|
Originally Posted by Eric F
(Post 23215516)
Forget "suddenly". Explain how me riding without a helmet today makes my riding significantly safer in 15 years. Zero of the things you've talked about before significantly apply to the way I prefer to ride my bike.
Originally Posted by Eric F
(Post 23215516)
The crushing of helmet foam is the deceleration of the skull after impact. No helmet means 100% of the impact force is applied to the skull. That's why the crushing matters. Reducing the transfer of energy to the skull reduces the severity of injury. This is a simple concept.
Be careful claiming something is "simple" before you have thought much about it, especially when conversing with someone who has.
Originally Posted by Eric F
(Post 23215516)
A helmet also significantly reduces the potential of exterior injuries, as well. That's also a pretty big bonus.
Originally Posted by Eric F
(Post 23215516)
Yes, there are more protective helmets in the world, such as those worn by motorcyclists. The trade-off is that they are limiting to the performance of operating a bicycle at a high level.
Originally Posted by Eric F
(Post 23215516)
Despite the protection limitations of current bike helmet designs, it's still better than being helmet-less...by a lot. Your continued insistence that bike helmets are worthless is delusional.
|
Originally Posted by pepperbelly
(Post 23215519)
Have you noticed that absolutely nobody agrees with you?
That said, out of an unknown number of readers here, it seems to be around 3 who disagree with me so far, with one or two persons agreeing with me. That's not exactly a landslide vote.
Originally Posted by pepperbelly
(Post 23215519)
Does that make you stop and rethink your position or do you think everyone is out of step but you?
|
Originally Posted by TC1
(Post 23215558)
No, I said they stop riding as adults. This is why there are around 70M youth cyclists in the US, but only around 50M adults.
Not in this timeline. Check out the market for, well, any luxury good. Largely because of the perception of cycling danger, as I explained. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...en-dont-cycle/ among hundreds of other studies. Why then do they precisely match the statistic signature thereof? The human skull is not actually all that vulnerable, especially at cycling speeds. It has been designed for millennia precisely to protect its contents, and it does a pretty good job -- and isn't assisted to a significant degree by 200 grams of plastic. Especially so when, as previously explained, that "something" causes more head impact and more severe head impacts by the very nature of its increased size. Which would be useful information if medical schools instructed doctors on accident reconstruction, statistical analysis, and a host of other skills necessary to make that judgement. But they do not. All of which claim to find a benefit to fatal injuries which does not exist in the real world. Can you explain this problem? Why do these theoretical benefits disappear when we analyze real-world data? And attempting to study cyclist injuries has been notoriously plagued by inaccurate studies that have been subsequently retracted. By the way, one of your studies even claims that mandatory helmet laws work -- which almost no one believes any more. And some of the studies used as few as 21 cases. So the quality of these studies leaves much to be desired. Again, why do bicycle helmets present the precise statistical signature of a placebo? This trumps your opinion, until and unless you can explain why bicycle helmets do not work in the real world, which we inhabit. A most unfortunate example for your position -- since much like the human skull versus thin plastic hats, it turns out to be the case that millennia of evolution did an impressive job designing our feet and legs. To the point that there's significant debate over whether barefoot running is better than your fancy plastic shoes... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4212355/ among lots of others that are not really germane to this forum, and can be googled by interested parties. It exists, and many studies have proven that the perception of danger limits cycling uptake. On this very forum, you will find many people who are happy to share that they "only ride trails" or "don't ride outside" due to perceived danger. An enormous part of the gravel boom has been this exact ideation. And it isn't unique to cycling -- I am a paddler, and a similar and similarly-misguided situation applies to personal flotation devices. There is a movement to demand that all paddlers wear PFDs at all times, and practitioners thereof love to shame anyone who dares hit the water without one -- to the point where even paddlers who are sharing water with swimming children can be harrassed. I've purchased two second-hand boats from people who stopped using them because mandatory vest laws were passed, and their wives decided that hobby was too dangerous as a result. Again, the protection to which you refer is imaginary. That's the point. If you believe that you need to protect your head while cycling, you should be wearing a motorcycle helmet. There's no valid argument to the contrary. I am not making the crazy claim, you