Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Fifty Plus (50+)
Reload this Page >

Another helmet save

Notices
Fifty Plus (50+) Share the victories, challenges, successes and special concerns of bicyclists 50 and older. Especially useful for those entering or reentering bicycling.

Another helmet save

Old 05-09-12, 12:26 AM
  #26  
Banned.
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Uncertain
Posts: 8,651
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Originally Posted by Mobile 155

Just another site I book marked besides the one posted earlier. https://www.bhsi.org/stats.htm#effectiveness
OK, here I am again. I can assure you that I would be influenced by data. The problem is that much of what is presented as data is so flawed. So, for example, the linked site states that helmets have been estimated to reduce head injuries by 85%. That's true. What it does not say is that the 85% estimate, which is widely quoted, came from a study that has been discredited because it relied on researchers assumptions about helmet effectiveness rather than real-world data.

There's another stat in there that is pretty striking. It claims that 23% of cyclists killed in accidents were drunk at the time. If that is anywhere near true, it gives us a pretty good clue that there are other things we can do to keep ourselves safe. And in one sense it would be a very encouraging statistic. It is already very unlikely that you will be killed while cycling. If you can cut by one quarter that already slim chance simply by staying sober, that just emphasises how safe you really are. In the UK, there is one cycling fatality for every thirty million miles cycled, according to Department of Transport figures. And if one is sober, visible, competent, stays away from the inside of large vehicles at intersections, one can considerably improve even those staggeringly good odds.

And, just for the avoidance of doubt, I'm quite clear that helmets do save some people from injuries to their scalp. But the evidence does not indicate that they save lives or brains. And the risk of my simply falling off my bike while just riding along is fantastically low, I'm not a mountain biker. So the bottom line is, if despite all the precautions i can take, I am hit by a car or truck, a helmet isn't going to make any difference. And the very small risk of my sustaining a minor head injury for another reason is one I am perfectly happy to take. Cycling is very safe.
chasm54 is offline  
Old 05-09-12, 01:49 AM
  #27  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Huntington Beach
Posts: 493
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by CB HI
Nonsense only to the uninformed. It is helpful to read the information available first, before the declaration of what one considers nonsense.
Sorry, but I am an old retired engineer who spent most of his life considering the reality of physics in the solution of real world problems and when somebody spouts ignorant nonsense ....Well , I cant resist even when I know its totally useless ! The products of our educational system don't really want to consider any facts, their mind is made up!
AlexZ is offline  
Old 05-09-12, 01:54 AM
  #28  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Huntington Beach
Posts: 493
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Mobile 155
I contend that it wouldn't matter one bit who or what did the test or how it was done. People that are anti helmet will be anti helmet until they are looking at the wrong side of the grass. It didn't matter to the motorcyclists in several states. It didn't matter to many before the seat belt laws even after the testing. Think of it, people have said here that if a helmet cracks it hasn't done it's job but what if the head without the helmet cracks? When the NHTSA and consumer protection people released their studies they had no agenda and they used the results of those studies to develope child helmet laws. The New England Journal of Medicine and the IIHS might be biased I can't say but I believe even if the test and statistics are there it wouldn't matter to those who believe they don't need a helmet. That is just the way some people are.

We know people shouldn't drink and drive, but people do. We know we shouldn't talk or text while driving but some people do. I know people who will not ride organized cycling events because you have to wear a helmet. That is just the way people are. Is it more dangerous to wear a helmet? If so why force children to wear them? So there is no real answer to this because those of us who believe a helmet offers some protection will see a helmet that has the side scraped down into the foam as saving us from losing part of our skin. Those that don't believe in them will not believe that a helmet would have saved then even while their skin is scabbing over. That is just the way people are.

Just another site I book marked besides the one posted earlier. https://www.bhsi.org/stats.htm#effectiveness

And in real truth in most cases I don't care if people don't feel they need protection it will not stop me from wearing a helmet, gloves and good glasses to protect my eyes. But when someone that feels like I do as the OP did I will always give him a thumbs up for doing and believing as I do. We have something in common that non helmet users do not and that too is just how people are.
Very well said! And I can only add that pushing up daisies before my time, just to show how macho I am, is not in my genes!

