Bottom line at the top, there *ARE* studies that show the bicycle helmets are effective against concussions. Stop saying there aren't.

And Thompson 1996. Oh, can you guess what another word for "brain injury with loss of consciousness" might be called? Maimaris 1994, Thompson 1994?

You mean, like, this?

Yeah, you really ripped that study, did you?

As far as thecochranelibrary reorganizing their site? Hey, sorry about that, it was there when I posted the link, hope you enjoy the new look and feel of the website. Feel free to google that.... "CD001855.pdf type:pdf" On the internut, too many research sites don't get the importance of permalinks, but then there's always someone somewhere who has squirreled something away.


Bottom line, there *ARE* studies that show the bicycle helmets are effective against concussions. Stop saying there aren't.

-mr. bill

I googled it up http://www.update-software.com/pdf/CD001855.pdf and you're right, it's a review and compilation of earlier studies. Concussions are included in the data collected from those studies, but there are no evident conclusions among them that bicycle helmets significantly reduce the incidence of concussions. Other than the author's response to a criticism "We feel that concussions, subdural and epidural hematomas and parenchymal bleeding are serious injuries that result from linear or direct impact forces" - without providing supporting evidence for the inclusion of "concussions" in that statement.

I think that you're on target that linear concussions occur at peak impacts greater than can be handled by bicycle helmets, and that this fact is pretty well established. Helmets are of course more effective in protecting against skull fractures, lacerations, and brain contusions. There is little evident in the meta-analysis to contradict this (the established view about concussions).

"Helmets provide a 63to 88% reduction in the risk of head, brain and severe brain injury for all ages of bicyclists."

"Serious brain injury defined as injury which had an Abbreviated Injury Score (AIS) of three or greater."

Which means what are brain injuries? I'll wait.... That's right! AIS 1 and AIS 2. Very good.

How many of them were AIS 2? 70% of the brain injuries were AIS 2.

(Which means how many brain injuries were AIS 1. I'll wait.... That's right! 30%. Excellent!)

In plain english, what are AIS 2 brain injuries? "Most of which were likely concussions." Wonderful!

Which means what?

Helmets reduce risk of concussions for all ages of bicyclists.


Wow. Imagine that.

-mr. bill

My quote which you linked to: "I'm going to say this is much more important regarding MHLs v. ridership and the overall societal cost of implementing useless nanny-state legislation than it is about helmet efficacy under crash conditions for which they were designed." ...does not at all support your argument that I've rejected all anti-barehead science, but accept as fact all anti-helmet science.

Again, typical. Keep trying...

ftfy.

And I would agree with this. But not the way you worded it.

mconlonx, I usually agree with your assessments. However, I think the original statement was fine without the rewording.
It's just semantics, but he didn't claim that helmets reduce concussions. He claimed they reduce risk of concussions. Again, just semantics.

FWIW, I didn't claim that. That's what the authors of the study say.

So finally we can dispense with the game of "But as far as I know, there has been no study on cycling helmets indicating that they can mitigate concussion." You know there are.

-mr. bill

There are studies which show that helmets likely mitigate the risk (thanks MM5!) of concussion injuries. Have you posted a study which definitively states that they do mitigate concussion injury, without the qualifiers...?

Yeah, you should have seen someone after getting knocked out cold. The scalp wound, I would say if you opted to go to work that does not qualify. My thinking when asking the question included the INCONVENIENCE of having to abort your ride and seek medical attention AT LEAST. Aborting the ride and wasting half a day in the ER would qualify as a minimum "cost" of not wearing a helmet in my book. If there were no cost beyond a skinned knee, elbow, or scalp then I would not expect anyone to alter their protective gear accordingly.

So if your day went on as planned, it doesn't count for my purposes here.

Thanks.

And more semantics. How, unsurprising.

What you now say you said:

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

However, what you actually said:

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

http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h1...psfee237f2.jpg

-mr. bill

I haven't read every post on the thread but the ones I've read and the ones I hear from other bikers remind me of the arguments I used to hear against Police Officers wearing "bulletproof" vest. They are Hot and stinky (yes they are) they are heavy , they confine my natural movements. SHOW me proof that they reduce injury or death !!! (for real) They won't save me if I'm hit by a truck ,or shot with a ***** ( vest or helmet) . No they won't ,nor a nuclear explosion either . So what good are they? Well, either may protect you in some circumstance. (which at least May happen)
Some cop somewhere is going to get shot in the chest with a ****** this year. Bet on it. Would you wear the vest or would you bet it won't be you? "Yeah maybe I'll be lucky " (((;
If you knew you were going to fall and hit your head next week would you wear a helmet ? Well someone,somewhere will take a fall . It's always unexpected, and you're never ready. But maybe you'll be lucky and someone else will get hurt.
I got knocked off my bike a few months ago. It was like a slow speed crash thankfully and I was able to roll when I hit the pavement ,but at the end of the crash the back of my head did hit the pavement . Yep actually skinned some of the paint (hot orange) off the back of the old helmet.
But I was able to get up and after "discussing" the situation with the car driver , I was able to get on the bike and ride away. Alive.

Well see, here's the beauty of debate: you can win people over to a new point of view.

I've mentioned a couple of times when people ask if this thread has changed anyone's mind, that while this thread has not changed my helmet use habit, it has been extremely valuable in educating me regarding the extent of injury mitigation I should realistically expect regarding helmets.

This exchange is a great example.

I've gone from, "There's nothing out there indicating that helmets provide mitigation regarding concussion injury," to, "Helmets likely mitigate the risk of concussion injury."

And -- thank you -- I will also amend my challenge statement from:

"There has been no study on cycling helmets indicating that they can mitigate concussion." (Talk about arguing semantics...)

to:

"There has been no study regarding cycling helmets which definitively state that they mitigate concussion injury."