are. The claim that bicycle helmets offer the protection that you allege they do, is crazy. That claim is contradicted by real-world statistics, and has always been, for as long as anyone has kept such statistics. Your (general) wishful thinking and hoping does not change that fact. So your piece of data is an online news piece of why women don't cycle which features a link to a buzzfeed twitter post. Real strong argument. Clearly a peer reviewed study if the peers are millenniums at buzzfed and the study was an article on a blog website. It also mentioned helmets exactly ONCE and that was related to HAIR as in helmet hair which is the silliest argument against helmets out there. So it looks like you have an issue with plastic, because you do really mention plastic a lot. The weight of the helmet is pretty immaterial but the average helmet weight is 280-450 grams and yes they do help. It is not a placebo and you yet haven't proven it is beyond saying it's a placebo over and over. Medical professionals have said to wear helmets a random internet person has said not to because of a flimsy article that doesn't mention helmets (beyond helmet hair) and the repetition of plastic and placebo and statistics which you don't seem to have. Again naked skull vs pavement or protected skull vs pavement do you truly and honestly think a naked skull is going to be more protected? I mean I know some people who smoke a lot but never to that level. I mean if you are going to argue helmets don't protect anyone why in the heck would they still exist? Why would football players wear them because they cannot be effective at all and the reason is a football field is much softer than asphalt. It is a beyond silly argument for a beyond silly arguer. I am curious what helmets did to you? Show us where on the doll the helmet touched you...LOL! |
LOL Guys! Again, this isn't his first rodeo. Got some real doozies if you want to go back and look, though this one ranks pretty high. You aren't going to persuade him with facts, FWIW. :crash:
|
Originally Posted by veganbikes
(Post 23215489)
Unpaved ground can be quite hard (it can also be a bit softer but not some fluffy pillow to protect your head) and most people are not falling on animals or water and in the water such as for kayaking and white water rafting people do wear helmets.
Originally Posted by veganbikes
(Post 23215489)
Helmets have been proven effective. Despite it increasing the "effective size of your "head"" they do help prevent impacts and are not just plastic but specifically designed foams to protect you.
Originally Posted by veganbikes
(Post 23215489)
Real helmets? What perchance is a real helmet and what is a fake helmet?
Originally Posted by veganbikes
(Post 23215489)
However again saying one is bad and one is good kind of undercuts your argument because it seems as if you are advocating for one based on the same argument you are advocating against the other.
Originally Posted by veganbikes
(Post 23215489)
Also just curious about your studies, you mention studies and so far I haven't seen links to STUDIES from you.
|
Originally Posted by veganbikes
(Post 23215576)
I was not talking about youths not cycling but youths stopping cycling maybe it wasn't clear but I am talking about youths becoming adults and stopping cycling.
Originally Posted by veganbikes
(Post 23215576)
So your piece of data is an online news piece of why women don't cycle which features a link to a buzzfeed twitter post. Real strong argument.
Originally Posted by veganbikes
(Post 23215576)
The weight of the helmet is pretty immaterial...
Originally Posted by veganbikes
(Post 23215576)
but the average helmet weight is 280-450 grams and yes they do help.
Originally Posted by veganbikes
(Post 23215576)
It is not a placebo
Originally Posted by veganbikes
(Post 23215576)
Medical professionals have said to wear helmets a random internet person has said not to because of a flimsy article that doesn't mention helmets (beyond helmet hair) and the repetition of plastic and placebo and statistics which you don't seem to have.
Originally Posted by veganbikes
(Post 23215576)
Again naked skull vs pavement or protected skull vs pavement do you truly and honestly think a naked skull is going to be more protected?
That said, this is not the question. The question is, does a dainty little plastic hat offer any protection in this, or any other, scenario? And the relevant statistics say "No".
Originally Posted by veganbikes
(Post 23215576)
I mean if you are going to argue helmets don't protect anyone why in the heck would they still exist?
Originally Posted by veganbikes
(Post 23215576)
Why would football players wear them because they cannot be effective at all and the reason is a football field is much softer than asphalt. It is a beyond silly argument for a beyond silly arguer.
If the quality of your comments does not improve, you will not receive any more responses from me. |
Originally Posted by TC1
(Post 23215598)
Paddlers wear helmets due to submerged rocks, not due to your imagined hardness of water. Water doesn't get hard until you jump off a bridge. Cyclists do collide with animals. But the point is, your statement that everything is harder than a skull was demonstrable nonsense.
