The article itself addresses one thing (the risk of rotation injury). No problem there.

In this thread, the issue is whether there's a positive overall benefit.

No, I'm not criticize the article. I'm more criticizing the reference of it as a a suggestion that wearing helmets is a bad idea.

The only thing we can say from that article is that helmets aren't perfect.

No, it fails because it's a misuse of the device (just like an adult helmet on a child).

This isn't a surprise (few things are perfect) and it still says very little about whether or not people should use helmets.

The particular referenced article appears to conclude that helmets help in the "majority" of "typical linear impacts" while not causing an increase in rotational injuries except in low speed collisions where the increase is "marginal".

I doubt it's saying people shouldn't wear helmets.

So, "life saving protection" in the "majority of cases considered" versus a "marginal increase in injury outcome" at "low speed linear impacts and the most severe oblique case" due to "linear and rotational accelerations".

The issue is what contribution helmets have to the rotational injury and whether that offsets any other important benefit helmets might have.

The particular article appears to say "no contribution in high speed collisions and a marginal contribution in low speed collisions offset by life saving protection high speed collisions".

That is super cool! I love pedal and paddle trips!!!

I guess my real question should have been "even tho a helmet can provide life saving protection overall, the decision not to wear one because of a non perfect score seems not logical to me, and that alone is not sufficient reason to forgo all the other benefits of wearing a helmet" No? And that seems to be the main reason people say it's worthless to wear one, and may even be worse for you if you do wear one... Overall, it was concluded that for the majority of cases considered, the helmet can provide life saving protection during typical linear impacts and, in addition, the typical level of rotational acceleration observed using a helmeted headform would generally be no more injurious than expected for a bare human head. However, in both low speed linear impacts and the most severe oblique cases, linear and rotational accelerations may increase to levels corresponding to injury severities as high as AIS 2 or 3, at which a marginal increase (up to 1 AIS interval) in injury outcome may be expected for a helmeted head.

Right, that would be insufficient reason. But that's not the significance of this concern over rotational injuries in my opinion.

This concern is based almost entirely on the concussion portion of traumatic brain injury. You can stipulate that helmets can save you of most of the abrasion injuries, and contusions and other effects of less severe impacts, and I doubt that you'd get much argument over that. It's reasonable to decide to wear a helmet on the strength of that alone, and also reasonable to decide that preventing those injuries alone is insufficient reason to justify wearing one.

But concussions are serious concerns, and it's pretty startling to learn but solid that the most likely cause of concussion is rotational force, not linear impact. It's also pretty startling that helmets provide little or no defense against those rotational forces (although more recent helmets improve on this), and possibly, no protection against a large range of the larger linear forces that are required in order to cause a concussion.

So there IS a range, maybe, where the maximum impact that the helmet can absorb and the minimum possible impact that can cause a concussion overlaps and hence the helmet might save a concussion. Even that is disputed, and if true is a narrow range. So that line of thought basically has it that cycling helmets offer no protection, or at best little protection, against concussions. But they might increase the chances of a rotational injury.

From that reasoning above, if a person accepts the (small) possibility of the relatively minor scrapes, cuts and bumps, then the helmet may be worthless or less than worthless for the relatively serious concussion injury. I think that's really the main reason people say that.

Not "misuse" - you should not put a child in range of an air bag period. If you have any choice. That's the law, and the law is based on sound medical knowledge and case studies.

If you have to put a child in the front seat having an airbag, please take additional cautions. Even with additional precautions there is an increased risk to the child, no matter how "correctly" you use it.

Speaking of "correct" use of safety equipment, back to the helmet. Furthering the analogy, "misuse" of the helmet in my opinion would be allowing it to unnecessarily contact the ground. So I'll refresh my question, to anyone who has relevant experience or specific knowledge: if you've had formal training in rolls and break-falls, have you found the helmet to be an impediment in the technique?

Years ago.

Bicycle falls aren't very much like those things.

It would be a use that it wasn't designed for (a "misuse"). If you have any choice, you wouldn't put a child in the front seat (even without an airbag). Also based on "sound medical knowledge and case studies".

Why do you say that? I've used those things in slip and falls, high speed motorcycle accidents - and bicycle falls. As far as I can tell bicycle falls are exactly like those things. Even a low-side, if you're quick enough.

^^^ I just love this. I really really really do. No really.

I wear my helmet because I like my noggin and would like to avoid a concussion if possible. I realize it may not save my noggin in worse case scenario, but for me why not wear it. It's purple and it's cute dangit!

I don't think they should be forced on anyone that decides not to wear them though.

