Wow - my last post, which I wrote before I saw this one (as we were writing our posts at the same time) talks about this very argument. I knew it would be deployed sooner or later.

"Come on officer, don't bother wearing that kevlar vest, it'll never protect you from a panzershrek..." Never mind that it WILL protect from 9mm hollowpoint rounds, a much more realistic scenario. How often do cyclists crash into metal posts with their faces, anyway?

So your solution would be to place the weight of an entire body behind a helmet shell and drop it? That would only be accurate if one fell such that 100% of their kinetic energy was absorbed by the head and supporting structures - which would require that ONLY the head hit the ground, and the rest of the body just flopped over after being brought to a complete halt relative to the ground. Imagine being strung up by your ankles from a height of 2m. and dropped head-first, your head and back supported straight with a 2x4 such that you couldn't even roll onto your shoulders at all. THEN your model would be realistic. But does this happen in the real world? Has it ever happened at all?

Helmets are designed to protect heads in the REAL world - not the fantasy world of the anti-helmet group, full of frequently-struck metal posts, riders who always land head-first, buses which hunt cyclists down on a regular basis, and so on.

Statistics are statistics. Interpretations of statistics are not facts.

Does anyone know if the helmet tests consider a cracked or broken helmet to be a failure? Or could such a helmet still pass the test? Of course the energy to create a crack is going to dissipate *some* energy, but I doubt it is enough to get a passing grade...

A strange thought just occured to me concerning the flexibility of the skull. In an unhelmeted crash the skull will be allowed to deform, which will dissipate some of the energy... ie reduce the acceleration of the head and brain. The problem here is if the impact is so great that the skull deforms to the point were it breaks. If your helmet fits pretty tightly though, your skull is constrained so you will lose this benefit, and are instead relying on the deformation of the helmet to reduce the brain acceleration on impact. So the helmet might do a good job of protecting your skull from fracture, but actually increase the trauma to your brain.

At any rate it blows me away that the qualifying test uses a solid headform instead of something that at least attempts to model a real head.

ITT: people with limited understanding of physics, engineering, and anatomy.

Rationalizing: How one convinces himself of being right, regardless of reality.

I'm not sure this thread is going anywhere. Everyone is pretty much set in their beliefs on this, and no amount of data is going to change that. Each person will interpret that data to fit his preconceived notions. I think I'm going to let this conversation go on it's merry way.

Thanks for the discussion, one and all.

Lets not get too distracted here. Helmets are specifically designed to prevent an acceleration of the brain to fatal levels, if your head happens to be dropped directly onto a hard surface from about bike level. This is what helmets are tested for and must prove that they accomplish in order to be qualified (and they just barely accomplish it)... except that the headform they use is solid and does not behave anything like a real head.

So besides the solid headform, does this resemble a typical bicycle crash? Most cyclists are moving forward, so there is an additional velocity vector besides straight down. This will put rotational forces on the head and neck, and since the helmet sticks out farther than the head, this component will be worse with a helmet than without. The brain is more fragile in sudden rotation than it is in impact. Also people who are crashing do not resemble heads falling from space, but rather they will naturally move to keep from hitting fragile parts of their bodies if possible. Since helmets stick out 1-3 inches, it is more difficult to avoid contact. And priority to protect our heads will be reduced if we believe it is protected by the helmet, so we are less motivated to avoid hitting it.

All this is speculation though, and it wouldn't be necessary to wonder about it if helmets showed a real improvement in injury or fatality rates... but unfortunately they don't.

Getting back to the helmet test... has anyone ever saw fit to model whether or not an *unhelmeted* head would pass the test... ie acceleration low enough that the person would survive? I'm just thinking of all the many many unhelmeted racers who have survived after falling and hitting their heads on pavement

Actually, I changed my mind about this a few years ago and I know several others who have as well. Data and evidence are irrelevant to those who are attached to strong opposing *beliefs* though... that is true in most facets of life.

Same here - I was totally convinced about 10 years ago that to ride without a helmet was to court suicide - in fact, until I moved to a country where bikes are ridden as transportation did I really start to question it. I did a lot of research before I ditched the helmet.

I never believed that, but a few years ago I certainly accepted on faith that a helmet must do some good. After all, they wouldn't pass government certification tests and be mandatory in so many places if there wasn't evidence of their effectiveness, would they? But then I actually looked at the studies and saw just how thin any evidence of any effectiveness in real world crashes was. If they actually provided meaningful protection in real world crashes we should see compelling evidence of reduced injuries in Australia, New Zealand, some provinces in Canada, and with the introduction of their use in racing events. But the evidence is so weak people have to resort to using selective and misrepresentative data to advocate their use.

