Age, balance and head injuries

As we age our balance and subsequent ability to recover from a stumble diminish. We take longer to realize that we are out of balance and longer to effectively react. We are much more likely to fall. This is especially true for we who are 65 or older. Falls are the leading cause of death for folks 65 or older. Oddly enough weight training reduces this balance/recovery decline.
TBIs (Traumatic Brain Injury) also increase with age. Our brains become more fragile. To make it worse, we are as much as twice as likely to die from a TBI. 81% of TBIs in those of us over 65 are caused by falls.

If you find this alarming, well --- so do I. However, it is better to know the “stats” before learning them personally and becoming a datum point within them.

So, lift weights, do Tai Chi, dance or Yoga to help maintain and perhaps even improve your balance. Don’t fall down ;o)
And please consider wearing a helmet when you ride.

Joe

A couple of links:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traumatic_brain_injury
TBI: Get the Facts | Concussion | Traumatic Brain Injury | CDC Injury Center

Why would you not wear a helmet while walking then?

prathmann:
Gosh! I hope you're right.
But, I’m not so sure you are.

Exposure:
One of the cornerstones of accident research is "Exposure". Time is one of the elements of assessing exposure; for a given travel distance, a pedestrian has a time exposure that is three to four times greater than a cyclists. Does that matter, probably but I am not qualified to make that call.

Location:
Another element of a collective judgment about a particular exposure is location. By comparison, urban pedestrians spend more of their time on relatively secure sidewalks and are only exposed to vehicles when they cross a street. Cyclists, on the other hand, are constantly exposed to vehicles. Cyclists must depend upon being seen together with the attentiveness and good intentions of car drivers. Cyclists do not have the physical protection of curbs, lamp posts, signs or parked cars.

I have never been accosted by a road rager on a sidewalk but have been several times while cycling. I’ve never been yelled at for walking alongside a road or on a sidewalk; I have been yelled at for cycling on a road. With the exception of stopping a liquor store robbery and a couple of attacking dogs, I’ve never needed to use pepper spray on a fellow pedestrian. I’ve had to do so twice with road ragers attacking me for no other reason than I was riding my bike on the road and appeared to be an easy target for their insanity.

Joe

If you expected the probability distribution function for the falling to be a poisson distribution with respect to time, it would matter. There may be a time element (from fatigue for instance) but more logically it will correlate with the number of feet of sidewalk or road that the pedestrian has travelled. It's not the same thing, because walking paces vary significantly. I would expect a Poisson distribution with respect to space, not time.

I submit also that causes of bicycle falls are enough different from pedestrian slip and falls, that the same probability functions cannot apply to both.

The upshot is that pedestrian slip and falls, resulting in TBI, have a more similar risk to cycling than you may be estimating. I think that it's better to look at data than to speculate about probabilites.

From FARS data, with respect to fatalities (since fatality data is the most accurate), trips while walking are not significantly safer than trips by bike. Motor Vehicle Crash Injury Rates by Mode of Travel, United States: Using Exposure-Based Methods to Quantify Differences
The chart shows that cycling has about 50% more fatalities per person-trip than does walking, and only about double that of trips in passenger cars. This is from Motor Vehicle Crash Injury Rates by Mode of Travel, United States: Using Exposure-Based Methods to Quantify Differences

So his question remains a good one.

"Falls are the leading cause of death for folks 65 or older."
Do you have any references for this bizzare statement??? I thought leading cause of death for 65+ was heart disease.

It's a mistake in reading the data.

Falls are now the leading cause of death by injury, but the great majority of seniors still die the old fashioned way, from strokes, heart disease and cancer.

BTW- Falls now being a leading cause of fatal injury doesn't mean that anything changed in how or why people fall. But things like auto airbags is reducing the numbers in other categories, plus as people live to older ages the both the likelihood and consequences of falling increase.

FBinNY: Excellent clarification, thank you.

I assumed (ass out of u and me) we were only considering accidental death here and not "seniors still die the old fashioned way". I am a Senior(74) and am attempting to modernize the Old Fashioned Way by exercising, eating well and seeing my doctor more often than a Real Man would. ;o)

If one takes a step back, as you made me do, and considers all the ways and hows of death in the USA then heart & cancer and so on take their overriding position. While making great progress against heart disease and cancer, they remain the major killers.

The main reason I have returned to this forum is simple: I know a great deal about the mechanisms and consequences of head injury when related to helmet usage. And, there is way-to-much “Bovine Scatology” (Norman Schwarzkopf) in this forum. Folks are being distracted, confused and misdirected by the trolls.