Last edited by AlexZ; 05-09-12 at 01:59 AM.
AlexZ is offline  
Old 05-09-12, 05:42 AM
  #29  
Senior Member
 
mprelaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Cape Cod, Massachusetts
Posts: 2,318
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Arguing this is as pointless as arguing religion or politics. Or global warning. People will cite the studies that favor their position, and you're not changing any minds. Not too long ago, there was an internet argument for weeks over whether the correct answer to a 5th grade arithmetic problem on order of operations was 2 or 288.

I wear a helmet. I don't know whether it will save my life. But until someone convinces me that it's more dangerous to wear one than go without, I'll keep on wearing it. I know it's saved me a couple of nasty lumps on my noggin, and those hurt for days.
mprelaw is offline  
Old 05-09-12, 10:10 AM
  #30  
Senior Member
 
Terex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: 7600' Northern New Mexico
Posts: 3,680

Bikes: Specialized 6Fattie, Parlee Z5, Scott Addict

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 36 Post(s)
Liked 34 Times in 24 Posts
Originally Posted by AlexZ
I hope this is an unsuccessful attempt at humor because it is bordering on utter nonsense.....
Especially the "if a helmet cracks or breaks, that helmet failed to do it's job" part.

With the prevailing bicycle helmet design of in-mould microshell, the styrofoam liner dissipates energy by destructive deformation, i.e., cracking. If impact is severe enough, the thin, tough outer cover will crack too.
Terex is offline  
Old 05-09-12, 10:56 AM
  #31  
Humvee of bikes =Worksman
 
Nightshade's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 5,362
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 6 Times in 6 Posts
Originally Posted by Old School
I was riding a familiar section of single track on my mountain bike Saturday afternoon. Going downhill at moderate speed when all of a sudden I was on the ground with my helmet grinding along the gravel-strewn trail. Aside from some minor abrasions and torn Lycra, I was fine. My helmet was another matter -- it was destroyed. I tried to imagine that damage to my head had I not been wearing a helmet. At best I would have been in ICU with a traumatic brain injury and at worst... Oh, and the bike was fine.

If you want to see what happens to your head hitting the ground without a helmet, try dropping a cantaloup from an 8-foot step ladder. Guess I just became the new "poster boy" for bicycle helmet safety!
I've never understood why people won't believe in proven safety equipment until they get hurt. In you case, I'm glad you're alright and your story may help someone else start using safety equipment.
__________________
My preferred bicycle brand is.......WORKSMAN CYCLES
I dislike clipless pedals on any city bike since I feel they are unsafe.

Originally Posted by krazygluon
Steel: nearly a thousand years of metallurgical development
Aluminum: barely a hundred, which one would you rather have under your butt at 30mph?
Nightshade is offline  
Old 05-09-12, 04:37 PM
  #32  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,760
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1106 Post(s)
Liked 1,197 Times in 758 Posts
Originally Posted by gevad
I had no idea that helmet wearing is controversial. I've had two falls where my helmet hit the pavement hard enough to crack the styrofoam lining. I'm glad my helmet and not my head took those blows. I think I'll keep wearing a helmet when I ride.
The reason it's controversial is not necessarily that anyone is "anti helmet" or stupid (which is name-calling result of these conversations). It's just that some of us believe that lore and "conventional wisdom" has inflated the perception of danger associated with cycling beyond reason. We don't feel that cycling is so dangerous that it requires any more safety measures than other sources of head injury such as driving a car, walking in the winter or after a rain, or stepping in and out of a bath tub. Therefore, anyone who makes the personal choice to not wear a helmet is not an idiot or organ donor, but simply someone who makes a rational decision about the necessity for safety equipment.

People can disagree with this, but I'd bet that if you did some research into threads on the subject that the nasty labels and insults are almost always aimed at those who don't agree that cycling is dangerous as if they're clueless idiots.
Camilo is offline  
Old 05-09-12, 04:56 PM
  #33  
Senior Member
 
Mobile 155's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Dallas Fort Worth Metroplex
Posts: 5,058

Bikes: 2013 Haro FL Comp 29er MTB.

Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1470 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 45 Times in 35 Posts
I think the real point is that Old School was simply pointing out his experience while wearing a helmet. The conclusion was based on observed information, IE: the damage to the helmet. It was easy to translate, by the observer that whatever damage was sustained by the helmet would have been transferred to the head were the helmet not worn. If wearing one while riding MTB is considered a "safety measure" then the observer would easily say, the helmet saved me from road rash, skin removal, loss of hair, ear or whatever. No one said everyone should wear a helmet only that they believe in them. And I still say no proof will be enough for anyone that doesn't want to wear a helmet as seen by the resistnce to motorcycle helmets. Some have said they are proven protection but still there are enough non helmet wearing motorcyclists to get the laws removed in many states. This whole debate has not been about who should or shouldn't wear a helmet it is about what a particular person wearing a helmet experienced and observed. No one not there has a position worthy of consideration because they can't speak to the effectiveness of to protective value in that particular case. To many it is a political issue and for them no study, no testing will be enough. To others it is a safety issue and no more testing and no more studies need to be preformed. I used to be an avid Motorcyclist to the point of riding a motorcycle everywhere for 8 years running and off and on for another 8 years. This helmet issue has been going on since my first BSA in 1966. Any study and any testing presented will have to be run past the infamous animal the "yabut" maybe if they hadn't done this or if they tested it a different way. Happened with ABS brakes, seat Belts, Motorcycle helmets and in now in full debate with manditory cornering control in new cars. That is just how we as a society are.

Last edited by Mobile 155; 05-09-12 at 05:01 PM.
Mobile 155 is offline  
Old 05-09-12, 05:18 PM
  #34  
Senior Member
 
Bikey Mikey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Newport News, VA USA
Posts: 3,325

Bikes: Diamondback Edgewood LX; Giant Defy 1

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Sorry, but I have personal experience with my head hitting the ground during a crash. I know if I had not had helmet and had hit my unprotected head on the road as hard as had with the helmet, I would've definitely had a moderate to severe concussion. In fact, when I was 12 I got a new bike and my father took me and the bike to the gas station on base to fill the tires. He let me ride it home and followed to protect me from vehicles. I was going fast down a hill, lost control, and crashed. The rest my father told me. He helped me up and had to support me as I could not walk on my own. My dad took my bike and me home where he gave me a bath to clean me up and was put to bed. I awoke 3 hours later, first memory since just before hitting the pavement, with a bloody pillow began and kept on puking. I ended up in the hospital overnight for a concussion.

My ear doc guarantees that I probably broke one of the small bones in my left ear and the concussion is a big contributor to my severe hearing loss in that ear.
Bikey Mikey is offline  
Old 05-09-12, 05:48 PM
  #35  
Senior Member
 
curdog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Nags Head NC
Posts: 359

Bikes: Cannondale Synapse

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
What if you knew for a second before that you were going to fall. If given the choice, would you prefer a helmet or not?
For what its worth, I always wear helmet while on road bikes. I seldom wear a helmet when riding my cruiser , touring bike or hybrid. Everybody needs to make their own decisions and hopefully live with them.
curdog is offline  
Old 05-09-12, 07:07 PM
  #36  
Senior Member
 
Bikey Mikey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Newport News, VA USA
Posts: 3,325

Bikes: Diamondback Edgewood LX; Giant Defy 1

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Hybrid, road, cruiser...I wear a helmet.
Bikey Mikey is offline  
Old 05-09-12, 07:12 PM
  #37  
Senior Member
 
Mort Canard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Kansas
Posts: 650
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
I look at the motorcyclists I pass on the road without a helmet and figure that they must know what their head is worth if they aren't going to do anything to protect it. The same goes for bicyclists.
Mort Canard is offline  
Old 05-09-12, 08:48 PM
  #38  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Central Louisiana
Posts: 3,055
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 41 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 8 Times in 3 Posts
Helmets look dorky! They are too expensive! They are too hot in the summer! They weigh too much! Don't you dare tell me I must wear one!

Currently, I ride with the one that replaced this one.
doctor j is offline  
Old 05-09-12, 11:55 PM
  #39  
Cycle Year Round
 
