Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Advocacy & Safety
Reload this Page >

The Helmet Thread 2

Notices
Advocacy & Safety Cyclists should expect and demand safe accommodation on every public road, just as do all other users. Discuss your bicycle advocacy and safety concerns here.
View Poll Results: What Are Your Helmet Wearing Habits?
I've never worn a bike helmet
52
10.40%
I used to wear a helmet, but have stopped
24
4.80%
I've always worn a helmet
208
41.60%
I didn't wear a helmet, but now do
126
25.20%
I sometimes wear a helmet depending on the conditions
90
18.00%
Voters: 500. You may not vote on this poll

The Helmet Thread 2

Old 04-18-24, 02:21 PM
  #3901  
Expired Member
 
shelbyfv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: TN
Posts: 12,306
Liked 6,191 Times in 3,125 Posts
NHTSA quote "Bicycle helmets are proven to reduce injuries and fatalities." and Link I know I said I was gone but it was so easy to put this foolishness to bed.
shelbyfv is offline  
Likes For shelbyfv:
Old 04-18-24, 02:44 PM
  #3902  
Habitual User
 
Eric F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Altadena, CA
Posts: 8,531

Bikes: 2023 Niner RLT 9 RDO, 2018 Trek Procaliber 9.9 RSL, 2018 Storck Fascenario.3 Platinum, 2003 Time VX Special Pro, 2001 Colnago VIP, 1999 Trek 9900 singlespeed, 1977 Nishiki ONP

Liked 8,779 Times in 4,134 Posts
Originally Posted by shelbyfv
NHTSA quote "Bicycle helmets are proven to reduce injuries and fatalities." and Link I know I said I was gone but it was so easy to put this foolishness to bed.
I found this... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2598379/
It seems intuitive that bicycle helmets would be an effective means of reducing head injury, and indeed helmet manufacturers and standards associations worldwide conduct rigorous tests to determine the impact absorption and other qualities of helmets. It is however, important to go beyond laboratory tests and understand whether helmets reduce injuries in the event of a crash in real‐life; hence the review by Thompson et al
This review included five well conducted case‐control studies and found that helmets provide a 63–88% reduction in the risk of head, brain and severe brain injury for all ages of bicyclists. Helmets were found to provide equal levels of protection for crashes involving motor vehicles (69%) and crashes from all other causes (68%). Furthermore, injuries to the upper and mid facial areas were found to be reduced by 65%, although helmets did not prevent lower facial injuries. The review authors concluded that bicycle helmets are an effective means of preventing head injury.


And this...https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7025438/
Some bicycling advocates have argued that helmeted cyclists may change their riding behavior influenced by a greater feeling of security and, thus take more risks and be more likely to crash.
The converse argument has also been made that helmeted cyclists may ride more carefully and that these behaviors account for the reduction in head injury, not helmet use. We believe these arguments to be specious. The fundamental issue is whether or not when bicycle riders crash and hit their heads they are benefited by wearing a helmet. Cyclists would have to increase their risk taking four‐fold to overcome the protective effect of helmets.


To that, I say...well, duh. This is simple stuff.

(Not sure why my quotes are being split)
__________________
"Swedish fish. They're protein shaped." - livedarklions

Last edited by Eric F; 04-18-24 at 02:48 PM.
Eric F is offline  
Likes For Eric F:
Old 04-18-24, 02:47 PM
  #3903  
TC1
Full Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2023
Location: Illinois
Posts: 478
Liked 129 Times in 84 Posts
Originally Posted by shelbyfv
NHTSA quote "Bicycle helmets are proven to reduce injuries and fatalities." and Link I know I said I was gone but it was so easy to put this foolishness to bed.
And when you read the remainder of that section, you find they provided zero evidence to support that claim:
Originally Posted by https://www.nhtsa.gov/book/countermeasures-that-work/bicycle-safety/countermeasures/other-strategies-behavior-change/promote-bicycle-helmet-use
Rouzier and Alto (1995) describe a comprehensive program of presentations, media coverage, messages from doctors to patients, as well as low-cost helmet availability, which significantly increased helmet purchases and use for all ages. A peer-led, social marketing program on a medium-sized college campus also raised observed helmet use, at least for the short term (Ludwig et al., 2005). A school-based injury-reduction program targeting 13- and 14-year-olds incorporating opportunities for instruction, demonstration, rehearsal, feedback, social reinforcement and practice was associated with a 20% increase in observed rate of helmet use among this challenging target age group at 6 months follow-up (Buckley et al., 2009).

A Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis of twenty-two studies evaluating non- legislative helmet promotion programs aimed at children under 18 found the odds of observed helmet wearing were significantly greater among those receiving the interventions (Owen et al., 2011). The study found the more effective programs were community-based (rather than aimed at people), provided free rather than subsidized helmets, and were set in schools. A Canadian program, Operation Headway, involving enforcement of bike helmet legislation, education, rewards for wearing and economic penalties for non-wearing, and provision of helmets to low-income groups was evaluated by Lockhart et al. (2010). The researchers found the program increased wearing rates (based on observations pre- and post-intervention), increased knowledge and commitment to wearing a helmet, saw greater public awareness of the law through media tracking, and improved relationships between police and the public (based on anecdotal evidence). A related theme of these studies is that population-wide, multifaceted, integrated, and repeated prevention programs are needed, which should include distribution of free helmets and safety information and strategies to increase peer and parental pressure.
Everyone -- the NHTSA included -- wants bicycle helmets to work. It'd be great if they did. But the ones currently called "bicycle helmets", that some people wear, don't.
TC1 is offline  
Old 04-18-24, 02:49 PM
  #3904  
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 30,066

Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi

Liked 1,609 Times in 1,087 Posts
Originally Posted by CrimsonEclipse
Get it yourself and stop being lazy.
Classic answer (AKA dodge) when assertions cannot be substantiated by posters when challenged. This time the unsubstantiated assertions, presumably based on guesswork, concern "follow[ing] the money" and "what insurance companies think" concerning bicycle helmet wear and insurance rates,
I-Like-To-Bike is offline  
Old 04-18-24, 02:53 PM
  #3905  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,260
Liked 846 Times in 502 Posts
Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike
Classic answer (AKA dodge) when assertions cannot be substantiated by posters when challenged. This time the unsubstantiated assertions, presumably based on guesswork, concern "follow[ing] the money" and "what insurance companies think" concerning bicycle helmet wear and insurance rates,
You: "Do my work for me"
Me: "no"
You: "Waaaaaah! Classic dodging! I wanna ride with no helmet!! Science is lies!!! WAAAAAH!!!"
CrimsonEclipse is offline  
Old 04-18-24, 02:56 PM
  #3906  
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 30,066

Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi

Liked 1,609 Times in 1,087 Posts
Originally Posted by shelbyfv
NHTSA quote "Bicycle helmets are proven to reduce injuries and fatalities." and Link I know I said I was gone but it was so easy to put this foolishness to bed.
The link provides no substantiation of this reduction or its extent if any. Nor any evidence despite some posters' assertions that bicycle helmet wear influences insurance rates or payouts in any direction or amount.
I-Like-To-Bike is offline  
Likes For I-Like-To-Bike:
Old 04-18-24, 03:00 PM
  #3907  
TC1
Full Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2023
Location: Illinois
Posts: 478
Liked 129 Times in 84 Posts
Originally Posted by Eric F
It is unfortunate for you that you needed to cite Thompson. Robert Thompson authored the famous retracted study that claimed helmets were "85% effective" -- a number that the Federal government parroted for years, until forced to stop under modern data quality laws.

Thompson was a leader in claiming that helmets are effective, but his more recent research now finds otherwise.

Originally Posted by https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/3/2/110
RESULTS: There were 3854 injured cyclists in the three year period; 3390 (88%) completed questionnaires were returned 51% wore helmets at the time of crash. Only 22.3% of patients had head injuries and 34% had facial injuries. Risk of serious injury was increased by collision with a motor vehicle (odds ratio (OR) = 4.6), self reported speed > 15 mph (OR = 1.2), young age (< 6 years), and age > 39 years (OR = 2.1 and 2.2 respectively, compared with adults 20-39 years). Risk for serious injury was not affected by helmet use (OR = 0.9). Risk of neck injury was increased in those struck by motor vehicles (OR = 4.0), hospitalized for any injury (OR = 2.0), and those who died (OR = 15.1), but neck injury was not affected by helmet use.

