Because you can't say with absolute certainty that it actually protected you from road rash as there was none. Might have been the helmet; might have been some other quirk specific to your accident. And if it did protect you, you have no idea to what extent.

And we're talking about a minor injury. A far cry from "A helmet saved my life!" claims, and, "Or certainly I would have been paralyzed!" I.e. moderate to serious injury, which are claims frequently posted by those newb Helmet Thread posters who are proselytizing evangelical anti-bareheaders.

Unlike proselytizing evangelical anti-helmeters, who just can't stand that helmets are more effective than their own personal revelation of their near worthlessness, and must share such a revelation with all who dare mutter "A helmet saved...."


Amen.

-mr. bill

:thumb:

mcon

Again thats where you are totally wrong again. The side of my helmet was all scratched and worn INSTEAD OF the side of my head. In my case did the helmet save my life------------no, since my head didnt hit the pavement that hard. Did it save me from injury-----------yes.

The bottom line here is that all you nay saying and preconceived "studies" are meaningless in the face of real world happenings.

Yay for anecdotes!

Anecdotes might be where it's at. :) I know exactly why I wear helmets, with experience collected through my 40+ years on my bike. To me the reasons are compelling - however if I post them here, they are anecdotal. That's life. I say figure out your helmet needs on your own, using your own experience, or researching your own experts - then follow that path. Convincing anyone to change their minds here in the hell-met thread is beyond vanity.

Do you know for certain that your head would have hit the pavement if you weren't wearing a helmet? Your helmet hit the pavement, sure, but was the foam liner compressed by the impact?

It is probable that your helmet saved you from minor injury, but it is possible that it did nothing for you at all.

Recent studies confirm that helmets mitigate injury, all injury, from minor, through moderate, to serious injury. Just that they mitigate injury best at lower levels. Which potentially matches up with your real world experience. Why would you call such a "study" meaningless...?

Minor injuries like you didn't suffer is one of the big reasons I wear a helmet most of the time -- what the medical industry calls a "minor" injury, can be rather more meaningful and serious to the recipient of such an injury...

Actually, old *AND* new studies confirm that helmets mitigate head and brain injury, from minor, through moderate, to serious. Old *AND* new studies confirm that helmets mitigate upper facial injuries. Old *AND* new studies confirm that helmets with chin bars mitigate lower facial injuries.

You are aware you are breaking detente with the rabid anti-helmeteers here?

Maybe one day you'll leave a "A helmet saved...." reply alone, and finally stop with the trite "probable" "possible" sophistry?

-mr. bill

Many of the older studies are flawed. The specific studies I'm thinking of are from the past couple of years, the best one was posted toward the end of the previous Helmet Thread. That one showed, as expected, the effectiveness of a helmet in injury mitigation decreased as the severity of the injury increased, but even at "serious" injury level, has the potential to mitigate injury. There was another which debunked the whole rotational injury thing, where it was posited by the bareheader crowd that helmets actually exacerbate such injury. But as far as I know, there has been no study on cycling helmets indicating that they can mitigate concussion.

I will never leave "A helmet saved..." post alone because they are as wrong-headed as the "rabid anti-helmeteers." "A helmet saved..." posts are ignorant in that they are declarative when the reality is that they should be "probably" "possible" trite sophistry. Because that's what they are, except ignorant newb "A helmet saved..." posters aren't savvy or educated enough to realize it. Which is why they need replies that gently correct their uneducated statements.

mcon

Why not drop your ridiculous rant against fact. The fact remains even tho you dont want to admit it, my helmet hit the ground in my car/bike accident. The side of the helmet was damaged and my head wasnt. You are losing all respect with your 10 cent arguments. Others here can see that your nay saying is becomming laughable. And that goes with your attacks on anyone else that reports how their helmet mitigated their injury.

Left unsaid - tellingly - many of the older studies are *NOT* flawed. (And of those studies that in your "expert" opinion are flawed, many are not.)

Although these studies do not specifically separate out concussion injuries, approximately 70 percent of the brain injury subgroup in the study sustained injuries of an AIS 2 level, most of which were likely concussions.

