The Netherlands study established only that reducing the price of helmets would be more cost effective at reducing TBI than mandating helmet use. It was not a finding that buying a cheap helmet wouldn't be cost effective for you.

I'm not sure where I would mount my mirror, headlight and camera without a helmet. It's a very useful platform for more than simply head protection. My handle bar is already crowded with a daytime light, smart phone, and gps when caching. Maybe I just like my gadgets too much.

The vast majority of drivers rate themselves as far above average drivers.

lets gooo

Where are we going?

The Dutch can afford a E50 helmet too. They just often prefer the bike over the Mercedes or Tesla. Both without having to wear a helmet that is. The price point is irrelevant, unless it would be as cheap as for example an umbrella and you can leave them, lend them, buy one of if you forgot one. That would allow for a different kind of use and that would potentially make a difference. But it won't happen, it isn't a debate. Every now and then some EU pencilpusher from a non cycling country believes he has brilliantly found the solution to a non existing problem and starts pushing it, but there is no helmet debate here. We just have arrogant doctors, brain surgeons in particular, who believe the world should be shaped with what happens to be their feild of expertise at the centre.

But my compatriots and me don't care about reducing TBI, I won't notice the difference, there is not a big TBI problem going on right now. People do stupid things or do things they lack the competence for, and get hurt. It's not for government to prevent all bad things, which a helmet won't btw. It's also reasoned from the ER entirely, not from all the incidents that didn't make it to the ER, it's a kind of survivor bias the other way around. It's not like you can you change just one variable without any other effect. I'm not suggesting that ordinary cyclists will get into the same higher TBI statistics as the helmet wearing cyclists, road cyclists and mountain bikers for example, but should we really allow people that can't even keep themselves safe on a bike on the bike paths where also little children have to ride a learn to deal with traffic? If you need a helmet it's not safe enough or you are not safe enough. I don't do transportation modalities that are so unsafe they require a helmet and I won't in the future either. A mandate would change the crowd on the streets and change the style of riding, defenitely in an unsafer way. But it's all hypothetical, there has never been Dutch cycling with helmets and when it's only with helmets it's not Dutch cycling anymore. Dutch cycling has been doing fine without neurologists for ages.and people like that should stop acting like Dutch cycling is theirs or the government's by moaning for helmets, it's not and it's not even their field of expertise.

A GOOD helmet certainly helps. And you can look up the certifications to see which ones should be noted on the inside of a helmet. A cheap helmet can actually cause damage. Example--I worked in a motorcycle shop after graduating from high school (yes-motorcycle helmet, but still a valid comparison). A competitive shop was giving away a helmet with a motorcycle purchase. We kept one of those helmets handy. A customer buying a motorcycle would ask if we were giving away a helmet. We would bring the helmet out and ask if this was the one being given away. They would answer it was. At which point we would slam it to the floor. It didn't crack, or absorb the shock, but bounced right back up. We'd then ask if this is what they wanted on their head if in an accident. We never had anyone want it! If you don't ever fall, or hit your head if you do, then maybe a helmet might not be necessary. But I have fallen--hard--on both a motorcycle and a bicycle and am glad I was wearing a good helmet. Otherwise, I might not be posting this!!

It should be noted that few, if any doctors or brain surgeons have any special knowledge or expertise on the actual real world effectiveness of bicycle helmets in reducing TBI or other serious head injuries for the population of bicyclists involved in accidents or collisions.

It should be noted that few, if any random people on a bike forum on the internet have any special knowledge or expertise on the actual real world effectiveness of bicycle helmets in reducing TBI or other serious head injuries for the population of bicyclists involved in accidents or collisions.

Quite true, hence umpteen posts from umpteen posters, and articles from equally uninformed randos about how they are sure helmets either saved their lives or somebody else from crippling head injuries that they read about somewhere on the Internet.

Me being able to walk/ride away, with a crushed helmet, but nothing more than a mild, short-term headache is plenty enough to convince me that things would have been much worse without a helmet.

My father spending multiple weeks in the hospital recovering from a head injury after being hit by a car is plenty enough to convince me that his helmet likely saved his life. His doctor said the same thing.