And if pressed by someone of your ilk, will readily admit that because of the profile of AIS2+ head injuries which is thought to include concussions, there is a perfectly good, likely chance, that helmets reduce the risk of concussion injury. ...at a rate somewhere around 14 per 100,000 riders.

Better?

Sounds like some people will not be convinced until they see a bonafida study done of a significant number of subjects doing identical crashes, half with and half without helmets. Summarizing the data from random events will never "prove" anything, allowing everyone to stay smug in their opinions.

I had an intersting crash two years ago. Locked up my rear wheel after I blew the tire, it came off and jammed in the seatstays. I basically got tossed into the street at 20+. Hit head, shoulder and hip. Was fully aware during the hit, both of the impact of my helmet and the grinding of it after. (Then my brain shut down to spare me the details of what my body was going through. I flipped over and repeated the process on my other side except the impacts were less. As soon as I came to a stop, I was wide awake and fully with it. This was clearly NOT a concussion; just my brain deciding I didn't need to witness what was happening to my body.)

This crash was interesting in several aspects. I have had a very serious head injury and now have a brain that is substantially loosened in my skull. I get concussions very easily, even from hard snaps of my head when I hit nothing. (Crashed and got an obvious concussion after hitting a dog once. No marks at all on the helmet.) In that crash two years, my helmet strap was loose. The helmet slid, knocked off my glasses with many facial cuts around my eyes and nearly took off my ear. Two weeks later I read about the "MIPS" rechnology that allowed the helmet foam liner to slip in shear; basically what my helmet did through its loose chinstrap. Didn't take much to sell me! It did take over a year to find an actual physical model I could try on in a style and color I could deal with.

I do believe that there are many concussions that are caused by or not prevented by sudden rotation of the helmet upon hitting the road, quite a few of which would not happen if the wearer went down barehaded instead and just had skin and hair ripped off. I think a couple of mine would not have happened had I been bareheaded. But those concussions only could happen because I was wearing a helmet that met the Snell standards of the day and lived to crash again.

Ben

That is a huge assumption there in my opinion... ;) Thus the helmet thread... :rolleyes: Almost like, my helmet "saved my life"... :)

You highlighted my words "I do believe that there are many concussions that are caused by or not prevented by sudden rotation of the helmet upon hitting the road, quite a few of which would not happen if the wearer went down barehaded instead and just had skin and hair ripped off."

I don't know where you are coming from or what you think my assumption is. My observation has been that I have hit my helmet (in every sport I've played or construction project , etc.) on things (overhead beams, the road in slides, etc.) that would not have been contact at all had I not been wearing one. Hence I surmised that some of the rotational head injuries (concussions) come from the helmet hitting the road where had there been no helmet, either no contact would have been made or just skin/roadrash or hair pulled.

Do you have an issue with such a statement or would you like to tell us what you thought I meant?

Ben

Yes I do have a problem with someone saying that people would be better off without a helmet than with a helmet... Especially when the word "many" is used in conjunction. While I agree that there are "some" instances, we have absolutely zero info as to how "many" that number would be... 0.01%, 1%, 10%...??? Thus it's just your "opinion" that wearing a helmet is/can be more dangerous than not wearing a helmet??? What % do you think the many times not wearing a helmet would be "better" when you crash, than when wearing a helmet would have been better, 10% 20%, 30%, 40%,...?

EDIT; Saying it's better to not wear a helmet is equal to saying the helmet saved my life... IMO Neither being very probable... Just saying. ;)

EDIT 2: Hey, me not wearing my helmet saved my life, is that what you are saying? :innocent:

Welcome to the full trite club, demanding studies that can not exist, and exhorting meaningless rhetoric.

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/blind_trials.png

-mr. bill

You didn't start riding on tubulars? You're just gonna ride around knowing that someday you're gonna get a rear flat and have the tire lockup the rear wheel again?

... but you don't really need a helmet for every bicycle ride:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...9082702189.jpg

and apparently straps are optional.

http://img1.coastalliving.timeinc.ne...nah-0413-l.jpg

How did your rear wheel lock up? Pedal strike usually causes the rear wheel to lose grip but the wheel isn't actually "locked-up"

I guess I've been lucky. Struck pedals tons of times, on freewheelers and fixed-gears but never bit it as a result. I reckon it's all the mountain biking. You hit rocks that throw you off your line like that all the time. The closest I've come to something like that is clipping a peg taking a turn on a Honda Spree. I took a little jaunt through someone's front yard but didn't lay it down.

But yeah, big pedals, long cranks and low bottom brackets kill!

when I entered the 2nd turn I'd leaned the bike hard left. The pedal hit hard, but, stopped & lifted the bike and as the bike turned the tire was at an angle to the direction of travel and the lift then dropped it hard (left a 6" skid mark). By then I was doomed. I should have said..."the illusion of a lockup" as of course my pedals stopped moving and my brain said "WTF?". I distinctly remember seeing my frozen crank between my legs, hearing the bike hit, then I hit, then lights out.

A helmet isn't cool on one of our wonderful 100° summer days.

Care to comment on the rest of that post, or, like many of the anti-bareheaders, will you just post and comment on those statements which support your black/white view, while ignoring shades of grey within this argument?

Guessing that sun-blocking potential would outweigh temperature comfort on such a day, not to mention that some helmets actually provide better airflow and heat alleviation via careful aerodynamic design of vents than bare head or hat. At least that's how they are marketed...

Although, I'd be more likely to wear a sun-blocking, wicking, tech-material cap with a bill on such a day, like I wear a knit beanie with brim on the below-freezing days we have out here.