The great curse of the internet and, in this case, the “Helmet Thread” is the presence of self-involved, sophomoric men (mostly) who only seem to want to “win” rather than enlighten. I have no patience with such. We should strive to enlighten and support and not just “Win”.

Joe

I come to this thread just to see what the latest squabbles are about. Personally, I wear a helmet for whatever reason. It's my preference. I could not care less if someone else wears one or not. If they smash their head and have to learn how to talk and take a crap on their own all over again because they were too stubborn to wear a helmet, it's not in any way my concern. I figure it's just Darwin's theory running its course.

This is a classic argumentative strategy. Seize the high ground, claim that there's no real disagreement on the issue, and all those arguing a different view are trolls creating confusion where there shouldn't be any.

The fact is that there is plenty of room for disagreement on most aspects of the TOTAL debate. I, for one, have no disagreement with the notion that helmets save lives and mitigate what may otherwise be severe TBIs. But, those benefits are limited to the band between where there would be an head injury in the first place, and not severe enough to be fatal with or without a helmet. There's also room for reasonable debate on the likelihood of a crash involving a head strike, where some believe it highly likely over a few decades of riding, and others seeing it as extremely unlikely.

So, not all of us who feel helmets aren't warranted are idiots or trolls.

Actually, I have a totally different objection to the helmet issue. As a long term observer of the bike scene, I feel that the over emphasis on helmets as the primary line of defense has become a distraction from more important safety considerations, namely learning to ride smart. Riders are led to believe that riding without a helmet is dangerous, and with is safe, but that's a radical departure from reality. The best way to avoid a TBI or other injury while cycling is to avoid crashing in the first place.

I often get the "where's your helmet" from riders who are running stop signs or red lights, riding in close order formations on open busy roads, or riding recklessly in other ways. I especially find an irony when people tell me about the multiple times helmets have saved their lives. IMO - if you're multiple "lightning strike" events you're doing something wrong and would be wise to shift some emphasis from the helmet to it's contents.

However, feel free to call me a troll, I really don't mind.

The figures I gave before indicated that the risk of fatality for cyclists were quite similar to that for pedestrians when based on the probability per trip. As I also indicated, cyclists trips tend to be longer than pedestrians so if analyzing the risk per million miles the cyclist would have a lower probability while if analyzing risk per million hours the figures would favor pedestrians. But in any event the risks are quite close with minor variations depending on how the analysis is performed. Based on the figures that I've seen I can't see a justification based on the risk that would call for always using a helmet for one of the activities while not ever considering it for the other.

Based on fatal accidents that have happened locally where details have been made public I disagree with your emphasis on malicious acts such as motorists deliberately attacking you. All the fatalities with which I'm familiar were due to negligence and reckless behavior (inattention, losing control of the vehicle, DUI, etc.) rather than a malicious attack on the victim. Nor do I see sidewalks as providing all that much safety. They tend to have a great many interruptions for driveways where vehicles can strike pedestrians. And two of the most recent cyclist fatalities locally were on a sidewalk when a driver lost control and struck not only them but also took out a fire hydrant and most of a business storefront. Furthermore, intersections tend to be the most common place for crashes and that's where both cyclists and pedestrians are frequently struck.

FbinNY:
You have just attributed to me sayings and attitudes that I do not have. You have placed me among those who are zealots about helmet usage (one way or the other), which I am not.

Everything I have said about helmet effectiveness is true and there is plenty of evidence to support what I have said.

If you choose to not wear a helmet, fine. You’ll probably never regret your decision. But --- don’t you ever throw me in with those idiots. Trolls are trolls, do not become one of them. You are too intelligent for that.

Joe

See also my post 2104 for a link to a FARS data analysis which indicates the same.

++++100000%

I called him out on JB thread asking for facts, got the "F_ _ _ K" reply along with being called a troll. Yet he still has never provided any evidence to support his claim. This happens whenever someone does not agree with him, and he can not back his claims up with facts. And yet he is on here saying in post 2107 "Folks are being distracted, confused and misdirected by the trolls." And in post 2101 he clearly states, plain and simple "Falls are the leading cause of death for folks 65 or older." So I guess by his own comment, since he was both distracting and misdirected in saying " Falls are the leading cause of death for folks 65 or older.", he is the true troll.
I could careless if someone wears a helmet or not. A helmet does not make you safe. Safety is the way one acts, a helmet is protection for when you do not act safely.