[QUOTE=rydabent;18218299isnt some protection better than no protection? Since wearing a helmet is really no burden at all, why not wear one?[/QUOTE]

Still waiting for our friend to explain why you don't wear helmet during other activities since it's "no burden at all".

A slow speed low-side fall might be similar (I was going to mention that).

Martial art/gymnastic falls are routine. Bicycle falls are not.

If you are going to spend time practicing bicycle safety, it would likely be vastly less risky and more beneficial to practice avoiding falls.

My new Colorado pickup has probably $2000 of added safety equiptment including about 8 air bags.

So what? Do you wear your Colorado pickup when you walk up or down stairs, take a shower, or venture outside the friendly confines of your living room couch? Would not your precious "no burden at all" helmet offer additional "protection" even when driving your air bag equipped Colorado pickup? If you do not wear your helmet at these times/all the time for any additional protection that you believe it offers, why not, since it is "no burden at all"?

Yet in spite of safety advances, motor vehicle crashes are still the leading cause of traumatic brain injury, by far. Implementation of such safety devices has resulted only in very modest decreases in head injury due to motor vehicle crashes. If a helmet has to potential to reduce your chances or severity of head injury in case of a crash, why wouldn't you wear one in your truck?

As mentioned before people don't wear helmets for most things because they do other things to reduce the risk... Like walking on the sidewalk not the road, crossing at a crosswalk not the middle of the road... Like holding onto a banister while walking down/up steps... Like having handholds in showers... Like having airbags/seatbelts in vehicles, like almost everything in life most people do, do things to reduce whatever the risk may be... Oh, Like having mad cycling skills and never crashing...

So what? Those "other things" only reduce the risk for "most things", not eliminate it; wearing a "no burden helmet" in conjunction with the "other things" involved with getting off the living room couch might reduce the risk even more. So why not?

I am honestly perplexed about your distinction, unless by "routine" you mean that it's easier in a dojo with the padded floor and you know it's coming. But the whole point of it is being able to perform the fall or roll in real conditions, at full speeds. I'm not anywhere skilled as a black belt or gymnast, but I consider a bike fall to be a routine use of those techniques, at any normal biking speed.

Avoiding falls is your first line of defense. That's not always possible, and when it does happen we are vastly better off knowing how. I sometimes get the sense that people who are dismissive of those skills don't really understand what I'm talking about, or they just don't believe that it's possible. Wearing a helmet is the last line of defense, when your training cannot prevent a head impact.

If you don't use lights at night and dressed in colors that blend nicely with the surroundings, by all means wear the most protective helmet available.

I don't get that from his posts but it does beg the question: what are the comparative risks between the activities he doesn't wear a helmet for, and cycling? Do all you can to reduce the risk, but if in the final analysis the risk of head injury is still comparable, it makes no sense to wear a helmet in one activity and not the other.

Even with seat belts and air bags, the chances of a head injury during a car accident are comparable to the chances of head injury in a bike crash. About three times less, but still that's comparable.

ER stats that I've seen, the most common cause of head injury is the simple slip and fall. The majority of those falls happened to someone walking on a sidewalk, but those injured are seldom wearing a helmet. Perceived risk for different activities don't seem to follow reality.

What *other* "confounding factor" are you leaving out of the "ER stats that I've seen." That's right, age. (Oh, and another hint since you like to make up facts - the majority of TBIs from falls do *NOT* happen on sidewalks.)

Advice from people who know what they are talking about to prevent TBI in older adults from falls:

• Install handrails in bathrooms
• Nonslip mats in bathtub or shower
• Remove area rugs
• Install to-code handrails on (both sides) of stairs
• Improve lighting in high risk fall areas
• Keep floors and stairs free of clutter
• Vision checkups
• Regular exercise

Advice for people at risk of falls on sidewalks?

• Canes
• Walkers

You know who recommends helmets for grandma and grandpa?

Anti-helmet zealots and ?

-mr. bill

I inferred it from his/her words "As mentioned before people don't wear helmets for most things because they do other things to reduce the risk". That seems to imply people wear helmet while cycling because they don't do other things to reduce the risk.

Only in sarcastic response to the hypocritical helmet zealots like rydabent. Why do the nanny/zealots proselytizing for reducing any cycling risk no matter how slight or unlikely with a "no burden at all helmet", not recommend its use in every other situation where such "no burden" devices might be of use. One word answer, take your pick, ignorance or hypocrisy.

You know who recommends helmets for automobile drivers and passengers?

Anti-helmet zealots and ?

-mr. bill

You know who recommends helmets for showers?

Anti-helmet zealots and ?

-mr. bill

You know who recommends walking helmets?

Anti-helmet zealots and ?

-mr. bill

You know who recommends couch helmets?

Anti-helmet zealots and ?

-mr. bill