CB HI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Honolulu, HI
Posts: 13,644
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1316 Post(s)
Liked 92 Times in 59 Posts
Originally Posted by AlexZ
Sorry, but I am an old retired engineer who spent most of his life considering the reality of physics in the solution of real world problems and when somebody spouts ignorant nonsense ....Well , I cant resist even when I know its totally useless ! The products of our educational system don't really want to consider any facts, their mind is made up!
Good post explaining why some bridges just fall down.
__________________
Land of the Free, Because of the Brave.
CB HI is offline  
Old 05-10-12, 12:54 AM
  #40  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Huntington Beach
Posts: 493
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by CB HI
Good post explaining why some bridges just fall down.
Better start really worrying then, I have never bothered with a bridge......I did power plants , conventional and nuclear , refineries and chemical plants ! But then what would you know, you're from an island that specializes in pineapples and liberals.......
AlexZ is offline  
Old 05-10-12, 12:58 AM
  #41  
Banned.
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Uncertain
Posts: 8,651
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Originally Posted by AlexZ
But then what would you know, you're from an island that specializes in pineapples and liberals.......
As I predicted, this thread has gone the way of so many of its helmet thread predecessors. Rather silly to turn helmet-wearing into a subject for political abuse, don't you think?
chasm54 is offline  
Old 05-10-12, 02:29 AM
  #42  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Huntington Beach
Posts: 493
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by chasm54
As I predicted, this thread has gone the way of so many of its helmet thread predecessors. Rather silly to turn helmet-wearing into a subject for political abuse, don't you think?
Political abuse??!! Grow up! Try to find some humor in things! Life can really be hard for anal retentives!
AlexZ is offline  
Old 05-10-12, 02:52 AM
  #43  
Banned.
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Uncertain
Posts: 8,651
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Originally Posted by AlexZ
Political abuse??!! Grow up! Try to find some humor in things! Life can really be hard for anal retentives!
Ah, more abuse. See, some people simply cannot discuss this issue without becoming overwrought.
chasm54 is offline  
Old 05-10-12, 03:29 AM
  #44  
Banned.
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Uncertain
Posts: 8,651
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
OK. It's clear there is little chance of progress here, because it just seems obvious to people that helmets work. But the more one looks at it, the less obvious it becomes. The central question that must be answered is, if helmets are so effective at preventing injuries, how is it that there seems to be no real-world correlation between increased use of helmets and reductions in serious injury? In Australia, for example, making helmets compulsory has not resulted in a lower rate of injury to cyclists.

We can debate that here if anyone wants, but there's a perfectly good thread on the subject in A&S. It's about ninety pages long, which might deter the casual reader. But for the benefit of those who think the issue is cut-and-dried, here's a link to a post in that thread made by a BF member who is a doctor treating patients with neurological injuries. As you'll see, he doesn't recommend helmets on the grounds that while they prevent abrasions etc, they may actually increase the chances of the type of injury that causes brain damage.

I'm not qualified to judge, but I have read widely enough on the subject to know that he is far from alone in that opinion.
chasm54 is offline  
Old 05-10-12, 05:52 AM
  #45  
Semper Fi
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 12,942
Mentioned: 89 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1172 Post(s)
Liked 358 Times in 241 Posts
Originally Posted by Wogster
Second of all, if a helmet cracks or breaks, that helmet failed to do it's job.
Incorrect, the physics tells you that the energy that was absorbed by the helmet would have been transferred to the skull/brain. All the actual testing of motorcycle and bicycle helmets is to failure mode so you know how much energy can be absorbed before it breaks or energy wave transfer through the helmets shell's and inner liner's medium and go into the skull/brain.
__________________
Semper Fi, USMC, 1975-1977

I Can Do All Things Through Him, Who Gives Me Strength. Philippians 4:13


qcpmsame is offline  
Old 05-10-12, 10:45 AM
  #46  
Senior Member
 
Mobile 155's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Dallas Fort Worth Metroplex
Posts: 5,058

Bikes: 2013 Haro FL Comp 29er MTB.

Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1470 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 45 Times in 35 Posts
Originally Posted by chasm54
OK. It's clear there is little chance of progress here, because it just seems obvious to people that helmets work. But the more one looks at it, the less obvious it becomes. The central question that must be answered is, if helmets are so effective at preventing injuries, how is it that there seems to be no real-world correlation between increased use of helmets and reductions in serious injury? In Australia, for example, making helmets compulsory has not resulted in a lower rate of injury to cyclists.

We can debate that here if anyone wants, but there's a perfectly good thread on the subject in A&S. It's about ninety pages long, which might deter the casual reader. But for the benefit of those who think the issue is cut-and-dried, here's a link to a post in that thread made by a BF member who is a doctor treating patients with neurological injuries. As you'll see, he doesn't recommend helmets on the grounds that while they prevent abrasions etc, they may actually increase the chances of the type of injury that causes brain damage.