Army helmets:

I realize that this forum is about bicycle helmets but I believe Y’all should know abut the complete failure of our government to protect our soldiers from impact-related TBIs (Traumatic Brain Injury).

The current military helmet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combat_helmet#Current would not qualify as a helmet for riding bicycles or even skateboards. The helmet industry puts it in the same category as those “Bogus” ‘helmets’ designed to look like protective helmets but that would never, ever pass even the lowly bicycle (CPSC) impact protection we insist upon for our children.

While it can defeat an AK47 bullet from 200 meters, it is of utterly no use as an impact-attenuation device. There is no energy-absorbent liner of any kind. And, that leads to the real problem: The majority of permanent head trauma in the Middle East wars has nothing to do with AK47 rounds from 200 meters and everything to do with heads being banged by explosive pressure waves and being banged around inside a Humvee.

Parents and other loved ones have had to resort to buying impact attenuation pads and sending them to their loved ones overseas. Our government and even the military do not seem to give a damn! There are a number of sites where one can buy effective impact protection kits for the current ‘state of the art’ soldier’s helmet. Here is one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combat_helmet#Current

Joe

P.S.: Please consider looking into this matter. The info is out there and our soldiers need your support. -- JM

Joe,

I was just commenting based on taking the two sentences I quoted at face value. I didn't accuse you of being a troll, though by implication you had accused myself and others of being so. If you read the post again with an open mind, you'll find that it's pretty neutral, ---- especially by the standards of this thread.

All I'm saying is there is material fodder for debate here, and accusing those who post views different from yours of falling into the category below (your words, which I'd quoted before).

"The great curse of the internet and, in this case, the “Helmet Thread” is the presence of self-involved, sophomoric men (mostly) who only seem to want to “win” rather than enlighten. I have no patience with such. We should strive to enlighten and support and not just “Win”.

So, I stand by my statement, and as far as accusing ANYBODY of being a troll or idiot, I prefer to pass and let their words speak for them and let readers decide what's what.

One problem with these kinds of debates is that those who "know" or strongly believe they "know", whether right or not, start to believe that those in disagreement are wrong, either because of ignorance or arrogance. I'm not saying you don't know your stuff, or fall into that category, but your indirect reference to those who disagree isn't your best moment.

BTW - in something over 20,000 posts, I don't remember EVER calling anyone a troll. I've never felt the need, and prefer to think of trolldom as an "if the shoe fits....." kind of thing.

The Helmet thread for some time has been suppressed by trolls, those who only wish to prevail in some usually-imagined argument. I have seen very little in 85 pages that attempts to enlighten or help. Mostly, those pages have been full of trolls https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll.

I happen to be one person who does have experience and knowledge about bicycle helmet performance. My intention, here, is not to aggrandize myself but to inform. Part of my reluctance to engage this thread is that I am a rather private person. Another part is that I am a scientist by nature and have little use for nor tolerance of politicians/trolls. Scientific debate is very different from what we have had here so far.

The scientific method consists of guessing, testing, refining, testing again and again, then once again until we gather a pretty good idea of how something works. "Everything you know is wrong" -- Richard Feynman. It isn’t about prevailing, that’s politics/trolling and being stupid in public.

You trolls may continue to attack me or my statements, I really don’t care.
Do your own research and come back with positive information. If all you have to offer is empty criticism and word-challenges, well then – welcome to my ignore list.
I am not defending a thesis here; I am attempting to inform and challenge Y’all to look at scientific facts for yourselves. Not just the ones that support your pre-conceived notions but the also the ones that do not.


I’d like to think that we might change the tone of this thread into one dedicated to helping those who wonder about the efficacy of bicycle helmets in various cycling environments. Certainly ‘how things are’ around where I live or in Ontario Canada are very different than in Copenhagen. I cannot imagine going without one what with arrogant young men drivers or young cell-phone women like the one that brushed me, put me down, broke two ribs and crushed my helmet and RH clavicle two years ago.

Why cannot we become more selfless? Are we so weak that we cannot put aside our ‘opinions’ and deal with some facts?

“Can’t we all just get along” – Rodney King.

Joe

Age makes us more fragile.

I started a thread over in Fifty Plus (50+) with the thought that it might help get folks thinking about aging and injury risk. Threw in a couple of links too.

Joe

link: https://www.bikeforums.net/fifty-plus...-injuries.html

Some of us have lumpy heads, lumpy enough to make a helmet uncomfortable and us less likely to wear one.

