Stinky people who wear helmets instead of taking showers?

But it's dangerous in the shower...

Showering is dangerous you could slip, fall, and bang your head.
Wearing a helmet in the shower is not practical, how would I wash the stubble I call hair?
On my bike my helmet provides minimal protection, slightly better than my afore mentioned stubble, when contacting objects trying to occupy the same space time as I am.

Giro introduces low price point MIPS helmets, Quarter and Dime.

MIPS is a system marketed specifically to address concern over rotational forces sustained in a crash, which is proven to be a large contributor toward TBI.

For those not familiar with Helmet Thread, there are those who claim that helmets do not help with and may even exacerbate rotational forces during a crash, leading to greater chance of TBI. Others say this is bunk, and the science regarding bicycle helmets and rotational force is not much help in settling the matter.

MIPS showed up in bicycle helmets a few years ago, but only in the more expensive ones, topping $200. With a $60 MSRP, Giro brings this system down to a more palatable price point. Not only that, but the form of the helmet -- more rounded, "skate" style vs. a more jagged, vented shape -- is also a nod toward a helmet with less downsides.

Based on the lack of activity lately, I'd speculate the anti helmet ghost riders have been killed off finally.

It's more like there weren't any helmet fan boys and girls boring the rest of us with with their old and tired cliches, and as someone mentioned earlier, helmet skepticism tends to be reactionary in nature. But luckily you came along with your attempt to recycle some of the greatest helmeteer hits in a witty(?) fashion, so I'm confident the thread will be active again in no time.

Wonder Twins Activate...form of bicycle helmet!!!!

Aaaaaaand here you go.

Study That Spurred Bike Helmet Fetish Was Repudiated By Its Own Authors

I was beginning to worry about Rydabent, but I see he's still posting elsewhere, so maybe he just took a welcome hint.

I'm sure this guy would have been fine without his helmet. Taken out by a truck and survived with 3-4 cracked vertebrae (no damage to spinal cord), broken rib, broken sternum, and 25 stitches to his scalp but no skull damage.

Exactly. Meaning: might have been, might not have been. Who's to know...?

Oh noes, a dramatic picture of a squashed piece of Styrofoam. Run for the hills ye bare of head, cause all our anti-helmet antics have been obliterated by this undeniable evidence that the Bicycle Helmet is indeed our Lid and Savior.

Why during WWI did head injuries skyrocket when metal helmets were commissioned?

Because previous to metal helmets in War the head injuries were fatal?

Source for this factoid?

I heard it on TV. Can't remember the program, though but the answer is that the helmets were saving lives. So without metal helmets all those head injuries would have been deaths, instead.

Army helmets are a form of protective gear that have a drastically different function than bicycle helmets have (or should have, the effectivity of bicycle helmets remains to be seen) so even if it's true what "you heard on TV in a program you can't remember" it doesn't prove anything about bicycle helmets.

I've cracked my skull and gotten stiches at least 3 times when I was younger. So I personally wear mine to try and avoid such damage again.

As a kid and without a helmet, I had cracked my head and bled a number of times,

as an adult and with a helmet on, I've yet to crack my head and/or bleed after having impacted the ground at far great forces.

Not to worry, I am alive and kicking. I noticed for a while that there was almost no posting to this thread. I was hoping that the anti helmet types had give up their misguided crusade against helmets.

You might want to read what the authors actually say - which oddly enough is not what you say they say.

-mr. bill

Both types of helmets are to protect the head. In both cases the head injury is much more preferred than death. So for their purpose, how are they different? That bike helmets wreck your hair but army helmets don't?

The thing that jumps to mind with this study is they used hospital and morgue records to identify injured cyclists. Effectively they're only collecting data from cyclists injured enough to go to the hospital or the morgue.


What about the cyclists who had a crash, but by virtue of wearing a helmet didn't need to go to either? It's conceivable that many people without a head injury would treat moderate road-rash and bruises at home or at a local urgent care facility (which were becoming more common in the early 90's) but would go to an ER if they did have a head injury.


Can this study really make any valid conclusions about overall effects of helmet use without including a potentially substantial group?

Bike helmets are designed to absorb impact by spreading the force over a period of time. Military helmets are designed to prevent penetrations. And for modern military helmets, perhaps blast waves (although the latter is not yet fully understood).