You are babbling complete nonsense now -- some of which I elided to save you further embarrassment. Go have a coffee or whatever you require, and get your head straight before continuing. A helmet cannot prevent an impact -- that is a physical impossibility. Stop wasting my time with such garbage. Read the last page or so. This has been covered. A real helmet is Snell M or SA rated, or the European equivalents which I no longer recall by heart. "Fake" helmets are the ~200 gram plastic hats currently sold under the guise of "bicycle helmets", which offer no benefit. Again, I invite you to coffee-up and read the last couple pages. The point, which has been made repeatedly, is that real helmets offer a safety benefit to the wearer, and bicycle helmets do not. Do you need an all-capital-letters study to help you look up the relevant statistics, which are all available from the NHTSA? If you are honestly unaware of the relevant statistics, and not just further wasting our time by trolling, why are you even participating in this discussion? The absolute basic information that a person should be in-possession of, before attempting to discuss the alleged merits of bicycle helmets, is how well they accomplish their alleged function. Do you mean to tell me that you have never bothered to do the very first bit of research that must necessarily precede intelligent discussion on this topic? Nonsense? How is what I wrote nonsense. I get that you don't have an argument so all you can do is grasp at straws but come on. Did I state that helmets prevent impacts, no, I don't think anyone has said that but they protect your head IN an impact. So confused...you believe a bicycle helmet is fake because it is rated by a different standards organization? Are you actually trying to claim that a helmet is fake because it is not SNELL rated even though some bicycle helmets have been SNELL rated. What is your next argument that book is not a real book because it wasn't published by Pendant Publishing? Peanuts are not real legumes because they are called "nuts"? I don't drink coffee or other stimulants, I don't need them for life. Maybe you do but I prefer not to. If that is part of your argument it is also pretty weak and flimsy. So where are these studies, so far you haven't posted a single one you allude to them constantly but never can provide one, I provided links to data and peer reviewed studies you so far have not. It is fine you don't really have a good argument it happens I understand. You are that last Japanese soldier who was living in a cave on an island who still believed the war was going on and the rest of the world has long moved on. |
Originally Posted by shelbyfv
(Post 23215595)
LOL Guys! Again, this isn't his first rodeo. Got some real doozies if you want to go back and look, though this one ranks pretty high. You aren't going to persuade him with facts, FWIW.
Or, have you nothing whatsoever useful to add apart from unsuccessful comic relief? |
Originally Posted by veganbikes
(Post 23215619)
Yes so is asphalt now significantly softer than rocks?
Originally Posted by veganbikes
(Post 23215619)
Nonsense? How is what I wrote nonsense.
Originally Posted by veganbikes
(Post 23215489)
I see a light on a bicycle I feel it is unsafe same with brakes.
Originally Posted by veganbikes
(Post 23215619)
Did I state that helmets prevent impacts, no, I don't think anyone has said that but they protect your head IN an impact.
Originally Posted by veganbikes
(Post 23215489)
Despite it increasing the "effective size of your "head"" they do help prevent impacts
Originally Posted by veganbikes
(Post 23215619)
So where are these studies, so far you haven't posted a single one you allude to them constantly but never can provide one,
If you are seriously doubting the accuracy of those statistics, you are only broadcasting that you haven't done even the most basic step in understanding this discussion, which is both unsurprising and pathetic. |
Originally Posted by TC1
(Post 23215617)
So you are unaware that there are about 70M youth cyclists in the US, and only about 50M adults? How can that situation exist, if kids are not stopping once they become adults?
You might should consider reading the article, before embarrassing yourself further. Also, fivethirtyeight is a highly respected outlet -- I'm not surprised that you are unaware of this, unfortunately. Could you be any less informed, if you actually tried to be? Why then can no such signal be identified in the relevant statistics? Why then does that precise situation exist in the relevant statistics? This is embarrassing even by your low standard. The referenced article was with respect to why people do not ride, with the answer being fear. And the statistics are available from the NHTSA -- which everyone capable of participating in this discussion already knows. As previously explained, in some cases, yes -- specifically, when the bare head does not contact anything in the same situation where a helmet does. This is not hard to comprehend. That said, this is not the question. The question is, does a dainty little plastic hat offer any protection in this, or any other, scenario? And the relevant statistics say "No". Cigarettes still exist, and they sure as hell don't protect anyone. Very few items that can be profitably sold cease to exist. Again, stop wasting my time. I already explained many times in many posts that helmets can be made that are useful. If you cannot understand the discussion, I invite you to discontinue here. If the quality of your comments does not improve, you will not receive any more responses from me. I did read the article it is not a peer reviewed study and DOESN'T MENTION HELMETS. You are arguing about helmets and your single piece of info and evidence is an article not about what you are arguing about. It is about women not cycling but is unrelated to helmets. Distracted driving is not related to helmets. Yes cigarettes still exist that was not the point, the point was science and knowledge has moved on from back in the day. A dainty plastic hat? What is this dainty plastic hat? A helmet is different, usually will have a plastic shell covering foam designed specifically for impacts it is not dainty having hit them with sledgehammers they can be quite resilient taking a few good hits before they are quite damaged. They are also designed for impacts specifically and rigorously tested especially those from quality manufacturers but for some reason that eludes you. Wait you won't respond to me anymore, oh no. You have no real arguments or data to back up your opinion so I can understand repeating plastic over and over is getting hard for you. I mean I would give up if I had no real argument. If you want to give up go for it I won't be sad and if you want to continue go for it. |
OK, you've convinced me. If I wear a helmet I'll die on the bike. Or is that off the bike? :foo:
|
Originally Posted by shelbyfv
(Post 23215640)
OK, you've convinced me. If I wear a helmet I'll die on the bike. Or is that off the bike? :foo:
|
Originally Posted by TC1
(Post 23215632)
Look up the definition of "everything". You will clearly be surprised by its meaning.