You can moderately thin and reshape the foam liner where your lump is with a ball peen hammer. While thinning the foam does reduce the helmet’s ultimate protection in that place, it also allows one to wear the thing in the first place.

Do not cut foam away. Dent it.

Some years ago, I asked David Thom at USC if he could test a helmet with a quarter-inch thickness of foam cut away in the impact area and make the same drop test with the thickness reduced the same amount with a hammer. He thought it was an interesting question and made the tests. I believe Dave made the normal DOT flat anvil drop.

The dented impact gave normal “g” number; the denting did not seem to matter. The cut foam drop gave a higher peak “g” number; not much higher but higher just the same.

So, if you need to make room for a lump, do it with a ball peen hammer and not a knife ;o)

Joe

I've been riding a bike for close to 50 years and never once fell on my head. But, for the past 10 years, I've been wearing a helmet anyway, just in case I do.

Good luck with that.

If I may suggest, declaring that everyone else is a troll or ignorant of the facts is not an optimal way to begin.

Joe says I'm on his ignore list, but...

Who says we haven't looked at scientific facts ourselves and merely come to different conclusions? Many of those who read and participate in this thread actually do click links to studies and become educated on the issue. And then make decisions about helmet use or not based on our own interpretation of such data.

Underneath the tone of the thread, there is plenty of information for those wondering about the efficacy of bike helmets... but I don't think Joe is too concerned about an ecumenical view where helmet use vs. riding barehead is concerned, and traditionally, this has been the thread for such debate.

Most people contributing to this thread are doing so selflessly -- I don't know that any of us get paid to do it... And most 'opinions' voiced here are based on facts, most facts presented here are in support of some opinion or other. So we're left with Joe wanting only to consider facts which supports his opinion, rather than all those other, inconvenient facts which apparently do not help those wondering about the efficacy of bicycle helmets...

I find it hard to believe and laughable that a self-professed helmet proponent expert is telling people they can modify their helmets by hitting them with a hammer.

If you are prone to wearing a helmet and find that you are a hard fit, before you go taking a hammer to a new, potentially expensive piece of gear, try on different models from different companies. Very often, variance of fit between companies and models is large enough to accommodate nearly every head size and shape.

As a PT bike shop employee who sells helmets, I would never advise that a customer modify their helmet like this, and I believe my boss would cringe from a liability standpoint to hear me voicing such instruction.

And, also:

The conclusion is a little misleading IMO, perhaps not fully thought through. If you strike a hundred helmets with a hammer, you'll surely have a number of them having fractures in the crush foam. The fractures, which are not necessarily apparent to visual inspection, seriously degrade the impulse reduction. Impulse, the change in momentum (of our brain) with respect to time, is the main thing we're trying to reduce with helmets.

To the extent that polystyrene has a linear response in accordance to Hooke's law, the impulse during crushing will be roughly inversely proportional to the thickness. So the shaving of a quarter inch from three inch thickness, would result in about 1/12 greater impulse from sufficiently strong impacts.

Partially crushed to the same thickness on the other hand, having greater density, you wouldn't expect it to have a large effect on peak acceleration, but you'd expect it to be less protective of lesser impacts than the shaved helmet.

Correct helmet fit is not common, especially with children. About half the children I see wearing helmets, which they are legally required to do here, do not have them correctly adjusted. Some are so out-of-place that the kids might as well not be wearing them at all because they’d be off their little heads long before said little head smacked the ground.

Many kids (14 or under in my estimation) do not fasten the chin strap; that helmet might still be air born when they smack the ground. I’ve seen this happen with motorcycle crashes.

Most chin straps, if they do happen to be fastened, are too loose. Same end result; the helmet leaves the head before impact.

A majority of the children I see have their helmets way-back on their heads, exposing their foreheads, the single most common impact area.

Then there is helmet positioning. Bell furnishes a fitment brochure with each helmet. It is a simple document that is easy to understand, implement and applies to most helmet brands. https://www.bellhelmets.com/bellsport...01074700-B.pdf.

What I do is engage as many of them as I can and offer to adjust their helmets. I haven’t been turned down yet. What a pleasure it is to do this small but potentially great service! I’m gonna (don’t worry it’ll someday be an accepted word in the dictionary, along with dont) offer to do helmet fitting sessions at the local schools this next year --- should be fun ;o)

Joe

I know I'm being ignored, but you peaked my curiosity as my dad is a retired Army vet. I found this article: https://www.army.mil/article/55275/c...-step-by-step/

Which is fact and which is fiction: your post or that article? They are completely at odds with each other.