Sorry but you're wrong. Before bicycle helmets there were everything from bike rodeos to classes given by a majority of organizations teaching bicycle safety. Now all you see is posters saying "Always Wear Your Helmets".

Look at the Safe Kids website: http://www.safekids.org/tips/tips_bike.htm

"Bike Safety

Teach children the following bicycle and motorbike safety rules:

Wear a bicycle or motorcycle helmet on every ride. Check to see if your helmet should have a safety certification.

Ride so drivers and cyclists can see you.

Look both ways for oncoming vehicles before turning or crossing a street. Go only when it is clear.

Watch out for potholes, cracks, rocks, wet leaves, storm grates, railroad tracks or anything that could make you lose control of your bike.

Make sure your bike fits your height, weight and age.

Inflate tires properly.

Check brakes before riding.

Bikers should ride one behind another and with the flow of traffic."

What's number ONE on that list? What ends up being the ONLY thing mentioned?

And let me add YET AGAIN:

http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/kunich.html
http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/fatals.html
http://www.helmets.org/veloaust.htm
http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/scuffham.html

Everywhere that helmets have been introduced there has been no discernable change in FATALITIES OR SERIOUS INJURIES!!!

Please stop saying that helmets save lives because they do NOTHING OF THE KIND.

Err, in fact Doc, riders wearing helmets are considered to be "experts" by drivers who give them less room on the road!

You shouldn't change your riding behavior when you wear a helmet but indeed it is only human nature. I'm sure that you're familiar with the fact that antilock brakes didn't change the accident rates as had been predicted by all of the "safety experts". People simply compensated for their "improved" braking by driving faster and antilock brakes actually make NO difference in the braking ability of a car on clean dry pavement. Therefore exactly the opposite occured from the prediction - accidents actually went up on vehicle with antilock.

This is called the Theory of Risk Compensation. And it appears to be the case with bicycle helmets as well. IF bicycle helmets provide any protection it is MORE than neutralized by the insane stunts bicyclists do now. I'm sure you've heard riders say - "I'd NEVER try that stunt without my helmet!"

Helmets now weigh a great deal less than they did in the early 90's. Of course at that time they also had hard shells and provided penetration protection which the modern helmets do not. And they had softer more linear foam because there were fewer vent holes.

Of course even though I had raced motorcycles in the desert for years and had very strong neck muscles the position on a bicycle is much difference and these helmets caused intense neck pain and obviously I wasn't the only one since no one would use them.

Modern helmets have increased the number of vents because tests showed the there was a LARGE increase in head skin temperatures during low speed hard workout such as climbing (though the one scientific test on the subject which was sponsored by a major helmet manufacturer completely mislead its readers by saying exactly the opposite in the "summary").

But you can't get something for nothing. Now the foam is MUCH harder in order to be able to offer the same energy absorbtion with a great deal smaller volume. So much harder in fact that my suspicion is that it would locally exceed the skull strength if the tests were performed correctly. The aluminum headform used only measures maximum deceleration and not local pressures.

Modern bicycle helmets have dispensed with the penetration tests because a heavily vented helmet cannot be made penetration proof.

Modern bicycle helmets use a micro outer shell that is designed ONLY for looks and does not compensate and spread the load of point contacts such as stones, curbs nor fire hydrant stoppers.

Look, Bell invented a business out of thin air and if you want to argue about them that's fine. But AFTER inventing it they've done the best job possible to meet expectations. It is just that the fanatical helmets promoters are more interested in fiction than fact.

Wrong again. Helmets need to compress and ABSORB to a point, then BREAK/SHATTER. And they do work just like that, just fine. Only major design flaw I will concede in modern helmets is the shape, round with more coverage area always works better than small/aero which tends to twist the head on impact. And maybe the attractive shiny plastic glued at the top, prevents a hundred pieces of foam from flying out.

Also, you definition of MAJOR v/s MINOR injury only suits insurance companies.

And one last thing, do shorten your posts, I'm not sure where my day 4 nausea is coming from.

Yes, I do think drivers react differently depending on how a cyclist presents himself to the world, perhaps not at conscious level, but if u could measure it I think there would be a difference.

If I see a lycra clad road cyclist with helmet on an expensive bike I immediately assume he has more experience and stability on the road than say some women on a utility bike with no helmet and civilian clothes flapping in the wind.

Also, the point I was making about accident agility wasn't that ther weight of the helmet would stop the body reacting properly, but whether during the accident the brain says "ok, i have a helmet on, so i'll allow limb y to move here and roll this way because my head is already protected"

In other words, does the brian take liberties with the protection of our heads in the spilt seconds during an accident if it's artificially protected?

I worked at a materials science and mechanical testing lab for a while and just out of curiosity, what type of equipment did you test helmets with and how did you record the data?