I'm not qualified to judge, but I have read widely enough on the subject to know that he is far from alone in that opinion.
Still from the onset of this thread it didn't have to become political. It was simply a comment made by the OP on how the helmet did prevent an injury to their head. It was the very topic of helmets that brought out the anti helmet people not the content. It wasn't the op or anyone that wears helmets, and gave him a thumbs up for surviving or avoiding head damage to whatever degree, that turned this into a debate. Something about cycling helmets brings out far more anti helmet energy than any other sport. Not rehashing and studies just pointing out that no one will make this debate about Batting helmets, Skating helmets, football helmets nor will they say they are afraid people will think it is dangerous because people wear helmets to participate in those sports or activities. Yet non of them have as many head injuries a year as cycling. I don't think cycling is all that dangerous either and went more than 30,000 miles before being launched through a back window head first. So I guess anti helmet people would say since that was a 40 mile trip that I didn't need a helmet for 29,960 miles because I didn't hit my head in those miles.

The real point is whenever people on a bike forum talk about helmets it draws the anti helmet people out like bees to pollen. even if that helmet discussion doesn't address promoting helmet laws or discussing others that don't wear helmets. The other issue is people that believe in helmets aren't going to feel more secure without a helmet no matter what the head only people say or point to. And the reverse is true as I said earlier. It is only one thing that devides us as cyclists. Even here we will support helmet laws for children. We will agree to rules for organized rides and races and not question the wisdom of the organization that mandates such use. we will agree that MTBers should wear a helmet. But when we are in a group like this some will voice their doubts that in their own particular case they would provide any protection. And in this case some seem to be doubting that the OPs contention that the helmet did its job is a true statement.

As far as my contention that no study would convince a anti helmet devotee that they are necessary comes from some of the same studies they so often quote, it talks about the health benefits of cycling out weighing the chances of a head injury fall. The indication is they would give up cycling before wearing a helmet. And it seems as if the stats they use prove that many do quite cycling when helmets become manditory. So then only those that believe in them will still be on the road I guess?
Mobile 155 is offline  
Old 05-10-12, 11:20 AM
  #47  
Banned.
 
DnvrFox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 20,917
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 12 Times in 10 Posts
Pretty much the same people, same arguments - that I have read for 13 years now. Few, if any, are ever convinced otherwise from their original beliefs.

Perhaps the listserv computer program should be programmed so that helmets shows as "h*****s"??

And, somehow, the argument always manages to turn to attacks on people and their other beliefs, locations, whatever, rather than on the specific arguments about whether or not and how effective h*****s are, and should they be required or not.
DnvrFox is offline  
Old 05-10-12, 11:24 AM
  #48  
Banned.
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Uncertain
Posts: 8,651
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Originally Posted by qcpmsame
Incorrect, the physics tells you that the energy that was absorbed by the helmet would have been transferred to the skull/brain. All the actual testing of motorcycle and bicycle helmets is to failure mode so you know how much energy can be absorbed before it breaks or energy wave transfer through the helmets shell's and inner liner's medium and go into the skull/brain.
This isn't as straightforward as you make it.

How much energy the helmet absorbed before it broke depends on the extent to which the styrofoam liner compressed before breaking. If it didn't compress at all, that indicates that the helmet fractured pretty much instantly and the helmet didn't absorb much of the impact. If it compressed a lot, fair enough the helmet absorbed some energy before it failed. But the question then moves to how relevant that was in the context of the crash.

Helmets are required to be tested to a very low standard. They are only required to withstand a simple fall onto a flat surface from seven feet at zero forward speed. The amount of energy they can absorb is very limited. Even if they work as well as they possibly can, they are massively and immediately overwhelmed by the forces involved in a collision with a motor vehicle and will make no material difference to the cyclists' safety.

This may be why helmets, despite all the anecdotal evidence such as one sees in this thread, have made no difference to the casualty statistics. They are likely to be more effective at preventing minor bumps and scrapes than at saving lives or brains, and of course minor bumps and scrapes are much less likely to be reported and recorded.
chasm54 is offline  
Old 05-10-12, 12:25 PM
  #49  
Senior Member
 
Mobile 155's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Dallas Fort Worth Metroplex
Posts: 5,058

Bikes: 2013 Haro FL Comp 29er MTB.

Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1470 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 45 Times in 35 Posts
Originally Posted by chasm54
This isn't as straightforward as you make it.

How much energy the helmet absorbed before it broke depends on the extent to which the styrofoam liner compressed before breaking. If it didn't compress at all, that indicates that the helmet fractured pretty much instantly and the helmet didn't absorb much of the impact. If it compressed a lot, fair enough the helmet absorbed some energy before it failed. But the question then moves to how relevant that was in the context of the crash.

Helmets are required to be tested to a very low standard. They are only required to withstand a simple fall onto a flat surface from seven feet at zero forward speed. The amount of energy they can absorb is very limited. Even if they work as well as they possibly can, they are massively and immediately overwhelmed by the forces involved in a collision with a motor vehicle and will make no material difference to the cyclists' safety.

This may be why helmets, despite all the anecdotal evidence such as one sees in this thread, have made no difference to the casualty statistics. They are likely to be more effective at preventing minor bumps and scrapes than at saving lives or brains, and of course minor bumps and scrapes are much less likely to be reported and recorded.
You needed to add despite what the NHTSA, NEJM, IIHS, CCPA and other agencies that have done funded studies have published "and" anecdotal evidance there is no difference. All of the studies have compared those that were injured and with or without helmets and all have concluded that "chances" of being injured are greater without. But that was not the point either.

Three simple questions can be asked at this point person to person: 1. Do you personally wear a helmet on the street? 2. reading the OPs origional statement, "I was riding a familiar section of single track on my mountain bike Saturday afternoon. Going downhill at moderate speed when all of a sudden I was on the ground with my helmet grinding along the gravel-strewn trail." do you believe he would have been better off without a helmet? 3. Do you believe in child helmet laws?

I am not picking on anyone at this point all I am saying is I am more convinced by the studies and evidence persented by properly funded studies in the US and other countries than I am that they don't know what they are talking about. But I totally understand how people can see things differently. These debates come out whenever we talk about bike saddles, frame material, cycling clothes, and global warming. No one ever changes their mind and aren't likely too in the future.
Mobile 155 is offline  
Old 05-10-12, 12:32 PM
  #50  
Resident Alien
 
Racer Ex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Location, location.
Posts: 13,089
Mentioned: 158 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 349 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 10 Times in 6 Posts
Originally Posted by Wogster
Second of all, if a helmet cracks or breaks, that helmet failed to do it's job.
Nah. Not sure why this comment keeps popping up. It didn't "fail to do it's job". It did its job. The impact just exceeded its design parameters. Unless you think they are designed to provide 100% structural integrity in which case you'd be wrong again.

Styrofoam is there to provide a compressible medium. The plastic is there to help provide abrasion and UV protection and to provide some structural support to the foam. If a helmet cracks it's provided all the cushioning it's designed for and has then come apart because the blow has exceeded it's design capacity. But it HAS provided all the cushioning it's designed for to 100%. It didn't just fall apart from the wind.

It's a lot like auto safety glass, which cracks but stays intact unless the forces overwhelm it and it busts into 1000 pieces.

Only difference between a bicycle helmet and motor cycle helmet BTW is that motorcycle helmets have a lot more foam and a much harder and thicker shell (carbon or fiberglass). Having crashed both, in many cases the blow you receive is identical. People still die of head injuries in motorcycle accidents. Did the helmet fail to do it's job in these cases? Unless you believe a helmet should provide 100% protection from all head injuries, which is tin hat stuff, you'd have to say no.

It's not a terrible leap of reasoning to believe that a bike helmet, in most cases, is better than nothing and provides some mitigation. How much? Depends.

I can raise my hand and say I've hit my head on the pavement without a helmet and with a helmet in nearly identical type crashes. Both produced minor concussions, one produced a giant knot and numerous stitches.

Guess which was which.

Statistical analysis is junk science to apply to this case study. The data is so scattered, diverse, and tiny it's worthless. And any statistician will tell you just because they haven't found a trend, doesn't mean one doesn't exist.

At best we can do the impact modeling and actual testing and come up with X helmet will provide Y impact force reduction in Z scenario.

And FWIW I think if you legislate helmets for motorcycle riders you should make the people in cars wear them too. Brain injuries are the number one killer in car accidents, if you believe the statistics

Last edited by Racer Ex; 05-10-12 at 01:19 PM.
Racer Ex is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.