Again, go find whatever chemical you need to ingest to restore your brain's function. We're done here. If you cannot even be remotely honest and, at least, own the garbage you just posted, there's no point in me continuing to educate you. As entertaining as your continued embarrassing ignorance is, I already explained to you that the statistics in question are from the NHTSA. Links that site have also been provided, in case you are not even capable of googling it, or even guessing the appropriate address. If you are seriously doubting the accuracy of those statistics, you are only broadcasting that you haven't done even the most basic step in understanding this discussion, which is both unsurprising and pathetic. I don't need chemicals or drugs that sounds like a you thing that you are trying to put on me because you feel guilty about it. I was making a joke about brakes and lights you took it as something truly serious. You haven't linked to anything from the NHTSA, if it is so easy to find and that is now what you are using to back up your poor argument you can link to it. I don't need to go looking for it. I am not making the argument that a helmet is unsafe. Nobody is, you are the only one. I always find when people have to say "google it" they have long ago lost. If you have peer reviewed studies to back up that a helmet is unsafe then you would have posted them and promoted them. You wouldn't be just harping on chemicals and plastic as you have done. You are holding a position that nobody else is holding but you cannot back it up. It is like being the last sniper in the tower with the allies surrounding you and you are shouting "bang" at them and saying "I just shot you with the rifle I have here, you have to lay down and die" and not actually shooting them or even seeming to have said rifle. |
Originally Posted by shelbyfv
(Post 23215640)
OK, you've convinced me. If I wear a helmet I'll die on the bike. Or is that off the bike? :foo:
To those who may not understand this is a joke. I am laughing while writing this and you should to. Have some fun in life. |
Originally Posted by TC1
(Post 23215646)
This is actually a serious topic, and one that effects everyone who rides in public. It is likely beyond your comprehension, as you demonstrated, but given that it is germane to the forum charter, perhaps you can ruminate on Twain's advice regarding fools and silence before continuing to waste our time?
|
Originally Posted by tomato coupe
(Post 23215237)
These helmet threads bring out some truly twisted logic.
|
Originally Posted by veganbikes
(Post 23215637)
I am not arguing on kids stopping cycling when they become adults I am saying it is not because of whatever nonsense you believe. I know many kids don't ride as adults but again nothing to do with helmets at least not in any large numbers.
Originally Posted by veganbikes
(Post 23215637)
I did read the article it is not a peer reviewed study and DOESN'T MENTION HELMETS.
Originally Posted by veganbikes
(Post 23215637)
Yes cigarettes still exist that was not the point, the point was science and knowledge has moved on from back in the day.
Originally Posted by veganbikes
(Post 23215637)
A dainty plastic hat? What is this dainty plastic hat?
Originally Posted by veganbikes
(Post 23215637)
A helmet is different, usually will have a plastic shell covering foam designed specifically for impacts it is not dainty having hit them with sledgehammers they can be quite resilient taking a few good hits before they are quite damaged. They are also designed for impacts specifically and rigorously tested especially those from quality manufacturers but for some reason that eludes you.
https://www.bicycling.com/news/a2193...elmet-ratings/ https://www.nbcnews.com/health/healt...-flaws-n886691 https://www.forbes.com/sites/carlton...h=1e2ab851cbd4 https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/2211...accounts-head/ https://www.evo.com/guides/virginia-tech-helmet-ratings And the market is full of untested helmets, as well. https://www.consumerreports.org/bike...ely-available/ Have you ever even read one single article on the topic of bicycle helmets? It is difficult for me to imagine how clueless you are on this topic, while still seemingly being interested in it.