CONCLUSIONS: Prevention of serious bicycle injuries cannot be accomplished through helmet use alone, and may require separation of cyclists from motor vehicles, and delaying cycling until children are developmentally ready.
Originally Posted by Eric F
To that, I say...well, duh. This is simple stuff.
So simple that one of the most productive researchers in the field has been forced to retract his earlier work and now finds no benefit to helmets.
TC1 is offline  
Old 04-18-24, 03:16 PM
  #3908  
Clark W. Griswold
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: ,location, location
Posts: 14,314

Bikes: Foundry Chilkoot Ti W/Ultegra Di2, Salsa Timberjack Ti, Cinelli Mash Work RandoCross Fun Time Machine, 1x9 XT Parts Hybrid, Co-Motion Cascadia, Specialized Langster, Phil Wood Apple VeloXS Frame (w/DA 7400), R+M Supercharger2 Rohloff, Habanero Ti 26

Liked 4,372 Times in 2,919 Posts
Originally Posted by TC1
I did not ask you to find the data, I only require that you stand behind your position, and commit to admitting that you are wrong once I prove it. And you are too frightened to do so, for obvious reasons.



It is a bit entertaining to watch you contort yourself around these red herrings, like a security blanket. You claimed that helmet manufacturers rigorously test their helmets to assure that they are all as effective as you hope they are -- so I was forced to educate you that nothing could be further from the truth. Try to keep up -- no one is talking about hair, except in your imagination.



Would ya look at that! It can learn.



After I do so, will you admit that you are wrong?
You have expected me to find your magical data if you didn't you would have posted it already.

Your realize that was your argument I was putting forth not my argument but yours the one you have been pathetically sort of trying to make(ish) all these posts.

Would you look at that still not able to argue for your own position and think you are winning because my position hasn't changed and I was pointing at a known fact that doesn't help your case or hurt mine it is just a fact of business.

You still cannot argue for your case. You are standing atop your crumbling tower demanding that I admit something that is well known to be false as everyone around you laughs because not even you are willing try and save your tower.

Helmets do help prevent injuries and death we know this we can talk with people whom we may not have been able to talk with had they not been wearing a helmet. We know helmets are not perfect nothing in this world is but saying they are dangerous and completely bad is again silly beyond silly and now you are at the point where you cannot even argue for your own position, it is so sad.

Water is universally recognized H2O and you are the voice in the corner jumping up and down while saying no it's not but I refuse to tell you why.
veganbikes is offline  
Old 04-18-24, 03:27 PM
  #3909  
Expired Member
 
shelbyfv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: TN
Posts: 12,306
Liked 6,191 Times in 3,125 Posts
Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike
The link provides no substantiation of this reduction or its extent if any. Nor any evidence despite some posters' assertions that bicycle helmet wear influences insurance rates or payouts in any direction or amount.
It's the NHTSA website. Do you think they are going to have pages that are inconsistent with the agency position? If you want to second guess their position you'll need some qualifications. As for insurance companies, all I can recall being said was they might be the reason club and shop rides require helmets. You could ask your club or shop if you really want to know.
shelbyfv is offline  
Likes For shelbyfv:
Old 04-18-24, 04:10 PM
  #3910  
Senior Member
 
badger1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Southwestern Ontario
Posts: 5,201
Liked 1,276 Times in 650 Posts
Originally Posted by TC1
It is unfortunate for you that you needed to cite Thompson. Robert Thompson authored the famous retracted study that claimed helmets were "85% effective" -- a number that the Federal government parroted for years, until forced to stop under modern data quality laws.

Thompson was a leader in claiming that helmets are effective, but his more recent research now finds otherwise.





So simple that one of the most productive researchers in the field has been forced to retract his earlier work and now finds no benefit to helmets.
LOL! Typical; you cite an article from 1997. And by the way, the 'conclusions' even of that article don't support your position:

"CONCLUSIONS: Prevention of serious bicycle injuries cannot be accomplished through helmet use alone, and may require separation of cyclists from motor vehicles, and delaying cycling until children are developmentally ready."

In fact, those conclusions are at odds with your rather transparent and silly 'vehicular cycling' viewpoint.