I know, I know, in the anti-helmet style of literature analysis you practice we must assume that *NONE* of the AIS-2 level injuries were concussions. And besides, FLAWED! Just saying it makes it so. Unlike saying "A Helmet Saved...."

Sigh.

-mr. bill

You still can't say if or to what effect your helmet mitigated injury with any certainty, credibility, or meaningful explanation, even in your own case. Your helmet probably did save you from minor injury, but to what extent or even if it actually did is up in the air. Saying it most certainly did prevent injury would be like me claiming that it most certainly didn't... which is simply not the case. What's even more laughable are those who post here that a helmet most certainly prevented a crash victim from either serious injury or death.

Your post is an excellent example of flawed arguments put forward by the Helmeteer camp: posting a portion of a quote from a study largely unrelated to cycling and cycling helmets, which supports your view while ignoring other quotes from the same source which provides a more balanced view.

First, the source itself: Sports-Related Concussions in Youth, which is much more focused on things like hockey and football helmets, with cycling helmet studies only being used to support broader generalizations about helmets in youth sports.

Second, other quotes from the same source you quoted, this first one regarding concussion injury (DAI) as a result of rotational forces:

Some helmet designs that passed all relevant standards currently based on linear acceleration produced relatively high brain injury metrics (strain) as a result of the angular motion. A similar effect has been observed in speed skating and bicycle helmets.

The study then goes on to specifically call out the MIPS system as a development which addresses this issue. But most bicycle helmets don't have MIPS...

Here's another one:

One of the studies found no effect of age on the effectiveness of the helmet in preventing head injury but suggested that there was a trend that the helmet's effectiveness in preventing brain injury decreased with increasing age.

Again, there are better studies you could post in support of wearing a helmet, but this is not one of them. And the dishonest way you present your argument undermines the integrity of your conclusions. It is no wonder the Barehead Brigade refuses to concede your points about helmet safety when you present them so disingenuously.

It's not flawed, explain in a moment.

But your reply is classic anti-helmet. Nothing but FUD. (You left out "Magic Hat!")

But let's get to why I quoted *THAT* study. It's the only one with a explanation in plain english of what brain injury at AIS 2 is - "most of which were likely concussions." That is what would be called - duh. Except to anti-helmeters.

What is the source *that* general helmet survey study summarizes? Thompson et al 2000. Which has been brought up repeatedly, yet you say there is "But as far as I know, there has been no study on cycling helmets indicating that they can mitigate concussion." And yet, there it is. Along with lots of Thompson studies again and again showing the same thing again and again, because you know what, bicycle helmets mitigate concussions.


As far as the unfair summary of Thompson et al 1996 "that there was a trend that the helmet's effectiveness in preventing brain injury decreased with age." I'll just quote Thompson on that. "Similar protection was found for brain and severe brain injuries and for cyclists of all ages."

So go forth and read the series of Thompson studies again (the list has been RECENTLY posted again, and AGAIN.), call them flawed, call them old, incant "Magic Hat!". But they *ARE* about concussions.

"But as far as I know, there has been no study on cycling helmets indicating that they can mitigate concussion."

Now that you know, it's time to stop repeating that.

-mr. bill

mcon

And using your own words, you have no proof what so ever that in the accidents reported that their helmets didnt prevent major injury or even death.

I've only ever said as much:

But where I'll freely admit to such, you and the other anti-bareheaders seem to have a problem admitting you have no idea if or to what extent a helmet did or did not save you from death or injury, aside from pure, unfounded hyperbole.

mcon

Wrong again. I DO have an idea that my helmet prevented injury since it was the helmet that was damaged, and not me. Why do you refuse to understand that or admit that?

Another excellent example. The Thompson 2000 study, or rather the abstract to which you link, does not mention concussions at all. The concussion information in the first quote you posted is an assumption on the part of the book's authors, written with qualifiers like "these studies do not specifically separate out concussion injuries" and "likely." And yet even though the authors of the book admit that the Thompson 2000 study does not specifically address concussion injuries, you insist that it does. Typical anti-barehead cherry picking and incorrect correlating.