Originally Posted by veganbikes
(Post 23215637)
Wait you won't respond to me anymore, oh no. You have no real arguments or data to back up your opinion so I can understand repeating plastic over and over is getting hard for you. I mean I would give up if I had no real argument. If you want to give up go for it I won't be sad and if you want to continue go for it.
|
Originally Posted by shelbyfv
(Post 23215673)
Sorry, I'm smarter than you and I'm not the one posting unhinged on the internet.
Originally Posted by shelbyfv
(Post 23215673)
The others don't need help from me, they've whacked you down sufficiently. I'm just here for the entertainment.
Did you want to give that a try smarty, or do you plan to stick with wasting everyone's time on nonsense? |
Originally Posted by veganbikes
(Post 23215659)
So asphalt is significantly softer than rocks now? You never answered that you keep harping on the everything.
Originally Posted by veganbikes
(Post 23215279)
Everything out there is harder than your head.
Originally Posted by veganbikes
(Post 23215659)
I was making a joke about brakes and lights you took it as something truly serious.
Originally Posted by veganbikes
(Post 23215659)
You haven't linked to anything from the NHTSA, if it is so easy to find and that is now what you are using to back up your poor argument you can link to it.
|
This is getting absurd. I’m out!
|
Originally Posted by TC1
(Post 23215690)
It doesn't even appear that you understand the meaning of the word "fact", in fact, which is rather embarrassing for you.
Originally Posted by pepperbelly
(Post 23215756)
This is getting absurd. I’m out!
|
Originally Posted by TC1
(Post 23215696)
Wow, you are really not smart.
That was your statement. I was forced to educate you by listing many of the items "out there" which are not harder than your head. Ah, the infamous "I got caught making a completely stupid remark, so I will pretend it was a joke" defense. That's novel. I will make you a deal -- if I do your homework for you, and prove this, will you be an honest person -- for the first time -- and admit that you are wrong?
Originally Posted by TC1
(Post 23215684)
You said you don't drink coffee. Consider starting, or trying something to assist with your reading comprehension skills, which are grade-school level. The point is that the perceived danger of cycling is what stops many from riding.
You obviously didn't read it, nor were you familiar with the source. Again, the point is that the perceived danger of cycling is what stops many from riding. Try to keep up. You are confusing yourself. You questioned why helmets still exist, if they do not keep people safe. I explained that many products which do not keep people safe remain on sale. Now you are claiming that "science and knowledge has moved on" -- which means you are now agreeing with me, and realize that the outdated belief in bicycle helmet efficiency should have disappeared by now, and so it's legitimate to wonder why they are even still available to purchase. Are you now agreeing with me or have you simply been trolling this entire time? Wow, you are a lot less intelligent than I thought. As a matter of fact, bicycle helmet testing standards are a huge part of the problem. But you didn't know that either, because you are basically a troll, and completely without knowledge on the topic at-hand. https://www.bicycling.com/news/a2193...elmet-ratings/ https://www.nbcnews.com/health/healt...-flaws-n886691 https://www.forbes.com/sites/carlton...h=1e2ab851cbd4 https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/2211...accounts-head/ https://www.evo.com/guides/virginia-tech-helmet-ratings And the market is full of untested helmets, as well. https://www.consumerreports.org/bike...ely-available/ Have you ever even read one single article on the topic of bicycle helmets? It is difficult for me to imagine how clueless you are on this topic, while still seemingly being interested in it. Be careful what you wish for. I can go on illustrating your incompetence on this topic for literally days, and you might wind up permanently scarred like shelbyfv. So we should be unsafe because of this "perceived danger"? Sounds like a good solid argument. Let's actually be unsafe to prove that their is a "perceived danger". I know you think not wearing a helmet is some how magically going change people's perception but sadly that is not the case. If we work on changing people's driving habits and try and prevent distracted driving and driving while intoxicated that will help but not wearing helmets is just your own personal vanity. Don't want to get that dreaded "helmet hair" I read that article and again not once was mentioned helmets beyond helmet hair and the first part of it alluded to Buzzfeed. You can say the source is the best but when it has to go to Buzzfeed for data that is NOT a peer reviewed study. No I am not agreeing with you I am saying science and medicine have moved on from believing tobacco is good for you not that they are saying helmets are unsafe. Again nobody aside from you here is saying helmets are unsafe and the few internet crackpots trying to claim they are unsafe really don't have much. I am still awaiting those peer reviewed studies? Right now you have helmets are being tested articles or the testing