So, here is a much more recent -- and rigorous -- literature review/statistical analysis for you to consider: https://academic.oup.com/ije/article/46/1/278/2617198

At the end of the day, none of your nonsense (and that of others) really matters. No one here, as far as I know, has claimed that wearing an 'approved', properly fitted, bicycle helmet is going to completely eliminate the risk of serious -- even fatal -- injury in the event of a fall, crash, severe impact, etc. To do so would indeed be stupid. The real question, rather obviously, is whether or not a proper helmet reduces the risk of serious/fatal injury (facial, brain, whatever) in the event of a fall/collision. Notice: not 'eliminate' the risk ... 'reduce' the risk.

Correctly wearing a modern cycling helmet that meets current standards will 'reduce' (not eliminate) the risk of serious injury in the event of a fall/collision. That is what the epidemiological evidence suggests. That is good enough for me, and should be good enough for anyone who is a) rational and b) not simply trolling the interwebz in order to stir up a mess.

And that is all. I am out of this stupid discussion.
badger1 is online now  
Likes For badger1:
Old 04-18-24, 04:17 PM
  #3911  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 6,377

Bikes: Colnago, Van Dessel, Factor, Cervelo, Ritchey

Liked 8,102 Times in 3,221 Posts
For those that are interested in what the recently linked study actually says:

For fatal injuries, lack of use of a bicycle helmet or involvement with a motor vehicle in the crash were each associated with a 14-fold increase in fatality rate.
tomato coupe is offline  
Likes For tomato coupe:
Old 04-18-24, 04:21 PM
  #3912  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Far beyond the pale horizon.
Posts: 14,523
Liked 1,478 Times in 1,023 Posts
Originally Posted by TC1
The NHTSA and DOT ( and NSC ) alter their reporting tools somewhat frequently, so links into them tend to be fragile and in some cases, impossible -- requiring screenshots and such.
You should post the links anyway. No one can tell what you are talking about.

Originally Posted by TC1
So no, I did not post links -- but I have offered to, if a certain individual expresses the confidence to own up afterwards.
So, there are links?

Originally Posted by TC1
For the record, everyone here who claims that bicycle helmets do save lives has also made a claim without providing a link to evidence. Claims that estimate that bicycle helmets should save lives are not evidence that they do.


"For the record" what other people fail to do doesn't excuse you.

Further more, the "conventional wisdom" (right or wrong) is that helmets help. That means that claims that the make things worse is the "extreme" claim and, as such, requires more support.

Last edited by njkayaker; 04-18-24 at 04:26 PM.
njkayaker is offline  
Likes For njkayaker:
Old 04-18-24, 04:39 PM
  #3913  
Habitual User
 
Eric F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Altadena, CA
Posts: 8,531

Bikes: 2023 Niner RLT 9 RDO, 2018 Trek Procaliber 9.9 RSL, 2018 Storck Fascenario.3 Platinum, 2003 Time VX Special Pro, 2001 Colnago VIP, 1999 Trek 9900 singlespeed, 1977 Nishiki ONP

Liked 8,779 Times in 4,134 Posts
Originally Posted by badger1
LOL! Typical; you cite an article from 1997. And by the way, the 'conclusions' even of that article don't support your position:

"CONCLUSIONS: Prevention of serious bicycle injuries cannot be accomplished through helmet use alone, and may require separation of cyclists from motor vehicles, and delaying cycling until children are developmentally ready."

In fact, those conclusions are at odds with your rather transparent and silly 'vehicular cycling' viewpoint.

So, here is a much more recent -- and rigorous -- literature review/statistical analysis for you to consider: https://academic.oup.com/ije/article/46/1/278/2617198

At the end of the day, none of your nonsense (and that of others) really matters. No one here, as far as I know, has claimed that wearing an 'approved', properly fitted, bicycle helmet is going to completely eliminate the risk of serious -- even fatal -- injury in the event of a fall, crash, severe impact, etc. To do so would indeed be stupid. The real question, rather obviously, is whether or not a proper helmet reduces the risk of serious/fatal injury (facial, brain, whatever) in the event of a fall/collision. Notice: not 'eliminate' the risk ... 'reduce' the risk.

