closetbiker

from a report on over 6,000 collisions between bikes and cars



No injury was the largest catagory at 24.3% but put together shoulder to hand and you get 19.8%, hip to foot is 28.4% of the injuries. Put together the trunk (center) and it gets injured more than the head (11.8% vs 8.4%)

cadillacmike68

This reminds me a lot of the BS with the raising of speed limits. the libs went all crazy saying the highway death rate would spiral, etc.

Well, the highway death rate CONTINUES to go DOWN every year.

Also not to go too far off, but to all the global warming hypocrites, I would like to point out that Mars is warming ad well as the earth, and last I looked there were no Suburban Uhttack Vehicles (SUVs) on Mars greenhousing up the air.....

cadillacmike68

Down here in Florida, you can even ride a Motorcycle without a helmet.

I personally think that will help raise the quality of the Gene pool.

closetbiker

Yeah. People assaulting others sure are foolish, as is falling down and driving poorly.

closetbiker

I don't know if it's going to help the gene pool any, but I think youth, in particular are prone to certain things that older people aren't. Call it age, experience or wisdom, but older people just don't get into scrapes as often as younger types.

Fixitman

So I read a good part of this thread the other day, but have to admit I have not taken the time to read the whole thing. I always try to skip the parts where everybody is just b slapping each other

I can say that I was quite happy to have my helmet on when I crashed & burned flying down a hill at 30 mph (according to my gps) a couple weeks ago. I still saw stars even with the helmet, and yes I did have road rash, but at least I was able to get myself off the road and out of the way of cars that may or may not be able to see me if I were laying unconscious in the middle of the road. Which I suspect would have been the case if I had not had a helmet on. I am now even a bigger fan of helmets than I was before the crash. The other thing I would like to say about the "it's my choice and it's none of your business crowd" Yes it is your choice and it becomes my business because it negatively impacts myself and other riders as it helps to form a bad opinion of cyclist in general. Just as bad manners on the road by other cyclist causes motorist to be pissed at us all and some to aim there two ton death machine at us.

Just my 2 cents in a world where pennies are worthless

Randy

cadillacmike68

Here'a a picture of Joop during his winning run for the Tour de France some time back

I don't see any helmets in this photo. And I don't think any of them died in any crashes in that year's tour either... It's an absolute travesty that they all have to wear helmets now.

charles vail

Not sure how you make the mental leap of, "it helps to form a bad opinion of cyclists in general". What?
How in the world do you figure other cyclists not wearing a helmet negatively impacts you? Thats like saying all surfers are made to look bad because some don't wear a life vest. Equating bad manners with choosing to not wear a helmet is a low blow and completely without justification. Bad manners are bad, choosing to not wear a helmet is like choosing to not wear knee pads or gloves, none of these will directly affect you in any way. I suppose the millions of cyclists around the world for the last hundred years have caused you great harm since none of them wore or wear helmets, only us overly worried Americans and maybe the Canadians.

Maybe your head wouldn't have hit the pavement if you hadn't added three inches to the radius of your head by wearing a helmet. If you "fly down a hill at 30 mph" you can expect to crash hard, when you do. I quit riding like that since I don't wear a helmet now unless I am forced to. I have gone over 50 mph and the thought of eating pavement wearing a T-shirt and shorts is not comforting.

charles vail

The whole gene pool idea only applies if those in question are "raised in quality" before they procreate!

In addition, that line of thinking doesn't pan out statistically since the wearing or not wearing of helmets makes no difference. If a motorcyclist or cyclist is hit by an automobile they generally lose. Automobile drivers are probably more accurate to say the gene pool is improved in their favor when one of us is killed by one of them. Of course I am an automobile driver also so it makes little sense for us cyclists to even think that way.

closetbiker

I guess you skipped over the part where it was mentioned bicycle helmets are made to absorb energy from a fall of 6 feet (the equivalent of a 14 mph impact), with no other vehicles involved, and no forward momentum, never intended for high speed cycling, and even then, eminent neurosurgeons in court testimony have said the performance of cycle helmets is much too complex a subject for a sweeping claim to state that one must be safer wearing a helmet than without even in such a simple impact as they were designed for.

trombone

I think the 'personal safety' argument is all to often conflated with the 'overall effect' argument, when they are quite separate.

When I was in a stack about 6 months ago, I quite clearly remember in the moment between coming off my bike and hitting the road thinking 'I might be glad I wore a helmet today'. (In retrospect it would have been cooler to have thought 'so this is what flying feels like', but there wasn't much time to gather my thoughts...!)

I don't imagine that's an uncommon thing; after all at such moments thoughts go to survival. (I didn't hit my head, as it happens, although the helmet did graze the road very lightly on one side - I landed on my shoulder, and then kind of surfed through the intersection on my side. I suppose if my head had been 1cm closer to the pavement, the side of the helmet would have scraped the deck much harder- this could have been nasty for me, as it might have exerted significant rotational force on my head - a nasty sort of injury. I suppose if I'd been 3 or 4 cm closer to the road it might have helped me, as I might have otherwise hit the road full on with my head. Bah. Whatever. Personal anecdotes are not really helpful to the overall debate).

Mandatory helmet legislation is not helpful in reducing cycling accidents. But it is very effective in reducing cyclist numbers. So I can't see that it is a good thing.
Wearing a helmet might help you in a stack. Or it might not; the evidence is mixed. As far as 'bad impressions of cyclists' go, there is evidence that wearing a helmet actually makes car drivers respect you less (in terms of giving room when passing).

So in summary:
If you think mandatory helmet legislation is a good thing, I would encourage you to go and read the evidence. It's hard to come to any other conclusion than that it is unhelpful at best.
The evidence on individual helmet wearing is more mixed, but wearing a helmet is certainly not the only or even the best thing you can do to improve your safety. So I support the right of people to choose, and have equal respect for those who choose not to, and those who chose to wear helmets (especially those on both sides, who have taken the time to consider the issue).

cadillacmike68

It's not an us vs. them thing (at least not to me) - why are you trying to make it that? I have 4 cars and like to drive. I also have an extremely nice vintage road bike that i like to ride. I'm comfortable doing both.

On motorcycles:
If a motorcyclist going at highway speeds crashes with anything - car, truck pole, guard rail or just a slick road - if he's not wearing a helmet it's bye-bye. And if they are stupid enough to do it then i do hope that they didn't have any kids already.

My wife and i were both hit by cars on our bikes (before we met). We're both ok, but my bike took a beating.

charles vail

If you carefully re-read my first response you will find we are saying exactly the same thing.
As to motorcycles, its the same thing as bicycles, if you collide with a car you will lose whether you wear a helmet or not.
Why are you picking on motorcyclists?

Ian Freeman

My feelings on the subject exactly. Of course a helmet could save you in certain situations, but in most collisions of any seriousness, a helmet isn't going to be the one magical thing that saves you completely from harm. I see helmets as more useful on beginning cyclists who tend to have problems handling their bicycles (children along the same vein) and may tip over, but a competent cyclist with traffic experience has only one real enemy: the bad driver, and lugging around a helmet everywhere you go doesn't count for much when faced with high speed and vehicle tonnage. If people driving cars and walking on sidewalks start wearing helmets, talk to me then.

Fixitman

Pretty simple actually. Everything that fellow cyclist do that make us all, not just me look responsible or irresponsible on the road to motorist. Appearing to be irresponsible just ads fuel to the fire as far as I am concerned. Here in Portland not more than two weeks ago a motorist ran down a bicycle, granted the moron kicked his car, but the main reason he stated for his actions was that cyclist do not share the road. You may consider the helmet thing a leap, ask any motorist just how stupid and irresponsible they think a cyclist not wearing a helmet is and I will bet most of them have a pretty negative opinion about it regardless of wether this opinion in your eyes has any real basis. It affects the overall attitude of motorist toward bicyclist all the same. From a bicyclist prospective. Almost without exception the people I encounter when driving that are riding their bikes without a helmet do not show any consideration for the vehicular traffic. In short they are totally irresponsible in there riding. So you can like it or not like it, but the negative impact is there
Well on the side of my head which is where I hit that would be about an inch of helmet and yes I would have hit my head .

Correct ... I did skip over that part. Like I said I did not read the entire thread. Your own quote from " eminent neurosurgeons " neither supports wearing or not wearing a helmet. Basically says the neurosurgeons who I would pretty much bet don't know a thing about engineering anyway are side stepping the issue.
Well anyway I got a long ride to get ready for .. wearing my helmet of course

Regards,
Randy

closetbiker

up here, were it is mandatory to wear helmets, there are plenty of examples of helmeted cyclists who are very irresponsible and because in certain areas, there is lax enforcement of the law, there are many bare-headed cyclists who ride very responsibly. I think cyclists are people who should be judged on their actions, not only what they look like.


the quote was from a paper posted explaining what helmets can and cannot do. I think those neurosurgeons knew what they were talikng about and were talking directly to the issue.

I believe the issue truly lies in the context of brain injury. Road rash on the scalp I can deal with. Brain damage is different and what I would hope a helmet can prevent or reduce.

I posted a quote from Dr. Michael Schwartz, neurosurgeon and member of Canadian Standards Association Committee (who work with certifying bicycle helmets) and he said,

. . . helmets will mitigate the effects of falling off your bicycle and striking your head . . . If a cyclist is accelerated by a car, then the helmet will not work and will not prevent a severe or even fatal injury.

You see, The brain floats within the skull surrounded by cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), one of the functions of which is to protect the brain from normal light "trauma", e.g., being jostled in the skull by walking, jumping, etc., as well as mild head impacts. Concussion is considered a type of diffuse brain injury (as opposed to focal brain injury), meaning that the dysfunction occurs over a more widespread area of the brain. Reports of helmeted cyclists receiving concussions are common. Diffuse axonal injury (DAI) is one of the most common and devastating types of brain injury and is one of the major causes of unconsciousness and persistent vegetative state after head trauma. Unlike brain trauma that occurs due to direct impact and deformation of the brain, DAI is the result of traumatic shearing forces. The major cause of damage in DAI is the tearing of axons, the neural processes that allow one neuron to communicate with another.

Bicycle helmets are primarily designed to reduce the effect of linear forces, by providing a soft crushing layer which reduces the peak linear acceleration to the brain during impact. Linear impacts were found to cause mainly only localised (focal) injury at the point of impact. These shock waves are non-injurious as they do not cause permanent displacement of brain matter.

Head impacts from bicycle crashes do not generally involve a direct square-on impact. Most commonly there is an angled impact as the head hits the ground with forward momentum; or the windshield of a motor vehicle. Such an impact is likely to impart some degree of rotational force on the head and brain. Sudden rotation of the head was found to be the cause of most severe diffuse brain injuries. When rotational forces are applied, there is a change in the angular velocity of the brain and the skull. This results in diffuse shearing strains which can cause permanent displacement of matter throughout the entire brain.

Blue Order took issue with my quote from Dr. Schwartz, saying it was taken out of context, and posted more of the interview, but it only confirmed what I'd posted earlier.

The extra information said,

I also posted a quote from Clive Cook, cheif pathologist in Perth and he was more blunt. He said,

In situations of a fall they [helmets] are next to useless because they do not protect against diffused brain damage.

so, as I said earlier, there is nothing wrong with wearing one, but it would be a good idea to understand just what they can and cannot do and give a realistic assesment if you're using it for a purpose where it would be useful. I agree wholeheartedly with accident/collision prevention as the most effective means to reduce injury.

charles vail

Walkers, runners, skaters of all types don't seem as concerned about helmets. I wonder why bicyclists are the only ones getting all the propaganda.
The answer is that its the largest group to sell to, both the idea and the product. If we suggested that runners, for instance, start wearing helmets, most would say we are out of our minds but I know quite a few runners go at the same speed as many casual cyclists. It's humorous when you think about it.

charles vail

Well stated and I agree. This puts the entire debate into perspective, in spite of some anecdotal evidence on both sides. The only problem is, if this thinking catches on, the helmet manufacturers and everyone involved in this scheme will be p.o.ed. You can expect quite a bit of argument, name calling, spin control and general verbal assault, especially when something actually makes sense.

closetbiker

Not only are cyclists a large group to sell to they are also ones that tend to shell out premium cash for gimmicks that are of untested or limited worth but even more significantly, the target is parents who might harbour fears for their children. Most helmet promotions focus on children, but much also expand to adults with somewhat more limited success.

In the paper put forward by Brian Walker, he mentions the bicycle helmet is almost perfect for pedestrian use offering similar protection to pedestrians who trip and fall to the ground. Of course, most people would scoff at the suggestion of helmets for walkers or runners, citing the relative rarity of such incidents being more than off set by the health benefits of walking or running. I wonder how it is this argument is hardly used at all when the subject of helmets for cyclists is discussed. Strokes (by definition a brain injury) alone, are more numerous than all causes of traumatic brain injury combined and cycling lowers the chances of stroke.

closetbiker

understanding the pathology of brain injury and the limited prevention of them provided by helmets could also be one reason there has yet to be benefits shown from helmet use in studies regarding areas adapting wide spread helmet use.

charles vail

What you are describing as a problem is not the wearing of helmets but rude and obnoxious cyclists behaving badly. We all know what you are speaking of when you are talking about cyclists who don't wear helmets. Its the typical guy with no job and no license to drive because of alcohol abuse or drug use or something like that. Unfortunately its not wise to judge a book by its cover in every case. There are plenty of helmet less riders who do ride responsibly and conversely there are quite a few who wear helmets that are not responsible riders. Blazing down a hill at 30+mph might be considered irresponsible by some and I've seen plenty of that, not to mention cyclists riding five abreast, on a two lane road, on a blind corner, where the speed limit is 50 mph. Not wearing a helmet is what most of the entire world does and has done for nearly 100 years. Only in America do we place such importance on gadgetry and "safety gear" when the biggest determining factor towards safety is the riders own skill and common sense. Once you factor out large heavy automobiles killing cyclists there really isn't much to worry about for the average cyclist that averages 10-15 mph. I am old and fat and I can run that fast and I'm not wearing a helmet to do that.

facial

I am pleased that the majority of cyclists on this forum have chosen to wear helmets despite the controversy that exists over the efficacy of their safety.

I would like to bring up the point that helmets are good to use not only for mitigating low-velocity collisions, but also they serve as a stress distributor.

For example, if you are flung head-on into the path of say, a half-inch diameter steel bolt protruding from a surface, the helmet will prove particularly effective. This assumes that the helmet catches the steel bolt with a perpendicular and solid impact. The static version of this, as I am familiar with, is known as St. Venant's principle (in solid mechanics : the stress distribution is even given the boundary condition of a concentrated stress field if the imaginary cross section taken is sufficiently far enough from that boundary). The skull would fare substantially less favorably if there was no helmet at all for striking steel bolts and the like. But it doesn't even have to be a steel bolt, nor perpendicular to the direction of impact. You can have steel pipes, cobbles, pebbles, and all sorts of other conditions that create a condition where the skull surface would have a high gradient of stress distribution upon impact, and would have been considerably distributed by the use of a helmet.

For this reason, I wear a helmet.

tallard

Oddly enough, I do agree with you on one point

Sorry , that was just too tempting...

I-Like-To-Bike

Swell.

closetbiker

https://www.helmets.org/bcstudy.htm

at the bottom of this report are desciptions of the circumstances of the deaths to cyclists in BC for 10 years.

Factor out motor vehicles in these deaths and tell me how many cyclists would have died