needs to improve but that is not really a great treatise against helmets. It is saying that things need to be updated testing wise and that VA Tech is doing some better testing and many manufacturers do their own separate testing so they can exceed CSPC. Also saying because someone is wearing a helmet and potentially getting passed at a closer distance in a car is not a reason to not wear helmets that is beyond stupid victim blaming. It is the same thing as if she didn't want to get violated she shouldn't have worn that dress...It is poor logic and doesn't make anyone safer. in terms of online giants known for selling fakes and knockoffs and cheap products selling un-rated helmets, again not a treatise against helmets but a we should go after these mega corporations for selling unsafe products especially without any warning. We should stop wearing helmets because some billionaires sell bad ones? That sounds rather silly and could be applied in a lot of situations that would sound equally silly. We should stop posting in online forums because some of them are terrible. We should stop looking at email because some of it is spam. We should stop breathing air because some of it is polluted. We should stop drinking water because sometimes it can drown you. I can go on and be more silly but I think the point is made. You have no real good data none of your articles really say don't wear a helmet and you have yet to show any of these peer reviewed studies you claim exist in droves. I would think in the many posts you have made talking about them you would have found them by now they are super easy to find you said but you can't even find them! Heck you couldn't even use the better article on Bicycling for your point against helmets, it was a link at the bottom of the article you posted. Do You Always Need to Wear a Helmet to Ride a Bike? HELMETS CAN PROTECT AGAINST SPECIFIC HEAD INJURIES, BUT THEY’RE NO SUBSTITUTE FOR SAFER STREETS AND MORE MINDFUL DRIVERS. |
Originally Posted by pepperbelly
(Post 23215756)
This is getting absurd.
|
Originally Posted by TC1
(Post 23215503)
No, I never said anything like 'Unhelmeted cyclists are invincible'. I specifically said that luck plays a large part in sustaining head injuries. In your case, in all likelihood, your helmet made no difference whatsoever and you would have been injured with or without it. And we know this because even helmet manufacturers state that their bicycle helmets are not designed to prevent the sort of injury you received.
As an aside, for the folks here who are suffering from confirmation bias, your story is precisely an example of that phenomenon. You want to believe that it was your foresight and intelligence in wearing a helmet that day which saved your life. I get that -- everyone wants to believe that they are in control, and no one wants to believe that they just got lucky. So everyone wants to believe that, as long as they wear their dainty little plastic hat, they will be safe. And I get that too, feeling safe is nice. But feeling safe is not being safe, and it is important to recognize the difference. To the point, an equally-valid interpretation of your story is that your helmet did a very poor job of protecting your brain, and you wound up in a coma despite wearing your hat. That crash was from my fork breaking at the crown, no warning at close to 30 mph coming off a routine bunny hop. I never got my hands off the bars. I'm no gymnast. It was a head hit, then shoulder. "In your case, in all likelihood, your helmet made no difference whatsoever and you would have been injured with or without it." Umm, yes. Injured to the life of a vegetable or dead without it. Unless you are much smarter than the best at Massachusetts General Hospital's ICU where they had one of the early CAT scanners. The hit was a couple of inches above the corner of my eye. Broken skull there just might be traumatic, maybe? True, I probably don't have the thick skull you do. Edit: The CAT scan showed just a small blood clot on my hypothalamus and a bruise on the base of my motor nerves. 5 days later, next scan showed those healing well. The consequences to me were the big deceleration my brain took (and rebound as that was the early firm polystyrene(?) foam). Skull was fully intact. That hit was exactly what those helmets were designed to deal with. I lived and I'm here. I would challenge you to do the same crash without helmet and report back but my faith won't allow me. |
From the Forbes article...“The materials that are used in most of today’s helmets are engineered to absorb the high impact energies that can produce skull fractures and severe brain injuries”.
Impact energy absorption is what I've been talking about, and the fact that it's happening is evidenced by the resulting crushed EPS foam. That means 100% of the impact energy was not transmitted directly to my/your head. That's a good thing. This is simple stuff. If someone is going to hit you on the head with a 2x4, and you have a choice between wearing a bicycle helmet or nothing, which do you choose? It truly baffles me that someone can talk themselves into the conclusion that bike helmets are useless...harmful, even. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:43 AM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.