Correctly wearing a modern cycling helmet that meets current standards will 'reduce' (not eliminate) the risk of serious injury in the event of a fall/collision. That is what the epidemiological evidence suggests. That is good enough for me, and should be good enough for anyone who is a) rational and b) not simply trolling the interwebz in order to stir up a mess.

And that is all. I am out of this stupid discussion.
I'm not seeing TC1's posts because I have him behind the ignore curtain, but he seems to be responding to my previously posted links.

Here's another more recent link... https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24686160/
"In the 2m (6.3m/s) drops, the middle of our drop height range, the helmet reduced peak accelerations from 824g (unhelmeted) to 181g (helmeted) and HIC was reduced from 9667 (unhelmeted) to 1250 (helmeted). At realistic impact speeds of 5.4m/s (1.5m drop) and 6.3m/s (2.0m drop), bicycle helmets changed the probability of severe brain injury from extremely likely (99.9% risk at both 5.4 and 6.3m/s) to unlikely (9.3% and 30.6% risk at 1.5m and 2.0m drops respectively)."

I'm no rocket surgeon, but these numbers seem pretty meaningful, as does this conclusion...

"contemporary bicycle helmets are highly effective at reducing head injury metrics and the risk for severe brain injury in head impacts characteristic of bicycle crashes."

Yep. I'm still going to wear a helmet when I ride. Probably in about an hour from now.
__________________
"Swedish fish. They're protein shaped." - livedarklions
Eric F is offline  
Likes For Eric F:
Old 04-18-24, 04:49 PM
  #3914  
Clark W. Griswold
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: ,location, location
Posts: 14,314

Bikes: Foundry Chilkoot Ti W/Ultegra Di2, Salsa Timberjack Ti, Cinelli Mash Work RandoCross Fun Time Machine, 1x9 XT Parts Hybrid, Co-Motion Cascadia, Specialized Langster, Phil Wood Apple VeloXS Frame (w/DA 7400), R+M Supercharger2 Rohloff, Habanero Ti 26

Liked 4,372 Times in 2,919 Posts
Originally Posted by njkayaker
You should post the links anyway. No one can tell what you are talking about.


So, there are links?




"For the record" what other people fail to do doesn't excuse you.

Further more, the "conventional wisdom" (right or wrong) is that helmets help. That means that claims that the make things worse is the "extreme" claim and, as such, requires more support.
If there were links he would have posted them as anyone trying to prove their point and show people their side is correct, would. They continue to hide and dodge all these links instead sometimes posting links totally unrelated and sometimes posting links that are related but don't really support their position.

They are trying to build a wall out of dry sand on an eroding hillside. They aren't really interested in actually telling us "this is why I believe that helmets (in general) are outright dangerous and make things worse and here is proof of it" because they really can't as they don't have anything to hold up their argument.
veganbikes is offline  
Old 04-18-24, 05:07 PM
  #3915  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Far beyond the pale horizon.
Posts: 14,523
Liked 1,478 Times in 1,023 Posts
Originally Posted by shelbyfv
It's the NHTSA website. Do you think they are going to have pages that are inconsistent with the agency position? If you want to second guess their position you'll need some qualifications. As for insurance companies, all I can recall being said was they might be the reason club and shop rides require helmets. You could ask your club or shop if you really want to know.
One has to be specific about what sort of insurance one is talking about. There are basically two relevant types: liability and medical.

It appears that most clubs get liability insurance from LAB. They don't require helmets (except for mountain biking).

The following is from 2019 (so, it could have changed but I don't think so).
https://www.smwbikeclub.org/resource...nce%201-15.pdf

It's common for clubs to require the use of helmets but an explanation that "insurance made us do it" would seem to be wrong.

Medical insurance doesn't deny coverage for lack of helmet use.

If you want to sue somebody, it's possible that your case will be weaker if you weren't using a helmet.
njkayaker is offline  
Likes For njkayaker:
Old 04-18-24, 05:44 PM
  #3916  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Far beyond the pale horizon.
Posts: 14,523
Liked 1,478 Times in 1,023 Posts
Originally Posted by TC1
And when you read the remainder of that section, you find they provided zero evidence to support that claim:
That link was talking about programs to encourage helmet use. It wasn't about effectiveness (that was only mentioned as a lead-in to the rest of it).