The same applies to ski helmets, by the way. Many, many thousands of people have taken to wearing them with little real evidence that they're doing any good. But at least there aren't too many places trying to make them mandatory (yet).

"helmeted cyclists who are admitted are over-represented in the cycling population."... means for instance, that if 50% of cyclists in the community are wearing helmets and 75% of cyclists admitted to the hospital were wearing helmets, then helmet wearing cyclists are over represented at the hospital. Your comment about non-helmeted cyclists being less likely to go to the hospital even if their unjuries are the same is the most likely reason. It is no surprise then that non-helmeted riders *at the hospital* will have more severe injuries than helmeted riders. When they bother to look at non-head injuries also, they find that this is true. Helmet wearers tend to be more concerned about minor injuries, and are more affluent (ie better insurance).

One of the results also of my study was to SLOW DOWN. I ride with an understanding that if I fall - there is nothing really protecting me instead of a false sense of security I had before.

:roflmao: :lol: :roflmao:

I need to come over there as my brain has shrunk from all of this and I now have ample space for brain "moveage" too. :p

Real world data. I was hit by a car and went head first into a mountain. Helmet was broken into 4 pieces, I got a concussion. I still walk and talk and ride. Without the helmet my skull would have been in pieces. I wear a helmet. EOM

I mean this with all due respect to you Crtree, but come on! :rolleyes:

My helmet does NOT give ME a sense of false safety. Hell no. In fact, it reminds me to pay attention more and ride safer. I do NOT believe that by wearing it, I cannot be killed cycling, nor do I go taking crazy risks with it on that I wouldn't take without it.

As for others believing this, you nor anybody else in this thread (including rruff, who wins the award for statistic-loving) can prove statistically or anecdotally, or metaphysically or by using astrology, that "others" have this false sense of safety. How do you know that "others" don't have the same beliefs I do and in fact, do not ride around thinking that they have a super hero cape on every time they don a helmet?

That is merely a subjective assumption.

[QUOTE=rruff;6264693]I am happy to discuss any that you or anyone else wishes to use to bolster their claims.

BHSI has a lot of info, and some of it is even interesting. Here is one of the interesting bits:

"Motor vehicles are involved in 90-92 per cent of bicyclist deaths."

Now I understand a major reason why professional cycle racing (without helmets) was safer per mile than riding a bike in the US, even though they crash a lot more often.

As I read through the articles and reports on the BHSI site, I'm not seeing any credible evidence that shows helmets being effective. If you or anyone else is interested, please point out the ones that do.
They seem to be in the nature of "cyclists who crash often get head injuries, helmets prevent head injuries (no data, taken on faith), and so wearing helmets would prevent a sizeable number of head injuries." Or, they do a survey of hospital admissions were they discover that the riders admitted who were wearing helmets when they crashed, had less severe head injuries than those who weren't wearing helmets. But they fail to point out that helmeted cyclists who are admitted are over-represented in the cycling population... so either helmeted cyclists crash more often, or they are more likely to go to the hospital when they do.

I've never seen a pro-helmet article that attempts to explain why cycling injuries and fatalities do *not* go down when helmet use increases. IMO this is the definitive data because it covers the whole population, so extenuating variables are minimized.[/QUOTE]


I'm sorry, I am now making a rule...you cannot answer a question with a question. I asked YOU to provide credible evidence that YOUR statistics are valid and better than the statistics and relevant information provided by BHSI. I did not say that I wanted to discuss why I think BSHI is valid. So, play by the rules and why don't YOU start with your supporting evidence of superior statistics? As for half of what you wrote above, it is merely your subjective assumptions as well.

And here is where I have to allude back many pages in this thread to the brilliant member that suggested that you (or anyone who believes as you do - it wasn't personal), go slam your head into a cement floor at 20mph with a helmet on (take pics and provide info) and then repeat without a helmet (have the ER take pics and provide an accident report and post in a few months please, or leave instructions for a loved one to please post after the grieving process has ended...thank you).


:rolleyes: The helmet protected my head, rruff. Period. Again, I'm going to trust a medical professional who treats victims of head trauma over you. Sorry, but them there are the breaks.

Now, have fun with the experiment and know that you're doing better for mankind.

Merider - you are an exception then according to the insurance companies. If you wish, I will search out the references where the insurance companies discuss the natural tendency for people to go faster and take more risk because they are wearing protective gear.

This is really the intersection where we all are talking. Yes, helmets do provide a measure of protection (without getting into how much - at least it might save my white hair from being rubbed off) but, if this is true (and it is) why don't the stats show a marked improvement in injury / deaths?

The answer is simple - people started riding faster (or the bikes got better) and took more chances. This offset whatever protection the helmet was providing.

