Though I have gone down on black ice and been hit by two cars, the most potentially serious cycling-related head injury I have experienced was, like the story of the woman and the speed bump above, going lest than 10 mph. Long story. But the punch line is, I slammed the right side of my head hard on the pavement. It literally bounced off. DId not lose consciousness, no symptoms. I was fine. But had I not been wearing any helmet of any kind? I shudder to think of that.

That helmet had some little denting in it and, because of how I feel it performed, I replaced it with another just like it. It is a poc Octal. No SPIN, no MIPS, no WaveCel. Just a helmet. But it worked.

I am not a neurosurgeon, but I do have a whole lot of trauma experience. I am pretty sure in an afternoon on the phone, I could find you a small army of neurosurgeons with cases of brain disasters that happened with no helmet on the bike. Staistics are great, but it is the details and the nuances in between those numbers that usually tell the real story.

I assume you're taking about USA. I live in Europe. Here road deaths are at an all time low. Moreover a 45% decrease in deaths means halving mortal accidents. I think that's pretty good, and, in any case, airbags without seatbelts don't work properly, to the point that they can kill you instead of saving your life.

Regarding the car weights, here the cars have always been light.

Merged "Helmets and MIPS" thread from Road Cycling into "The Helmet Thread 2" in A+S.

Incorrect.

More like 1966, but we've already established that accuracy isn't your strong suit.

This is correct, but you had previously said:



So are cars safer now, or not? You can't seem to make up your mind.

They've said that about everything since padded dashboards, but the data isn't showing what you want.

Of course you don't. I have no idea what data you're proposing to justify the second part of that statement, but earlier you said:



But the same logic, there is a small possibility that the rise in distracted driving could cause harm, but if so, it's so small you cannot detect it in the statistics.

Look, maybe you're just a fanboy and not a shill, but you sound like an evangelist.

Incidentally, locally several friends wear Smith helmets with Koroyd crush zone liners, or Bontrager WaveCel. They're mostly casual cyclists and seem happy with them. I considered it but I often ride in midday summer heat and can work up a good head of steam even in cool weather, and most folks acknowledge those helmets aren't quite as well ventilated.

The POC Omne Air Spin is the best ventilated helmet I've worn, scooping air across the head. Friends with the Octal and Ventral helmets say the same. While I've been generally satisfied with Bell before I probably won't get another unless they redesign the harness. The main thing I like about the POC is the comfortable and secure harness. Bell harnesses in both medium and large don't quite reach the hollow between the base of my skull and neck, so they never feel quite secure -- although I haven't had one pop off my noggin in a fall.

However the Omne is more of a commuter or casual cycling helmet, but much better ventilated than the typical Bern or Nutcase. When I'm in the drops or on aero bars the helmet protrudes into my peripheral vision just above my brow. I'll probably get an Octal or Ventral for next summer. They look goofy no matter the color or model, but they seem to do the job. The thicker EPS foam seems like it should hold up well.

The worst crash I've personally witnessed occurred last summer when a fellow in front of me nicked a seam in the pavement that went from flush to about an inch higher on one side. I kinda cringed when I saw him riding that seam and, sure enough, he nicked that uneven bit, lost balance and fell hard sideways. I've since heard stories about other cyclists falling on that same section of road because the unevenness of that seam is difficult to see -- good reason to avoid seams or asphalt repair patches completely.

His head smacked the pavement hard on the side, then he slid about 10 feet headfirst into a curb, striking the top of his head. The helmet was toast but he didn't have an open head injury, although he was in shock and quickly showed signs of concussion. He was still coherent for a few seconds, then began repeating the same panicky phrases. Fortunately paramedics or EMTs were accompanying us on that ride and attended to him within a minute.

I always wonder about the part of a full face helmet that protrudes in front of a persons mouth. Does anyone know if there’s more of a likelihood to have a neck injury because of that? Seems like as soon as your face hits it would be more likely to twist your head and break your neck... Not sure what’s worse, smashing your face or breaking your neck… Anyone have any thoughts on this?