You are making a mistake in assuming that link is the only thing the NHTSA has said about helmets.

A more careful person would look for NHTSA links where the topic is more about effectiveness.

https://www.nhtsa.gov/book/counterme...8ye%2C%202018b).

Several meta-analyses conducted over the past 2 decades have concluded that bicycle helmets are effective at reducing head injuries among bicyclists involved in falls or crashes with a motor vehicle (Attewell et al., 2001; Elvik, 2013; Hye, 2018b; Olivier & Creighton, 2017; Thompson et al., 1999). The most recent meta-analysis found that the use of bicycle helmets reduced head injuries by 48%, serious head injury by 60%, traumatic brain injury by 53%, face injury by 23%, and the total number of killed or seriously injured bicyclists by 34% (Hye, 2018b). A study that examined emergency room visits of children that had bicycle-related injuries found that unhelmeted children were more likely to sustain injuries (40% versus 25.7%), meet the trauma activation criteria (45.5% versus 16.8%), and be admitted to the hospital (42.4% versus 14.9%). Overall, injury severity was worse with unhelmeted children, and these children were significantly more likely to have brain injuries, skull fractures, and facial fractures (Michael et al., 2017).
Be sure to read the entire Mandatory Helmet Laws section.

Originally Posted by TC1
Everyone -- the NHTSA included -- wants bicycle helmets to work. It'd be great if they did. But the ones currently called "bicycle helmets", that some people wear, don't.
What you are doing is misrepresenting the NHTSA's position. This is either dishonest or careless. It's pretty clear the NHTSA's position is that helmets actually work.

Last edited by njkayaker; 04-18-24 at 05:50 PM.
njkayaker is offline  
Likes For njkayaker:
Old 04-18-24, 08:47 PM
  #3917  
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 30,066

Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi

Liked 1,609 Times in 1,087 Posts
Originally Posted by shelbyfv
It's the NHTSA website. Do you think they are going to have pages that are inconsistent with the agency position? If you want to second guess their position you'll need some qualifications. As for insurance companies, all I can recall being said was they might be the reason club and shop rides require helmets. You could ask your club or shop if you really want to know.
You are correct, you cited the NHTSA website which provided no substantiation or any support for assertions about insurance company policy, rates or "thinking" associated with the use or non-use of bicycle helmets. I don't give a darn what random shops or clubs might say about their rationale for mandatory helmet wear on their sponsored rides, tours or competitive events. I do know when I asked the local shop owner about a claim made by one of the shop's club members that their insurance company required that participants wear helmets for sponsored rides, he told me that that statement was just a little white lie and that the club leadership found worked and because they preferred that all riders wear helmets. I have heard of helmet provisions in specialized insurance coverage for bicyclists in competitive events and of liability insurance for club and shop officials sponsoring races and organized rides, but of none that affects individual recreational cyclists' insurance rates, nor of any evidence that the "money trail" leads one to believe that there is any insurance data available to justify any insurance premium for riding without a helmet or any discount for wearing a helmet while riding.

Bottom line is that I can find no evidence to give credence to the claims made on this thread about "following the money" and/or insurance company "thinking"/rates to come to any credible conclusion about the risk reduction effectiveness of bicycle helmets. It seems obvious that the posters those assertion can also provide no evidence of any connection of bicycle helmets to insurance rates/benefits/payout for bicyclists.
I-Like-To-Bike is offline  
Old 04-18-24, 10:36 PM
  #3918  
Along for the ride
 
Join Date: Dec 2022
Location: PNW US
Posts: 249
Liked 224 Times in 114 Posts
Originally Posted by TC1
You believe that EPS foam magically absorbs 100% of energy applied to it, as stated earlier.
No, what EricF said was that "100% of the impact energy was not transmitted directly to my/your head," which you continue to obtusely read in a way that you know perfectly well wasn't what was meant. 100% of the energy was not transmitted instead, some smaller percentage was transmitted after some other percentage was dissipated. This is plain since if no energy had been dissipated, the helmet would be in perfect un-crushed condition.

Your straw men about helmets increasing head size and thereby increasing hazard are just that. I'm not worried about a glancing blow such as might occur if the impact vectors are perfectly aligned so that the helmet makes contact, but my head would have cleared. Those impacts are by definition at a speed and an angle that makes the likelihood of injury small to start with, and I'm willing to incur the slight increased possible frequency of this kind of contact by wearing a helmet. No, I wear a helmet to protect me against the kinds of solid, straight-on impacts where my head will be making direct contact with a hard object I want something to crush to dissipate some energy such that 100% of the impact is not transmitted to my head. You are free to choose otherwise, but to try to claim that I am less safe via this choice is utter nonsense.

Earlier in this discussion you pointed out that:
Originally Posted by TC1
If the only retort that you can manage is a sad ad hominem attack, you may wish to reconsider, and investigate Twain's comments on fools and silence.
After reading through your dozen or so posts since that, I can't help but remind you of the same.
retswerb is offline  
Likes For retswerb:
Old 04-19-24, 10:01 AM
  #3919  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Far beyond the pale horizon.
Posts: 14,523
Liked 1,478 Times in 1,023 Posts
Originally Posted by TC1
Originally Posted by Eric F
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.
It is nowhere near as simple as you seem to think, as evidenced by the fact that you got your calculation wrong -- it's not 100%. Hint: Consider what happens when the foam is fully compressed.
You didn't understand what you replied to and said something silly.

Originally Posted by TC1
Speaking of holding water, I'm glad you replied again, because I wanted to educate you about your EPS foam misunderstanding. You believe that EPS foam magically absorbs 100% of energy applied to it, as stated earlier.
You "wanting to educate" somebody about something you aren't understanding is hilarious.

Originally Posted by TC1
And again, you are missing half of the equation. The increased size of your effective "head" necessarily results in more and more-severe impacts. So the question is not "Does foam absorb some energy?" It is "Does foam absorb sufficient energy to offset the increase caused by the effective head-size increase?"
This is silly and seriously disconnected from the real world. If you have go there to make your case, it means you really don't have a case.

Road riders aren't "threading the needle" such that the small increase in size would result in more collisions. There could be rare (really rare) situations where the small increase resulted in a collision but that's a case of "nothing is perfect".

Mountain bikers, who are much, much more "threading the needle" (and still not even that often) nearly all wear helmets.

============================

The "question" is whether you would whack branches/whatever more with a helmet than without (missing your head by a couple of inches).

The answer is obviously "yes". But the defect of this as an argument against helmets is that, for road riders, it's a microscopic risk (so small it should be ignored).

For mountain bikers (who nearly all wear helmets), the risk is (likely) going to be much higher but they (implicitly) treat it as a risk that is outweighed by other benefits.

It's a "grasping at straws" argument. It's an argument one uses when one doesn't have a compelling argument.

Last edited by njkayaker; 04-19-24 at 02:32 PM.
njkayaker is offline  
Likes For njkayaker:
Old 04-19-24, 10:34 AM
  #3920  
Senior Member
 
curbtender's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: SF Bay Area, East bay
Posts: 7,858

Bikes: Miyata 618 GT, Marinoni, Kestral 200 2002 Trek 5200, KHS Flite, Koga Miyata, Schwinn Spitfire 5, Mondia Special, Univega Alpina, Miyata team Ti, Santa Cruz Highball

Liked 2,877 Times in 1,320 Posts
Originally Posted by njkayaker
You didn't understand what you replied to and said something silly.


You "wanting to educate" somebody about something you aren't understanding is hilarious.


This is silly and seriously disconnected from the real world. If you have go there to make your case, it means you really don't have a case.

Road riders aren't "threading the needle" such that the small increase in size would result in more collisions. There could be rare (really rare) situations where the small increase resulted in a collision but that's a case of "nothing is perfect".

Mountain bikers, who are much, much more "threading the needle" nearly all wear helmets.
There may be more collisions with low hanging branches, but hey, you got a helmet on.
curbtender is offline  
Old 07-17-24, 02:34 PM
  #3921  
Newbie
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: San Luis Obispo, CA
Posts: 27

Bikes: Sworks Aethos and Roubaix, Specialized Tramac Pro, Trek 5500, Cervelo P2C, Specialized Stumpjumper

Liked 16 Times in 6 Posts
I dont leave home without my helmet. Ive cracked two with hits to the pavement. Hit it again yesterday.

I see ebikers doing 15 - 25 mph without a helmet. Hope they dont fall!

