Just like wearing helmets, I think NASCAR was foolish to put that styrofoam stuff on the walls of the Daytona Speedway. There is obviously no science involved in that decision. Also there were millions blown on something that will just cause more injuries and doesn't do anything to absorb and distribute the impact at all. Again like helmets, it is just a marketing startegy to make people feel like they are protected while doing something dangerous.

That was my favorite part.

I did a quick survey of doctors here at the hospital, and given the choice, they overwhelmingly chose "torsion" over "bounce"

I'm so strapping a huge hunk of cheese to my head for my next ride. Will I be compromising my safety if I eat some of the cheese while I ride?

Back in the days of the lycra covered helmets, I think there was something to this. There were definitely anecdotal evidence of soft shell helmets and lycra covers grabbing on the pavement. Even then I doubt the twisting was worse than the impact from being un helmeted.

Today, with hard shell helmets, I haven't observed the torsion bit being a problem in my own crashes, or observing crashes, haven't heard any anecdotal stories with hard shell helmets, or seen recent data with hardshell helmets.

As someone who researches brain injuries and has sliced a lot of brains to measure the effects of trauma, I find the comments about helmets not helping or "harming" as lacking rudimentary thought. Allowing the head to bounce off the ground instead of with a foam padding in between can be mortal. And even if you have just a mild impact and then repeat that with another mild impact, the injury can sum up to a same level as a severe impact. The reason even associations like NFL have recently started to acknowledge the importance of head trauma and proper protection is because labs like ours have been producing a long list of papers over the years. Opinions, anecdotes, and personal expertise mean absolutely nothing. If you want to get educated about this issue, just read some scientific papers. You can start at PubMed. Or if it is too much of a headache, you can just stop misleading others and wear a damn helmet.

I had not heard about the Snell certification. I found out though that Snell was more relevant before the government standard came into existence in 1999. If you look here, you'll see that Snell is pretty much the same as the CPSC government standard. The only standard that's a little more rigorous is the Snell B-95. However, the difference is very small. Also, it is not that easy to find B-95 helmets anyway.

And of course, whether you're wearing a helmet or not, you can still die. That says nothing about the helmet's safety, just like dying in a very bad car accident does not mean that your car wasn't safe enough. If the forces are high enough, anything will break, be it titanium, a diamond, or your cranium. So just wear a helmet and drive safely, realizing that if you're in a bad enough crash, you will die, even if your chances of being brain damaged are lower if you're wearing a helmet. Helmets make it more of an all or nothing deal.

Anti-helmet arguments always reek of the same desperation as anti-seatbelt arguments, and always stem from the person trying to justify their desire not to wear one, rather than basing their decision on actual evidence. They come up with extravagant scenarios where it might not help, ignoring the far more common ones where it does.

Just so I'm clear, all I'm saying is that there may have been a reason to go from lycra covers, to plastic covers, not a reason not to wear helmets.

Have you ever crashed on your bike? I have, but I have never slipped in the shower. I prepare for the risks I feel are more likely. I also dont wear a helmet every time I ride my bike.

Luckily no one designs safety equipment out of cheese, or mine would have been eaten already. Why would we be talking about cheese when no one uses cheese when they design bike helmets to absorb impacts?

Sorry to hear about your broken collar bone, those suck, but not as bad as permanent brain damage would!

OP- Thats quite the damage photo.

Things I have learned from this thread:

1. You are supposed to wear a cup on your bike.

2. If you fall down at 15mph, wearing a helmet, and you get knocked out, the helmet worked.

3. You are supposed to have a cheese helmet (if it just smells like cheese, is that good enough?)

and now:

4. You are supposed to wear a helmet while driving.

I'll never get this "safety" thing figured out...

Dumb dumb dumb.

This was for the first time I've been in a serious crash since I separated my should during a mtn bike race in 1998. This fall was due to a driver doing the ol' "right-hook" maneuver. You can also see the "donut" I used for the next 4 weeks on my bruised coccyx. I've worked in an ER - wear a helmet, please.

of course helmets work. why would anyone think they don't?

Ask closetbiker

https://www.bikeforums.net/showthread...Style-part-n-1

Because you cant prove it with a study. Of course, there was a time when you couldn't prove cigarette smoking causes cancer with studies too.

They have epic threads and sequels in A&S? I need to get my ass down there for some fun!

Posting there is like hitting your head against the wall. It is as effective, and it only feels good when you stop.

just take your helmet, you'll be fine...

General Surgeon.
And yes-loads of trauma experience.
And no I do not wear a helmet, there simply is no data that is of ANY value in regards to bicycling.
And yes, I also am a motorcyclist and would never think about going any distance on a motorcycle without a full face helmet.
And yes, there is absolutely no data that does not show a marked reduction in head injury rates and deaths with motorcycle helmet use.
And yes, this absolutely is not true in bicycle helmet use.
Virtually any study supporting bicycle helmet use in reducing head injuries refer to the study by Thompson et. al. published 1989 in NEJM. The study is a terribly flawed one and yet remains the cornerstone of helmet safety.
When looking at whole population studies, bicycle helmet use not only fails to show ANY reduction in fatalities or deaths, some actually show an increase in death and injury rates.
This is in complete opposition to motorcycle helmet use where virtually every whole population study of helmet use shows marked reductions in death and head injury rates.
In bicycling, anecdote rules and in medicine, especially as applied to bicycle helmet use, anecdotes are of little value.

Glad to hear you survived in one piece. Helmet use is mandatory here (though not everyone obeys) and after seeing a few close calls, I'm of the opinion that they are worthwhile ... though I didn't wear one for the first 30 years of cycling.

Afew questions:

1) If I told you that you were going to overlap wheels and go over the handlebars of your bike at 28mph, would you prefer to do so with a helmet on or no Helmet?

2) Do you think Adrei Kivilev dies if he has a helmet on?

3) Do you disagree with the American Medical Association, made up of Physicians, who have also presumably reviewed the scientific literature before advocating helmet use?

Don't group all helmets under anti-helmets. Specifically anti-BICYCLE helmets. No one is arguing the value of motorcycle helmets. They work.
If bicycle helmets worked than why do we not see data to support this. When looking at countries that have mandated bicycle helmet use two things are clear. 1) bicycle use goes down. 2) there is no reduction in head injury or death rates. WHY NOT? Maybe the obvious is not so obvious. Maybe the intuited concepts of safety are false. In suggesting this is the same as anti seat belt positions I say wrong. No one is arguing that seat belts don't work. They do.

1) doesn't matter
2) don't know
3) yes for reasons stated. Whole population data do not support their statements. Physicians, as you realize I am sure, have often been wrong.

Wishing a speedy recovery ! and RIDE on ! get a new helmet =P