OK,

I'm going to have to go ahead and call you a moron here.

Those pages you link use no real science to come to their conclusion.

Looking at statistics with looking at how they were collected and saying there is a causal relationship without looking at all the factors is misleading. It has been said many times, "figures don't lie, but liars can figure."


Edit to add:

Drawing the conclusion that helmets don't work because deaths in pedestrian accidents and cycling accidents are going down at the same rate, and you don't wear a helmet to walk, so they don't work...

And using the statment that... "after an accident, damage to the helmet might not be visible..." to postulate "how does a consumer know a new helmet off the shelf is not damaged?"

I glad these authors didn't work on Apollo (Of course, they are probably amoung the people that think the moon landing was faked as well)

</Edit>



As I said in my first post, look at the Hurt report. Yes it was about motorcycle accidents, but helmet use can be directly coorelated because the helmets protect against the exact same fall.

From this page of the report

http://www.magpie.com/nycmoto/hurt.html


We get these conclusions...


44. Approximately 50% of the motorcycle riders in traffic were using safety helmets but only 40% of the accident-involved motorcycle riders were wearing helmets at the time of the accident.

45. Voluntary safety helmet use by those accident-involved motorcycle riders was lowest for untrained, uneducated, young motorcycle riders on hot days and short trips.

46. The most deadly injuries to the accident victims were injuries to the chest and head.

47. The use of the safety helmet is the single critical factor in the prevention of reduction of head injury; the safety helmet which complies with FMVSS 218 is a significantly effective injury countermeasure.

48. Safety helmet use caused no attenuation of critical traffic sounds, no limitation of precrash visual field, and no fatigue or loss of attention; no element of accident causation was related to helmet use.

49. FMVSS 218 provides a high level of protection in traffic accidents, and needs modification only to increase coverage at the back of the head and demonstrate impact protection of the front of full facial coverage helmets, and insure all adult sizes for traffic use are covered by the standard.

50. Helmeted riders and passengers showed significantly lower head and neck injury for all types of injury, at all levels of injury severity.

51. The increased coverage of the full facial coverage helmet increases protection, and significantly reduces face injuries.

52. There is no liability for neck injury by wearing a safety helmet; helmeted riders had less neck injuries than unhelmeted riders. Only four minor injuries were attributable to helmet use, and in each case the helmet prevented possible critical or fatal head injury.

53. Sixty percent of the motorcyclists were not wearing safety helmets at the time of the accident. Of this group, 26% said they did not wear helmets because they were uncomfortable and inconvenient, and 53% simply had no expectation of accident involvement.

So tell us all again how helmuts don't work after all of your extensive reasearch..:rolleyes:

I dont try to tell anyone to wear a helmet because they dont think it will help because as some of you know, touch every third person and you'll find an idiot.

http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/372/prymealblk0bp.jpg

This is my Traffic Jamming lid, while it mighn't save me in a head-on, my skills will ensure I can avoid it. This will however save my face in the case of a full on bite O' s**t sandwhich that occasionally presents itself. Back in the day a lid has definately saved me as I slap the back of my head on the ramp coming in fakie and blowing it, I can't imagine I'd be the sameperson without having had helmets. There are times when you're learnin' new stuff or pushing your limits in order to progress, a helmet is simply the order of the day. To suggest they don't help save lives is simply silly. I feel weird now riding without one.

I can't even fathom motorcycle driving without one.

I too would prefer to use such a fuller coverage helmet especially with chin protection. Only I stick with something below 300gms since most of the full face ones I've seen are 1000gms+ and I don't think my neck can handle so much weight after 2+ hrs. But the design definitely offers a lot more protection than today's standard lightweight aero shape.

In any case they're all a huge improvement over the padded leather 'hairnets' I first wore in competition. :)

This one weighs in at 980g. Once I start going back out on the longer rides, as opposed to buzzing about the city, I may look at a lighter one. remember in the 80's when necks would get broken because the uncovered foam would stick to the road? We have definately come a long way. The venting on mine is good up to around 30degrees celcius then it starts getting a little warm. Weren't those hairnets a scream, but they didn't wear hockey helmet then either....lol

From Bell Sports: http://www.bellbikehelmets.com/helmet101.asp

"HOW DO HELMETS WORK?
During a crash or fall, the helmet’s liner compresses to absorb impact energy so that the brain doesn’t move around the inside of the skull with as much force. This reduces the likelihood of the most common brain injuries."

NOTE: I see nothing about shatering foam being part of the deal - do you?

You are all free to believe anything you like. No one is saying that you can't go around wild eyed and screaming that 6 ounces of foam will save you from everything short of a Catapillar tractor head-on.

