If you were really at all familiar with Aikido, or with Judo if that's your preference, you would know that the techniques work just as well falling from a bicycle, off a chair, or slipping on something as they do when someone throws you at the ground.

You would ALSO know that no student of Aikido is going to be particularly upset if you say it's not an effective fighting technique. Sorry, but I don't believe you have any experience at all with it.

Yes, what you say is correct...if the fall is choreographed! When you have an accident, things happen very fast and you may not have the time to think about how to land correctly, though some of it may be instinctual, you're still dealing with a crash that can have unexpected results such as angle of fall. I know a guy who trained in martial arts for many years, had a crash and he said all of his training went out the window because the manner in which he crashed was never taught plus it happened suddenly and unexpected unlike in a dojo where everything is choreographed. Even if you watch MMA fighting a lot of those guys don't fall correctly either when take downs happen, because it's sudden and or they are taken off balance and can't get the landing done correctly.

Thank you, this is a valid contention. At least to some degree. The practices ARE choreographed and they do them all at about half-speed, which I personally found annoying. Some people I'm sure never learn beyond that. But the one thing about Aikido that differs from most martial arts, is that this is the first thing that you learn and then for every practice of every technique, one person takes a fall. Or a roll, flip, whatever, but the "attacker" hits the ground, so it's a lot of practice.

However, you don't have to advance very far to the point where it's second nature. You don't have to think about how to land. You don't need the time - it doesn't matter if it's unexpected - because you are reacting practically by spinal reflex. I can tell you that I have NOT trained in MA for many years, not a MMA fighter or any other kind of fighter, but a number of times slipping on a dolly, on ice, over the handlebars, low-side slide out, and so on, I have performed the techniques without thinking. And I'm not even all that fast or trained. But I DO know that you don't have to be thinking about it or planning - you just do it.

Regardless of all that, the point *I* am making is that you know where your head is. Regardless of what you want to say about fighting effectiveness, or what fighters do. You can argue until you're blue in the face that a black belt in Karate could punch me and I'd probably go down, but the fact remains that when I do, if I'm conscious I'll sidefall or back-roll or whatever is indicated by the situation and I'll know how close my head is to the ground. And I can tell you with some certainty that 2-3 inches wider around my head will cause an impact in some cases when otherwise there would not have been one.

Mr Hamilton; even if you know where your head is, mine is up my arse which is why I have slightly padded seats, by having a helmet on your head and where you might have missed the ground with a bare head but hit with a helmet means this...the impact was so slight to the helmet it didn't affect your head the least bit. But I disagree with you saying that you can miss your head all the time, I know you said in some cases, but in those some cases, and hitting your head you are better off with a helmet than without one. Of course wearing a helmet can't stop concussions from ever happening, not even wearing a motorcycle helmet would do that, and there is no helmet on the market that promises it can eliminate head injuries, but it's design to help reduce the chances or the severity of head injury including concussions. It's not any different than wearing a seat belt, the manufacture of the seat belt doesn't say it will eliminate injury and or death, but we wear them because it can reduce the severity of those problems and reduce the chances of dying which is what a helmet does. We don't really know the percentage of lives helmets save but it's significant enough that doctors recognize the importance of them, but even if the percentage was low, say only 5% it's still worth the chance that the helmet may work to make it worthwhile to wear, personally, and this an uneducated guess, that helmets work about 75% of the time. Also keep in mind that statistics you see on the internet showing cyclist deaths increasing is mostly due to aging population that are riding bikes more than ever, and older adults are far more susceptible to any kind of injury but especially to even a slight knock on the head, this why when old people slip and fall they break hips, shoulders, etc and sometimes die from the head impact; but again there are a lot more older people riding than ever before and in fact it's the older baby boomers that are fueling the sales of bikes to record heights, once the baby boomers start to get too old or die off bikes sales will cool down, but that just goes to show you that we have a great deal more older people out riding bikes than ever before, but it will be shortlived, maybe another 20 years at best, unless the Gen X's pick up where the baby boomer left off, but so far the trend isn't there for that to be happening, but it's also too early to tell, but physical fitness related ideas is all but lacking in the millennial generation Y so bike sales will fall off hugely at some point in the next 25 to 35 years-that's my prediction.

You can't miss every time - so far I have missed every time, but random chance or daydreaming could catch anyone, at any time. How much risk is added by the helmet by potentially addition impacts? Well I said at the very start, there isn't much data for that:

"Secondly, it's also not known for certain but generally accepted that it's rotational forces that results in more of the TBI injuries than linear impact. The extra thickness (presenting a longer lever against the ground) may actually exacerbate that risk, but that also lacks supporting data."

The impact isn't lessened because you might have missed however. You got that part wrong.

Not sure how I got that part wrong, but ok, forget it and move on.

My understanding about the thickness issue being a lever isn't what I've read, I've read that makes the lever affect work are the helmets that are not round but have a tail at the end of the helmet that catches the ground and levers the head; see:
https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon....yL._SX466_.jpg

https://cdn.mec.ca/medias/sys_master...6957-BK048.jpgIt's helmets designed like the one above that the rear of the helmet with those type of tails catches onto things when impacting the ground and attempts to rip at the neck.