I’m not an expert on TBI, but some stuff is pretty obvious.

Yesterday my (20 yo) kid was mountain biking with his friend, who crashed and was knocked out, stone cold. He had a full-face Giro Switchblade. The helmet was severely impacted and the jaw guard cracked. Despite a concussion, he got a clear CAT scan, and only spent about 7 or 8 hours in the ER, but I am fairly confident things would have been a whole lot worse had he had an inferior helmet, or even a good road helmet, let alone no helmet.

So add me to the uninformed random umpteen posters.

Unless one is willing to do the obvious experimental controls, I don't see how making such an observation is at all unreasonable.

Frankly, I don't understand why this assertion is at all controversial, and if for some reason it is wrong, so what? It is far better than being under-protected and being wrong.

He didn't have knee guards, and they spent several hours cleaning those wounds. It is possible if he had knee guards, it wouldn't have made a difference, but I think there is a reasonable chance it would have.

Sure, and umpteen posts from umpteen posters about how they are sure helmets are somehow not worthwhile. I'll stick with the doctors, brain surgeons, and everyone else who can see that getting hit hard on the head is less bad with a helmet.

That is your prerogative; just as many others use "common sense" (as well as fire and brimstone proselytizing) to reinforce their belief in the effectiveness of medallions around their neck, tracts in their pocket or plastic totems on the dashboard to protect them from harm. Plenty of confirming anecdotes to be found on the Internet is proof enough, eh?

True Faith; even if it doesn't deliver the assumed protection, believing in it can't hurt, can it? :rolleyes:

Which categories of helmets are superfluous in other settings? Baseball? Football? Equestrian? Construction? Military? Or is it only cycling helmets that are unnecessary?

Oh but bicycle helmets are "necessary", if the wearer believes that he/she is not safe riding without it; or alleged experts using appeals to authority fallacy have persuaded the rule makers to mandate that wear.

As far as other helmets in use in other activities, you tell me. The issue is bicycle helmet real world effectiveness in protecting the wearers and reducing the risk of TBI and other serious head injury, as well as relying on conclusions about that risk reduction based on the promoter's claims, alleged experts' false appeals to authority, and/or "common sense."

An anecdote about bicycle helmet effectiveness in reducing bicycling risk is just that and no more, whether it is a BF poster's claim about the necessity for helmet wear based on a belief about how the helmet saved him or someone they know, or a belief in helmet effectiveness in reducing bicycling risk drawn from a doctor's "analysis" based at best on a glance at a helmet(s) in an ER.

This ^^^ is really not a difficult concept to understand.

I wear a helmet because I want to, not because someone tells me to. Personal choice, but is the potential risk worth the "reward"?

A. the helmet failed. B. the kid still got a TBI.

I think the term would be sacrificial.

A. That's not a failure, that's a helmet doing exactly what it's supposed to do by absorbing the impact rather than passing it along.

B. Getting a TBI is a lot better than being dead. Once again:

Your evidence for that is what?

He did not. Don't make stuff up. It makes you look like a Fakebook goofball.

A concussion is a TBI.A helmet fails if it cracks this failure is instantaneous, helmets are "tested" by dropping a weight onto the top which isn't where most helmets get hit but where the arch is strongest to skew the data . https://road.cc/content/news/only-1-...cussion-293659

They are two separate things. In this case he had a CT scan to check.

It is possible to have a concussion without a TBI.

It is also possible to have a TBI without a concussion.

It does not follow that the helmet protection failed, any more than it follows that vaccination failed because I got a mild case of COVID.

In both cases, the success is preventing a more severe outcome.

From the CDC..."A concussion is a type of traumatic brain injury—or TBI—caused by a bump, blow, or jolt to the head or by a hit to the body that causes the head and brain to move rapidly back and forth."

That said, there is little doubt that your son's friend would have suffered a significantly greater injury - possibly fatal - if it were not for the helmet absorbing much of the impact force. Sensible people understand that a broken/cracked/dented helmet resulting from an impact means the helmet did its job.