The facts are plain to those who are willing to look however. A competent medical statistician, D. Robinson has analyzed the data fully and demonstrated time and again the errors in the "studies" which demonstrated some statistical revelevence in helmet analysis.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Citation

"Because the large increases in wearing with helmet laws have not resulted in any obvious change over and above existing trends, helmet laws and major helmet promotion campaigns are likely to prove less beneficial and less cost effective than proven road-safety measures, such as enforcement of speed limits and drink-driving laws, education of motorists and cyclists and treatment of accident black spots and known hazards for cyclists."

http://www.cyclinghealth.org.nz/index.html

"The helmet law has diverted attention from proven safety measures.
The government has concentrated on enforcing an ineffective law rather than proven safety measures such as traffic calming, road engineering, skills training and cycling facilities. Helmetless cyclists in the Netherlands, Germany, and Denmark are much safer then helmetted cyclists in New Zealand. Countries considering introducing mandatory helmet laws look at New Zealand as evidence of why NOT to have a helmet law."

A Bicycling Mystery: Head Injuries Piling Up
New York Times, 29th July 2001 by Julian E Barnes

"The number of head injuries has increased 10 percent since 1991, even as bicycle helmet use has risen sharply, according to figures compiled by the Consumer Product Safety Commission. But given that ridership has declined over the same period, the rate of head injuries per active cyclist has increased 51 percent just as bicycle helmets have become widespread." (Note: The increase in risk per cyclist is 40 percent. The higher figure cited in the article represents a calculation error.)

Herein lies the rub - if you tell a legislator that ALL he has to do is pass a law requiring helmets in order to drive down the fatality rate he doesn't have to spend a dime on bicycles - he can simply demand that everyone wear a helmet and push the actual statistics under the rug when his laws have no real effects.

In the meantime speeders and even drivers purposely dangerously harassing bicyclists are allowed free rein. If that's your idea of safety then you can have it.

And if you want the final word here it is: Written by Brian Walker, one of the leading experts on the mechanics of helmets, and whose company Head Protection Evaluations is the principal UK test laboratory for helmets and head protection systems of all kinds http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html?1081

"In a recent Court case, a respected materials specialist argued that a cyclist who was brain injured from what was essentially a fall from their cycle, without any real forward momentum, would not have had their injuries reduced or prevented by a cycle helmet. This event involved contact against a flat tarmac surface with an impact energy potential of no more than 75 joules (his estimate, with which I was in full agreement). The court found in favour of his argument. So a High Court has decided that cycle helmets do not prevent injury even when falling from a cycle onto a flat surface, with little forward momentum. Cycle helmets will almost always perform much better against a flat surface than any other."

"In other legal cases with which I have been involved, where a cyclist has been in collision with a motorised vehicle, the impact energy potentials generated were of a level which outstripped those we use to certify Grand Prix drivers helmets. In some accidents at even moderate motor vehicle speeds, energy potential levels in hundreds of joules were present."

Again - I don't wish to tell people NOT to wear a helmet. I wish them to understand that wearing a helmet WILL NOT replace good judgement.

http://www.offitsface.com/biking-tricks.html

Here's articles on how to perform insane stunts like:

"The Back-Flip: Don't try this at home. This is some serious **** that should only be attempted by the most accomplished jumper or the most mentally ill hyperactive fool on the planet. Take precautions. Full face lid, shin pads, knee pads, mattress (Yes, mattress, trust me), or try it off a lip over a deep pond (Water is soft). (Difficulty rating 7/5)"

Do you suppose someone would try this without a helmet? I never saw most of the insane things I've seen until all of the "safety equipment" appeared on the scene. At the Sea Otter races each year there are some "trials" riders who set up a track that winds up into the air on a 18" wide track and then they make a jump off the 20'+ top onto a ramp. Shall we pretend that a helmet would help in case he missed the ramp?

No one can stop the loons from acting loony but the problem is that normally sane people watch them doing stuff like that and don't allow themselves to analyze what's really at stake.

Well obviously if you had better drivers and interactions with them there would be lass fatalities. That's kind of a no brainer. Many people have avoided serious injury from wearing one though. I've never thought that my helmet would do much for me in a serious bike/car tangle. In fact I wasn't wearing a helmet when I did my share of tangles with cars when messin'. I simply didn't hit my head. Of course a messengers riding skills can generally save them in these situations.

In that stat about rising head injuries despite helmet use in the eary 90's that sort of coincides with the mainstreaming of extreme riding, and it's explosion in popularity. There are ALOT more too-rad-for-mom-and-dad riders out there now. More trials, more trails, more dirt jumpin, more down hill. Is the explosion of this type of riding being represented in the stats?..... somehow I don't think so.