A helmet is great protection for the melon
TTron is offline  
Likes For TTron:
Old 07-17-24, 03:22 PM
  #3922  
Senior Member
 
79pmooney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 13,153

Bikes: (2) ti TiCycles, 2007 w/ triple and 2011 fixed, 1979 Peter Mooney, ~1983 Trek 420 now fixed and ~1973 Raleigh Carlton Competition gravel grinder

Liked 4,170 Times in 2,685 Posts
Originally Posted by retswerb
...

Your straw men about helmets increasing head size and thereby increasing hazard are just that. I'm not worried about a glancing blow such as might occur if the impact vectors are perfectly aligned so that the helmet makes contact, but my head would have cleared. Those impacts are by definition at a speed and an angle that makes the likelihood of injury small to start with, and I'm willing to incur the slight increased possible frequency of this kind of contact by wearing a helmet. No, I wear a helmet to protect me against the kinds of solid, straight-on impacts where my head will be making direct contact with a hard object I want something to crush to dissipate some energy such that 100% of the impact is not transmitted to my head. You are free to choose otherwise, but to try to claim that I am less safe via this choice is utter nonsense.

...
And a little off topic since this isn't brains saved - that additional size of helmets has enabled me and several other forumites to hang onto their ears when car doors were opened. That increased size isn't all bad.
79pmooney is offline  
Old 07-18-24, 12:46 PM
  #3923  
Newbie
 
Join Date: Jul 2024
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Liked 7 Times in 2 Posts
Fascinating
Tiny Adventurer is offline  
Old 07-22-24, 06:59 PM
  #3924  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 4,625

Bikes: iele Latina, Miele Suprema, Miele Uno LS, Miele Miele Beta, MMTB, Bianchi Model Unknown, Fiori Venezia, Fiori Napoli, VeloSport Adamas AX

Liked 931 Times in 644 Posts
Originally Posted by retswerb
No, what EricF said was that "100% of the impact energy was not transmitted directly to my/your head," which you continue to obtusely read in a way that you know perfectly well wasn't what was meant. 100% of the energy was not transmitted instead, some smaller percentage was transmitted after some other percentage was dissipated. This is plain since if no energy had been dissipated, the helmet would be in perfect un-crushed condition.

Your straw men about helmets increasing head size and thereby increasing hazard are just that. I'm not worried about a glancing blow such as might occur if the impact vectors are perfectly aligned so that the helmet makes contact, but my head would have cleared. Those impacts are by definition at a speed and an angle that makes the likelihood of injury small to start with, and I'm willing to incur the slight increased possible frequency of this kind of contact by wearing a helmet. No, I wear a helmet to protect me against the kinds of solid, straight-on impacts where my head will be making direct contact with a hard object I want something to crush to dissipate some energy such that 100% of the impact is not transmitted to my head. You are free to choose otherwise, but to try to claim that I am less safe via this choice is utter nonsense.

Earlier in this discussion you pointed out that:

After reading through your dozen or so posts since that, I can't help but remind you of the same.
Sounds a lot like a guy on a Usenet group.

I once wiped out on my bicycle and my helmeted head BOUNCE twice off the asphalt (tarmac). Another bicyclist coming up behind us was going to call 911 and couldn't believe that I was still conscious and uninjured. My helmet though had a very noticeable dent in the temple area.

The poster on that Usenet group also said t hat if I had not been wearing the helmet that my head would NOT have struck the asphalt (tarmac). Amazing what some people thousands of kilometres (mils) away from a spill can tell you about what would have happened.

It's a personal choice in a lot areas whether or not to wear a helmet. I love mine because it's a fantastic place to attach a rear-view mirror.

Cheers
Miele Man is offline  
Old 07-23-24, 03:17 PM
  #3925  
meandering nomad
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Newport,Rhode Island
Posts: 451

Bikes: eleven bikes no car

Liked 19 Times in 15 Posts
Originally Posted by 79pmooney
And a little off topic since this isn't brains saved - that additional size of helmets has enabled me and several other forumites to hang onto their ears when car doors were opened. That increased size isn't all bad.
Of course you could just avoid the door zone.
billew is offline  
Likes For billew:

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Your Privacy Choices -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.