And please explain to me how my reply was in any way anti-helmet.

Y'know, I go halfway with this line of argument -- I honestly don't know if your helmet protected you or not. How come you can't meet me halfway? I've never once said it didn't protect you or mitigate injury, only that you don't and can't know with absolute certainty that it did beyond your own prejudices, or to what extent. I keep asking how you know or to quantify to what extent, but you keep not answering.

From Rivera, Thompson, Thompson 2000:

"The evidence that bicycle helmets prevent head injuries is as strong as that for any injury prevention programme. While many programmes have their critics, the weight of the evidence for the effectiveness of helmets is strong; the evidence for a lack of protection is weak, circumstantial, and largely based on rhetoric."

That would characterize many anti-helmet replies here - including yours. And your retort to "A helmet saved..." replies is nothing BUT rhetoric.

From Thompson, Rivera, Thompson 2000:
"Brain injuries included concussions or more serious injury. Severe brain injury restricted to AIS 3 or greater." BTW, you do know there is a difference between "likely most of which were concussions" and "most of which were likely concussions"? Come on, this rhetorical FUD is beyond absurd.

There are lots of accomplished peer reviewed studies that show bicycles helmets are effective. And a few internut "studies" that are filled with weak evidence, circumstantial evidence, and rhetorical argument that they aren't. You rejecting all of the former and almost none of the latter is telling.


BTW, if you want to read a reprint of Thompson, Rivera, Thompson 2000 study, together with recent comments from the authors addressing the so-called "flaws" in their studies, go for it. Suggest you start by searching for "concussion."

-mr. bill

I'm not arguing that anti-barehead science is weak, I'm arguing that your presentation of anti-barehead material is. My rhetorical retorts to "A helmet saved..." posts are in like kind -- such posts are also nothing but rhetoric. But somehow that gets a pass on your end?

Speaking of weak anti-barehead arguments here in A&S, the concussion quote you post here regarding the Thompson 2000 study is actually in the references section of the study, quoting one of their previous studies, specifically Thompson 1989.

You'll also need to point out where I've rejected all anti-barehead science but not studies which show bicycle helmets are ineffective. Which will be difficult, because I haven't. In fact, if you look back through a few Helmet Threads, you'll find I enjoy poking holes in the arguments presented by the barehead brigade as well. And in this thread, in this very exchange of posts in the past couple of pages, you'll find that I do support some anti-barehead literature, and some of the anti-barehead points raised. I don't even discount the Thompson studies, just your arguments regarding them... They very often don't say what you say they say, when you -- as is typical of the anti-bareheaders -- quote out of context to misrepresent their point in favor of yours.

BTW, regarding your link to the Thompson 2000 study at the Cochrane Library?

Typical...

Just out of curiosity...is there anyone here who has ever had a "serious" head injury from taking a fall while cycling and STILL rides bear-headed?

By "serious" I mean an injury that needed at least minor medical attention i.e., stitches, concussion testing, or more serious brain cavity pressure release, or metal plate installation.

This is NOT a trap. At least I am not going to judge you but others no doubt will do so. Strictly curiosity for me. I would start a poll in A&S but it would just get kicked into this place immediately.

Gary Busey?

I had a serious crash, with headstrike. I was wearing a helmet. The liner deformed before the helmet cracked. I still usually wear a helmet. Things might have been worse for me without a helmet, but there's really no way to tell. But I like wearing a helmet anyway. Helmets are way cool. All the Top *** pilots in the movie wore helmets. So did Darth Vader and Luke Skywalker. Also Beatrix Kiddo. And all of them are way cool. Be cool, wear a helmet.

On a motorcycle years ago I was knocked out after an over-exuberant jump. I'm told that I stood up, asked where the bike was, and fell unconscious again - three times! Does that count? Also about four or five years ago I slipped on the ice and suffered a scalp wound, no bicycle helmet that time. It probably should have had stitches but I just went into work.

I normally do wear a helmet, yet this week ... not bareheaded since I've worn a knit beanie. It felt so much better after I forgot the helmet on Tuesday that I haven't picked it up since.