mandate helmet use and stop there with keeping cyclists safe.
Before (and just after) our MHL came into effect, there were a number of reports on the state of cycling safety made by various govenment and advocacy organizations recommending, and promising funding for, a number of good things to improve the safety of cycling. Problem ended up being that once the MHL came into effect, that funding and the subsequent programs that were to be enacted, never materialized.

Funny how that works.

*In all fairness, I should add that the mandatory sidepath law was repealed at about the same time as the MHL came into effect, so cyclists retain the right to use all roads, even with a lane or side path availible.*

Last edited by closetbiker; 04-07-07 at 11:06 AM.
closetbiker is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.