So - on the one hand, you are correct, helmets might help in some degree - but on the other - they have encouraged many to ride in a way that is more dangerous from a false assumption of the amount of protection that the helmet gives.

And yes - I was one who rode very fast and now I don't. I have decided that there is nothing wrong in using brakes when going down hill - and I have disc brakes, so I don't worry about brake fade. It appears you were wiser than I was.

I don't perceive that there is anything wrong with wearing a helmet if you wish - and gloves for you hands is good too (more likely to be used too!) As long as we fight for a good helmet and safer roads - no harm. But, if we stop with a silly piece of foam - it will be very sad, and in that case - yes, the helmets are doing more harm than good.

You have a good chance of being dead in both situations since a helmet is only rated for 12 MPH. Just saying.

Ok lets remove the life or death scenarios for a second. If I go down and slide across the pavement, with a helmet at least I won't be removing gravel from skull. Gloves won't prevent a broken wrist but I wear them to protect form tearing up hands if I go down. Again I can tell you from real world experience that a helmet minimized the injuries I suffered in a crash.

In this situation one flicks away the rocks embedded in head, combs ones hair and rides on.

Agreed - it will keep you looking prettier - in my case, that is a lost cause. One issue with the heavily vented ones is that they could catch on something - if so, your neck is gone. The discussions that I have read about designing a better helmet always mention all the pointy things and vents on the helmets as potential catch points - which could be very, very bad.

Yes, losing some scalp wouldn't be good - breaking your neck would be worse.

There is no action without an equal and opposite reaction it seems. The hair and scalp has a "break away" feature lacking on helmets. Yes, it will bleed like anything and look more than a little ugly later, but you won't be paralized.

By the way - if your kids wear helmets - make sure they take them off when they get off their bikes - there have been incidents of kids hanging themselves from their chin straps I am sorry to say.

By the way - we have been there many, many times on this debate - there is a permanent thread in A & S on this - as for me, I am done. Enjoy.

The blood actually helps hold the hair in place - and I found that out when wearing a helmet!

This assumes one has hair...

You trust insurance companies? Seriously? I don't and I would question where they derived at these findings. I still say those are assumptions based on loose data if any (I will concede that I haven't looked this up, nor will I, so I'll apologize now if mountains of supporting data does truly exist to this claim, but I doubt it).

As for the intersection at which we all seem jammed...something keeps getting overlooked (that or I really suck at trying to make a point). No one is claiming that helmets protect against ALL injuries, head or otherwise. None of you can break those statistics down to show exactly what was head related injuries/deaths in comparison to who was wearing a helmet and who wasn't. That data does not and never will exist, because as it's been pointed out, some die without the data being recorded properly, some never go to the hospital and some just get up, take their cracked, dented helmets off and walk away....just like I did.

I never have said that helmets are the panacea of all ills of the cyclist. We need so much more than a foam cap to protect us. Nor have I ever said we should take all non-wearing helmet riders out and burn them at the stake (in fact, I rode with a rider today who wasn't wearing a helmet and I didn't preach to him one bit). But what keeps bringing me back to this thread (until I finally just tire out, which eventually I will), is this bull**** about helmets causing more harm than good.

Get it straight...helmets don't do anything with respect to harm (regardless of rruff's version of OZ and how gravity and gymnastics are somehow manipulated and used in the moments of a crash). They are simply a small barrier that has, does and will continue to protect some heads. Others will crack like melons (I am in the camp of believing that heads can easily be injured and whether severe or not, these injuries can be and are lasting). Wear your helmet or don't. It's your head. I'll say it again, it's your head.

But please don't go around telling others NOT to wear a helmet because it doesn't do any good - something no one in here has proven in the least.

Well, I guess then you are proving my point that my helmet saved my life then, aren't you? Funny, mine held up, even though I hit the pavement at a speed of 16mph and up (I was traveling at 16mph when I went down, but considering the forward motion and my weight, don't ask, the men I was riding with think I hit at a good solid 20mph or faster, which means, my head hit between that 16-20mph).

I guess that little crappy piece of foam held up for me, now didn't it? :D

Of course, this is anecdotal. ;)


p.s. - Glad you were wearing a helmet!

Does anyone actually understand vectors? Did you hit something directly or are you talking about falling and sliding for a while? Your forward motion was 16 MPH, your downward motion was much less. Unless you hit your head on something and stopped cold - you did NOT hit at a speed of 20 MPH.

This is why it is so hard to discuss this - there is no understanding of engineering, forces, vectors and material science. Truly, it is pointless.

And as far as me telling people not to wear helmets - I haven't yet and don't plan on it. Who am I going to tell - the Costa Ricans? They don't wear helmets and are highly unlikely to start. Just like in the Netherlands.