I think this article is relevant to this thread. I want one of these WaveCel helmets. There are links in the articles to safety ratings, whitepapers, and whatnot.

https://www.businessinsider.com/trek...cussion-2019-3

Even tho I ride a trike, and am very low to the ground, and wont "fly over the handle bars" I still wear a helmet. I value my brain.

Here’s my friend flying over the handlebars in a freak accident. He fractured his ribs and vertebrae and had to wear a back brace for months. No head injury at all. He’s one of 4 friends I know that is very fortunate after crushing their helmets. https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...277169769e.png
He remembers hopping his bike over the expansion joint in the road.
https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...7aaff3820.jpeg

His front wheel flew off so maybe his wheel came loose and threw him over the handlebars.

We called 911 and he went to the ER. I’m a believer in spending more for a good helmet.

Is a more expensive helmet safer? Do they meet a different standard that all helmets must achieve?

I started wearing helmets so far back that hardly anyone wore them. Thinking it was 1978 or 1979. It was an ugly Bell. I hated it but it did make me feel safer. Back in the late 1980's I saw a fellow dump in our pack, a new rider, hit head-first on the pavement (locked wheels and went over) when we were running around 28 mph. I can still hear the sound his helmet made when he hit. Eesh it was bad.

It put a hole the size of a fist through the plastic and foam. He was dazed and confused, probably had a concussion, but he was alive and was back riding with us a few weeks later. After he crashed all of us looked at the helmet. One guy said, "anyone doubt why we should wear a helmet? This is living proof". That guy would have been dead if he hadn't been wearing a helmet.

That event has stuck with me to this day. I had a close call while skating back in the 1990's and tore a big gouge in my helmet. Another reminder why I protect my noggin.

It's time to buy a new one actually, and I'm looking seriously at those new Bontrager crush-liner helmets.

This is what my first helmet looked like. Fuuuugly!
https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...211d122909.jpg

I totally disagree with the assessment that children and older PPL wear helmets all of the time. It messes with children's balance, neck muscles etc and cause injuries simply because their neck muscles are not designed for the extra weight. Also their brains get hot with the added insulation because the body uses the head as a radiator to keep cool. Mothers who try this, should themselves be put in a rubber room, for the safety of their children...

I feel naked without my helmet, especially when riding my road bike as it is capable of going quite fast. However honestly the only thing I have ever hurt on my motorcycle and bike was my hands, so I always wear gloves. Period.

I wiped out like that once at a RR Xing. What a fright. Spooked me for awhile. I always make sure I am 90 degrees to anything I travel over.

[MENTION=346176]momoman[/MENTION], where was that picture taken (your friend’s fall)? That location looks so familiar.

He was being facetious. (His chart is credible BTW). I took it to mean, if you accept the reasoning that it's necessary for any rational person to wear a helmet whenever cycling, because of the danger of TBI, then it follows that the the elderly and small children who are at great risk should be taking even more precautions.

You're absolutely right though, and beyond that the straps on a helmet are a serious choking risk for small children in a playground. Seriously, parents should never put those on kids unless they are kept under vigilant supervision.

That looks like the old Bell Tourlite helmet. That hard shell really did offer an extra layer of protection from penetrations that modern soft shell helmets don't have. I prefer that old Tourlite to the modern helmets.

Cheers

That's not to mention that most children (at least of of the ones I see wearing a helmet) have the straps too looses and/or the helmet tilted too far back. Incidentally, during hand to hand combat training in the army we were taught that a good way to kill someone quickly and silently was to grab their helmet and pull it quickly backwards - just like could happen to a child wearing a strongly rearward tilted helmet that gets hit on the top front in a fall.

An improperly worn or an improperly adjusted helmet can be more dangerous than no helmet.

In my area there is a bicycle ride where the proceeds go to Helmets for Kids. I'm not sure I like that as it promotes that bicycling is too dangerous to do without a helmet.

Cheers

great

An improperly worn or an improperly adjusted helmet can be more dangerous than no helmet.
How so?

It can snag in a fall thereby putting a lot of stress onto the neck and possibly breaking it. Or if the person lands on their back the rear of the helmet can catch and also break the neck.

Cheers

I have a hard time believing this.

And secondly LOL WUT??? At what point does making someone/something safer does it suggest it's an inherently dangerous thing to do and should not be done.

Nonsense. Has this ever happened once?

It happens. Although it's rare, there is a CPSC warning due to strangulations:
https://helmets.org/playgrou.htm

...I just bought a new helment, because I was reading about MIPS and then about the Trek wavy crush stuff in the advertising blitz they put out when they introduced them. I went with a Smith MIPS, because heat and ventilation is a real important issue here, and I did not see how that Trek/Bontrager wavy stuff would not affect venting in a very unpleasant way. I looked at them both at REI, where they carry a few, and in my local Trek store, which used to be one of the better local shops here before Trek bought it.

In truth, I did not try one on a ride. I just went with a visual inspection and bought the Smith, which has some nice vent channels along the forehead band that seem to work better for me than the old Bell Variant I had.

Think of a situation where in the summertime you'd be free to walk around in whatever garments you chose. But in the winter time you'd have to use a helmet for walking. Would you think walking in the winter was as safe?

Also, isn't it a directly logical chain of thought to think of cycling as dangerous if special safety gear is required? If something is safe, no safety gear is required. If something is unsafe, safety gear is required.