It probably does make a neck injury more likely, but to a very slight degree compared to protecting your face. We dislike full facemasks because we need the breeze to keep cool.

It more likely than not does not.

There are no studies of full helmet, open face helmet, versus no helmet for bicyclists.

There are however many many such studies of motorcyclists. Such studies show no statistically significant increase in neck injuries for full face helmets.

The brain bucket brigade FUD is the only “source” of such conjecture.

-mr. bill

Is that why MIPS was developed, too?

Chin bars have nothing to do with MIPS. Or WaveCel. Or....

Hope this helps.

(Orthogonal.)

-mr. bill

I'm going to say that if you face plant you are much better off with that extra protection. Most likely your head wouldn't turn and you'd plow the ground with your teeth. Even better, don't land on your face.

Because no one ever turns their head a bit as they are about to faceplant?

My 2 cents.

I started riding bicycles in 1955 and never wore a helmet until 1981 when I went to work for a personal injury defense firm and learned that, even standing still, if one falls off a bike and hits their head, it is powerful enough to crack a skull. After that I wore one constantly. I don't understand why anyone would not. It's common sense that cushioning a blow, how ever minimal the cushion, has to be helpful.

Arguing against NOT wearing a helmet is the same argument I make about motorcycle helmets. Yes, you have the right to do anything you want if it doesn't hurt anyone else. But if you are seriously hospitalized and can't pay the bill the rest of us do. Similarly, if you die and your spouse goes on Welfare we pay that bill, too.

So, if you are not married, have no children to support, and you sign a "Do Not Resuscitate" waiver, go ahead and ride without one.

Every. Single. Day.

Where is your "Do not resuscitate" waiver. In your wallet with you?

Insufferably arrogant. Enjoy wearing your helmet 24/7.

Arrogant? No, rational.

I find it hard to believe that you've spent much time considering all of the many ways one can cycle unsafely if you've deemed the helmet as the #1 indicator of a safe cyclist (or at least a cyclist whose life is worthy of saving). I find it even harder to believe that you've spent much time considering all of the many ways one can live unsafely/unhealthy that can be just as or more likely to lead to someone being a burden on the healthcare system.

Because if you had, you likely wouldn't be going on about how you safe you are because you always wear your helmet (but only when riding your bike).

Wow is that stupid. I always try to minimize the risk of serious injury to myself. I wear a seat belt, I don't cross streets against the light when there is traffic. I wore a helmet when I rode a motorcycle and raced cars. I don't have unprotected sex. I shelter at home. I'm NOT going on about how safe I am wearing a helmet biking I'm simply stating that it reduces the risk of serious injury.

I cannot understand how any rational, intelligent individual wouldn't. I wait to hear an explanation from one. Clearly that is not you.

You don't need a helmet, just don't ride in Australia...

With or without a helmet!

All great examples of taking risks but doing some what I consider the bare minimum to ensure you stay safe. You wear a seat belt but do you drive defensively? You don't cross streets against the light but do you verify it's safe to cross when you do have the light? Wait, WTH?! You RACE cars? You mean you purposely drive at dangerous speeds for the sake of proving you can drive faster than someone else? Seems unnecessary risk taking to me. I'd hate to be stuck paying for your medical care after you get injured in a collision on the track. Hope you signed that waiver...

I'll spare you my overreactions to your last two items

Hmmmm, these two statements are slightly conflicting, don't ya think? One makes a basic statement that, perhaps with some slightly caveats, I can agree with. The other suggests that anyone injured while not wearing a helmet (apparently regardless of what their injury actually entails) ought to be left for dead. Per my comments above, I'd like for you to sign a waiver that if injured while racing you won't be resuscitated, deal?

I'll put it as succinctly as I can for you: we all accept a certain level of risk in our lives and for some that means a bicycle helmet is unnecessary.

Good for you. I hope my tax dollars don't have to be used to support you or your family.

[thumbs down]

Arrogant???? I think not. He is just stating his opinion. And I for one agree with everything he said, because it is logical.