I dont think most belive if they wear a helmet they will be saved no matter what. I think most belive if they wear a helmet that it will reduce a worst head injury. Your not saying a helmet wont help at all,right?

My buddy's helmet sure helped when he stuck his head through a cager's windsheild.

Funny, they guy you quoted doesn't eve reach the same conclusion you do...



"My purpose is not to dissuade people who wish to, from wearing cycle helmets. They do, I promise, work a little better against a flat surface, than the Court decided in the case I cited above. After all the Snell B-90 standard called for four impacts on each test sample, two of which were tested against flat surfaces with an impact energy of 100 joules each. The tragedy is you cannot buy helmets to this standard any more. Manufacturers prefer the easier standard that they helped to write.

Rather my purpose is to illustrate that the whole cycle helmet issue contains many hidden issues of which most researchers are quite unaware. "




Yes helmet are a complicated issue.

The man you and I quoted above runs a helmet testing facility.

He is not a specialist in brain injury.

He is also mourning the loss of the "tougher" Snell standard. More impacts, higher energy. Many brain injury experts say the Snell standard is too tough, and to meet it a helmet must transfer too much energy to the brain in an impact most likly to be seen in a real world incident. Not too many crashes produce 4 100 joule impacts like the Snell standard makes the helmet protect against.




I will listen to the people that are and where my helmet an both types of bikes I ride (pedal and motor) as well as insist my kids where there not only on their bike, but rollerblades and skateboards as well.

Here's the problem: if I emphasis strongly that helmets do not change the statistics of serious and fatal head injuries people mistake that as implying that helmets are worthless. Even when I add entire paragraphs stating the obvious - that a helmet probably does help in most minor accidents which involve the head.

I don't see a DOWNSIDE of wearing a modern helmet. I just don't see any upside. Imagine how many helmets would be sold if they promoted them by saying "Helmets Help in Minor Accidents" instead of "Helmets Save Lives".

What is significant is that the real world performance of helmets has actually fallen considerably since the helmet industry saw that no one cares if they really work or not. Fact is that most people wear a helmet to look like a REAL(tm) Bicyclist. And since the fanatical helmet zealots don't hold the helmet industry accountable for the real drop in performance with the really cool looking helmets things will simply continue as they are until helmets grow too expensive for most people to buy.

The upside being that in a minor accident.....the type most bikers encounter, the helmet can drastically help prevent serious head injuries or death. Smacking your head on the ground from falling over or off your bike can kill you, helmets can prevent this.....thus helmets save lives.

Are we in danger of this becoming a "why didn't my coffee cup come with a hot liquids warning label" discussion?

Maybe you've missed ALL of the statistics I've noted?

Firstly - in minor accidents in which a helmet is likely to be ABLE to do some good barely 25% of them involve even a minor conk on the head.

As for your friend going through a windshield - I SAW a man on a motorcycle hit a car at high speed and go through the windshield. He killed the passenger and cut the hell out of himself but head injuries were almost nonexistant. He wasn't wearing a helmet since they didn't exist at that time.

You can't pretend that a helmet helped and you can't KNOW that it didn't. That's part of the problem and the only way we can assume anything is by using statistical analysis and unfortunately that shows that helmets seem to have IF ANY, only a minimal effect in a serious or fatal accident.

but you can't do that sort of analysis in a lab bouncing a helmet off the anvil.
why are non-bonk accidents even being counted here? Study the bonks and see if a helmet would have made the boo boo smaller or left joey talkin slow. I'm not concerned at all about accidents that don't involve the head. That is one lucky SOB on the motorcycle, what you described is a miracle, an anomaly if you will.

If you look around,you can find just as much info that says helmets are good. bhsi.org says helmets can help prevent up to 45-88% of cyclist brain injuries. Anyone that thinks wearing a helmet will make it worst is a wrong imo. I would hope nobody would tell a newbe not to use one.

So that means in 75% of the minor accidents the helmet wasn't used, so that data is irrelevant.
Now we do analysis on the remaining 25% as our baseline. Again I bring up the sheer increase in biking population as a suggestion as to why the head injuries are going up. The population of riders doing things that may end up in a bail has dramatically in creased in the last 15 years. I would imagine much more than the percentage of injury increases.

A 10% increase in head injuries as reported from hospitals can be seen as problemcatic but factor in a higher percentage increase in ridership and that 10 percent represents a decrease in overall head injuries.

http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/1372/dwyer1ku.jpg

[/trolling]

Mine is a bit heavy but it protects me very well.


http://www.fishmantroutman.com/images/helmet_1.JPG

^^^^snikker^^^^

NO, you just missed the results I posted from THE ONLY STUDY DONE INVOLVING ACTUAL ACCIDENTS.:rolleyes: