Helmets Work!
03-01-11 | 10:30 AM
#101
still climbing
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 279
Likes: 0
From: Europe
Bikes: vintage steel bikes
But here is something to consider. As our head is "hurtling" to the ground, Our brain is gearing up to protect this head, we curl into a ball, our shoulders are wide enough to protect us from contact with the ground and all of these survival mechanisms are altered with strapping on a helmet. Our " head "(+helmut) is now larger, increasing the likelihood of head(+helmut) contact that otherwise may not have occurred. So is it really helping us or is it perhaps not so clear at all and in fact , may be hurting us.
03-01-11 | 10:38 AM
#102
The Weird Beard
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 8,554
Likes: 3
From: COS
Reading these threads is like banging one's head against a wall. It is apparent those who choose not to wear helmets while engaging in this ridiculous activity.
When my food is done in the oven, I remove it with a potholder on my hand. I know it's hot, and I plan accordingly. I also know that while riding a bike in traffic that my chances of being de-saddled increase, so I wear a helmet. I've been endoed by a rabbit before, something I didn't plan on. Glad I had my helmet. Be it a car or wildlife, I will wear a helmet. No sense in taking something hot out of the oven barehanded.
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go put on my helmet before reading further.
When my food is done in the oven, I remove it with a potholder on my hand. I know it's hot, and I plan accordingly. I also know that while riding a bike in traffic that my chances of being de-saddled increase, so I wear a helmet. I've been endoed by a rabbit before, something I didn't plan on. Glad I had my helmet. Be it a car or wildlife, I will wear a helmet. No sense in taking something hot out of the oven barehanded.
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go put on my helmet before reading further.
03-01-11 | 10:52 AM
#104
Senior Member
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 1,215
Likes: 0
You could get a much larger margin of safety by not bicycling or snowboarding at all. By choosing to snowboard you are choosing to put yourself at risk. Of course there is some trade off that you get enjoyment out of it.
Similarly, there is a trade-off to owning and wearing a helmet. Many have argued that there is no reason to ever not wear a helmet. But these people do not sleep or walk with helmets on, so obviously there is a downsides to having a helmet which is outweighed by the risk of certain activities. Which activities fall on which side of the risk/reward cutoff is certainly a personal and subjective matter. Personally, I find that the freedom of not lugging around a head-sized object to be worth quite a bit to me.
What gets me is how the argument always somehow ends up on helmets. The argument usually goes along the lines of: "Helmets are safer, so wear a helmet", which does not take into account the other half of the equation. Not bicycling is safer, so don't bicycle. Face shields are safer, so wear a face shield. How about just riding at 12 mph instead of 20? I bet that would more than cut your risk of any accident by a huge margin.
I would disagree with the statements that helmets don't work. But I would often agree with the statement that helmets are inconsistently applied. Nobody wears a helmet walking or driving, but the head injury risk is in the same range as bicycling, and probably in specific environments bicycling can be safer than walking.
I also believe that helmets are not the greatest or easiest risk mitigator for cyclists. There are a lot of habits and decisions that can easily reduce a cyclists risk much more than a helmet. But unfortunately these are not visible on your head. Few people talk about how their mirror, or braking skills or situational awareness saved them from permanent vegetable status.
I also agree with the statement that helmet saves are over-reported. As I pointed earlier, no matter the outcome, the helmet will always appear to have worked, even if it were made of wet paper.
I also think that you are more likely to hit a helmet than you are to hit a bare head in a crash on flat ground. Your body is designed to minimize hitting your head in a fall. Falling from a bicycle on a flat surface like a road, I have always hit the ground shoulder first, or hand then shoulder, or hip/butt first and then shoulder. There are of course exceptions, but I bet that %80 of crashes end up taking a hit on your shoulder before your head if you hit your head at all. In general your neck is relatively flexible so that your head fits into your shoulder or gets pushed into your chest and cannot directly strike the ground. It might glance it, but it won't straight up bounce off the ground. Add an inch of helmet to your head and your head now sticks out around your shoulder and neck and it is much easier to get a direct impact. I believe that the resulting destroyed helmet leads many to say that their skull would surely have been shattered otherwise. As far as I know, there haven't been any studies on this though.
Similarly, there is a trade-off to owning and wearing a helmet. Many have argued that there is no reason to ever not wear a helmet. But these people do not sleep or walk with helmets on, so obviously there is a downsides to having a helmet which is outweighed by the risk of certain activities. Which activities fall on which side of the risk/reward cutoff is certainly a personal and subjective matter. Personally, I find that the freedom of not lugging around a head-sized object to be worth quite a bit to me.
What gets me is how the argument always somehow ends up on helmets. The argument usually goes along the lines of: "Helmets are safer, so wear a helmet", which does not take into account the other half of the equation. Not bicycling is safer, so don't bicycle. Face shields are safer, so wear a face shield. How about just riding at 12 mph instead of 20? I bet that would more than cut your risk of any accident by a huge margin.
I would disagree with the statements that helmets don't work. But I would often agree with the statement that helmets are inconsistently applied. Nobody wears a helmet walking or driving, but the head injury risk is in the same range as bicycling, and probably in specific environments bicycling can be safer than walking.
I also believe that helmets are not the greatest or easiest risk mitigator for cyclists. There are a lot of habits and decisions that can easily reduce a cyclists risk much more than a helmet. But unfortunately these are not visible on your head. Few people talk about how their mirror, or braking skills or situational awareness saved them from permanent vegetable status.
I also agree with the statement that helmet saves are over-reported. As I pointed earlier, no matter the outcome, the helmet will always appear to have worked, even if it were made of wet paper.
I also think that you are more likely to hit a helmet than you are to hit a bare head in a crash on flat ground. Your body is designed to minimize hitting your head in a fall. Falling from a bicycle on a flat surface like a road, I have always hit the ground shoulder first, or hand then shoulder, or hip/butt first and then shoulder. There are of course exceptions, but I bet that %80 of crashes end up taking a hit on your shoulder before your head if you hit your head at all. In general your neck is relatively flexible so that your head fits into your shoulder or gets pushed into your chest and cannot directly strike the ground. It might glance it, but it won't straight up bounce off the ground. Add an inch of helmet to your head and your head now sticks out around your shoulder and neck and it is much easier to get a direct impact. I believe that the resulting destroyed helmet leads many to say that their skull would surely have been shattered otherwise. As far as I know, there haven't been any studies on this though.
03-01-11 | 10:56 AM
#105
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
From: 44.0942-73.366791
Adjust you ball cap.....do you think about which hand, which fingers, where to hold the brim? No, you just do it thought muscle memory. Same deal with falling but a vastly more helpful ability. Athletic people tend to fall in a controlled manner while non-athletic people go ker-splat.
03-01-11 | 11:25 AM
#106
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 402
Likes: 2
Bikes: CAAD10 Rival
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.
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.
But it is , for all the reasons stated above. If it is so obvious than why are the whole population studies so radically different for bicycle and motorcycle helmets. Why is the data so solid for motorcycle helmets and so lacking in bicycle helmets. Perhaps what is "so obvious" is not in fact , obvious at all. I wear a motorcycle helmet....always. I wear a seat belt always. The bicycle helmet is an accessory foisted upon us by fears not grounded in reality or fact .
1. As a general surgeon, you do not deal nor are qualified to deal with head trauma. Neurosurgeons and neurologists are for this purpose.
2. As a doctor, it is unlikely that you do any bench research and hence you have no personal expertise in head injuries. If you are doing research, you can correct me.
Nevertheless, as someone educated in the sciences, I expect that when you claim helmets 1.don't work and 2.cause injury that you have read sufficient data that has formed your well-informed position. As such, the only thing that matters here is research. I would like to ask you if you could kindly share all the papers written on the topic that support your two claims. I am very open-minded and would love to see any data that suggests helmets do not work, no matter what the application is.
I would also like to take the liberty and address a few point you made. When you are reading a study that says helmet legislation increased the number of fatalities, you must tread very carefully to interpret that data. I did see a few articles like that as well. However, there is a big difference between a helmet causing those increased fatalities and the number of people who wear helmets and think they are invincible, therefore start riding more aggressively. The latter has been shown to happen. That is more of a psychological effect than anything related to helmets. Furthermore, when you read that this or that legislation did not decrease helmet fatalities, you must also try to see whether the study actually looked into the rate of helmet use. Legislation means nothing if people are going to ignore the law and not wear helmets or if they are going to wear helmets and assume they can do all types of dangerous maneuvers.
Here are a few, quick citations for you:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18646128
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8571008
03-01-11 | 12:59 PM
#107
Senior Member
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 1,099
Likes: 3
From: Madison, WI
You could get a much larger margin of safety by not bicycling or snowboarding at all. By choosing to snowboard you are choosing to put yourself at risk. Of course there is some trade off that you get enjoyment out of it.
Similarly, there is a trade-off to owning and wearing a helmet. Many have argued that there is no reason to ever not wear a helmet. But these people do not sleep or walk with helmets on, so obviously there is a downsides to having a helmet which is outweighed by the risk of certain activities. Which activities fall on which side of the risk/reward cutoff is certainly a personal and subjective matter. Personally, I find that the freedom of not lugging around a head-sized object to be worth quite a bit to me.
What gets me is how the argument always somehow ends up on helmets. The argument usually goes along the lines of: "Helmets are safer, so wear a helmet", which does not take into account the other half of the equation. Not bicycling is safer, so don't bicycle. Face shields are safer, so wear a face shield. How about just riding at 12 mph instead of 20? I bet that would more than cut your risk of any accident by a huge margin.
I would disagree with the statements that helmets don't work. But I would often agree with the statement that helmets are inconsistently applied. Nobody wears a helmet walking or driving, but the head injury risk is in the same range as bicycling, and probably in specific environments bicycling can be safer than walking.
I also believe that helmets are not the greatest or easiest risk mitigator for cyclists. There are a lot of habits and decisions that can easily reduce a cyclists risk much more than a helmet. But unfortunately these are not visible on your head. Few people talk about how their mirror, or braking skills or situational awareness saved them from permanent vegetable status.
I also agree with the statement that helmet saves are over-reported. As I pointed earlier, no matter the outcome, the helmet will always appear to have worked, even if it were made of wet paper.
I also think that you are more likely to hit a helmet than you are to hit a bare head in a crash on flat ground. Your body is designed to minimize hitting your head in a fall. Falling from a bicycle on a flat surface like a road, I have always hit the ground shoulder first, or hand then shoulder, or hip/butt first and then shoulder. There are of course exceptions, but I bet that %80 of crashes end up taking a hit on your shoulder before your head if you hit your head at all. In general your neck is relatively flexible so that your head fits into your shoulder or gets pushed into your chest and cannot directly strike the ground. It might glance it, but it won't straight up bounce off the ground. Add an inch of helmet to your head and your head now sticks out around your shoulder and neck and it is much easier to get a direct impact. I believe that the resulting destroyed helmet leads many to say that their skull would surely have been shattered otherwise. As far as I know, there haven't been any studies on this though.
Similarly, there is a trade-off to owning and wearing a helmet. Many have argued that there is no reason to ever not wear a helmet. But these people do not sleep or walk with helmets on, so obviously there is a downsides to having a helmet which is outweighed by the risk of certain activities. Which activities fall on which side of the risk/reward cutoff is certainly a personal and subjective matter. Personally, I find that the freedom of not lugging around a head-sized object to be worth quite a bit to me.
What gets me is how the argument always somehow ends up on helmets. The argument usually goes along the lines of: "Helmets are safer, so wear a helmet", which does not take into account the other half of the equation. Not bicycling is safer, so don't bicycle. Face shields are safer, so wear a face shield. How about just riding at 12 mph instead of 20? I bet that would more than cut your risk of any accident by a huge margin.
I would disagree with the statements that helmets don't work. But I would often agree with the statement that helmets are inconsistently applied. Nobody wears a helmet walking or driving, but the head injury risk is in the same range as bicycling, and probably in specific environments bicycling can be safer than walking.
I also believe that helmets are not the greatest or easiest risk mitigator for cyclists. There are a lot of habits and decisions that can easily reduce a cyclists risk much more than a helmet. But unfortunately these are not visible on your head. Few people talk about how their mirror, or braking skills or situational awareness saved them from permanent vegetable status.
I also agree with the statement that helmet saves are over-reported. As I pointed earlier, no matter the outcome, the helmet will always appear to have worked, even if it were made of wet paper.
I also think that you are more likely to hit a helmet than you are to hit a bare head in a crash on flat ground. Your body is designed to minimize hitting your head in a fall. Falling from a bicycle on a flat surface like a road, I have always hit the ground shoulder first, or hand then shoulder, or hip/butt first and then shoulder. There are of course exceptions, but I bet that %80 of crashes end up taking a hit on your shoulder before your head if you hit your head at all. In general your neck is relatively flexible so that your head fits into your shoulder or gets pushed into your chest and cannot directly strike the ground. It might glance it, but it won't straight up bounce off the ground. Add an inch of helmet to your head and your head now sticks out around your shoulder and neck and it is much easier to get a direct impact. I believe that the resulting destroyed helmet leads many to say that their skull would surely have been shattered otherwise. As far as I know, there haven't been any studies on this though.
The whole point of protecting yourself during risky activities is to minimize that risk. You mention drivers, but what do drivers do when they're partaking in an activity with increased risk? They wear helmets. Of course, if the world was perfect, they wouldn't need them. Why do skydivers have backup parachutes? In a perfect world, the first wouldn't fail, and it's just added bulk and weight.
The world isn't perfect. Sometimes, when you're doing something risky, things happen. People with brains think that giving themselves reasonable protections when, not if, that happens is a good idea.
03-01-11 | 01:00 PM
#108
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 720
Likes: 0
From: Overland Park, KS and Denver, CO
Bikes: 2008 Felt F5 w/ SRAM Force, 2002 Giant OCR2, Specialized Stumpjumper M2 Comp
First of all, I would just like to say "I told you so" about this thread devolving into this. Secondly, I present this video as evidence that it can be very hard to just "curl up in a ball and protect your head with your shoulder" in a crash. Sometimes things happen very fast and the forces involved can send you pretty out of control. I've posted this video before so I apologize if you've seen it already. Watch the guy on the outside of this corner. He is #329 and is wearing a blue and orange kit. He does his best to avoid the wreck but his back wheel gets hit and he is sent flying off his bike. When he hits the ground, his head is snapped back and makes pretty hard contact with the ground. If he had not been wearing a helmet, it looks extremely unlikely that his head would not have contacted the ground. He sent me a message after I put he video up saying he was fine and his helmed was broken and he needed a new one. Actually, just read the message from him and his direct quote was "My Giros Ionos helmet is trashed." So, that means the helmet absolutely absorbed some of the impact when it hit the pavement. Additionally, the helmet will prevent soft tissue damage/road rash on the head which isn't necessarily a life threatening injury, but it's a good added bonus. Anyway, here's the video. Best to watch it in HD.
Last edited by Copperhed51; 03-01-11 at 01:07 PM.
03-01-11 | 01:04 PM
#109
Senior Member
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 1,099
Likes: 3
From: Madison, WI
03-01-11 | 01:42 PM
#110
You gonna eat that?
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 14,917
Likes: 543
From: Fort Worth, Texas Church of Hopeful Uncertainty
Bikes: 1966 Raleigh DL-1 Tourist, 1973 Schwinn Varsity, 1983 Raleigh Marathon, 1994 Nishiki Sport XRS
These two guys just fell off their bikes. Which one would you rather be?
__________________
I stop for people / whose right of way I honor / but not for no one.
Originally Posted by bragi 
"However, it's never a good idea to overgeneralize."
I stop for people / whose right of way I honor / but not for no one.
Originally Posted by bragi "However, it's never a good idea to overgeneralize."
03-01-11 | 01:45 PM
#111
Certifiable Bike "Expert"
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 5,648
Likes: 1
What if I don't want to do something risky, I just want to ride my bike?
03-01-11 | 01:49 PM
#112
The space coyote lied.
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 48,727
Likes: 10,984
From: dusk 'til dawn.
Bikes: everywhere
I think cat 5 crit racers are way under-protected if they're just wearing a standard bicycle helmet.
03-01-11 | 01:52 PM
#113
Senior Member
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 1,099
Likes: 3
From: Madison, WI
Some forms of cycling are risky, that's the point. If you don't want to take risks, you're welcome to ride around a padded room with training wheels. The rest of us realize there are risks we take by the very nature of road cycling, and want to minimize those risks without giving up what we like doing.
03-01-11 | 01:58 PM
#114
The space coyote lied.
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 48,727
Likes: 10,984
From: dusk 'til dawn.
Bikes: everywhere
Some forms of cycling are risky, that's the point. If you don't want to take risks, you're welcome to ride around a padded room with training wheels. The rest of us realize there are risks we take by the very nature of road cycling, and want to minimize those risks without giving up what we like doing.
03-01-11 | 02:09 PM
#115
Descends like a rock
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 4,034
Likes: 16
From: Fort Worth, TX
Bikes: Scott Foil, Surly Pacer
Since that foam cheese thing was neither designed to function as a safety device nor actually made of cheese, it doesn't really factor in.
03-01-11 | 02:31 PM
#116
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
From: 44.0942-73.366791
Some forms of cycling are risky, that's the point. If you don't want to take risks, you're welcome to ride around a padded room with training wheels. The rest of us realize there are risks we take by the very nature of road cycling, and want to minimize those risks without giving up what we like doing.
03-01-11 | 02:40 PM
#117
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
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.
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.
Sorry, I should have used the :sarcasm: :eyeroll: emoticon when I wrote that so you know it was not a genuine belief..at least not with me.
I've worn a helmet, from motorcycles, to bicycles for 30+yrs...
I ski also...friend of mine as I was making some turns came up from behind and I cut across and he clipped the back of my skis....I went highside...then backward and fell about 30mph...on a groomed run. The back of my head of course when I finally went down hit the ground...it was a pretty good whack...after 15 seconds of figuring out if I was ok...jumped up, got my gear and went on my way. Helmet took the blow and didn't break...but the probability of my head hitting the groomed/packed snow as hard as it did withouth, would have likely concussed or KOd me. I know how a helmet actually works and functions in a crash having experienced them. Are they perfect? No. Do they indeed help often positively...more often than not.
Last edited by techlogik; 03-01-11 at 02:43 PM.
03-01-11 | 04:07 PM
#120
Still can't climb
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 23,024
Likes: 6
From: Limey in Taiwan
how can people get so passionate about not wearing helmets.
__________________
coasting, few quotes are worthy of him, and of those, even fewer printable in a family forum......quote 3alarmer
No @coasting, you should stay 100% as you are right now, don't change a thing....quote Heathpack
coasting, few quotes are worthy of him, and of those, even fewer printable in a family forum......quote 3alarmer
No @coasting, you should stay 100% as you are right now, don't change a thing....quote Heathpack
03-01-11 | 04:47 PM
#121
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 0
From: Orange County, CA
Bikes: Fuji
1 - I don't care if you chose to wear a helmet or not
2 - I wear one to enforce my kids wearing theirs, which is easier if I'm doing it too
With that said...
My main complaint about bicycle helmets is they offer best protection on the first impact. Just because my grape bounced off the ground, it doesn't mean I'm done crashing and banging my head off the ground.
If you are eating your cheese helmet, I recommend 2 blocks all around.... 
Motorcycle helmets seem to have multiple impacts designed into them per crash, bicycle helmets have 1. Seat belts are designed to keep you in place through a multiple collision incident.
I'm fascinated this thread is 4 pages (at the time of my commenting) and hasn't been moved yet.
It is fascinating how worked up both sides get over a choice....
2 - I wear one to enforce my kids wearing theirs, which is easier if I'm doing it too
With that said...
Glad it protected your melon. As far as helmets working or not, they work with basic physics principles. They are designed to take an impact load and distribute the force vector in many different directions, thus dissipating the energy and at the same time redirecting the energy.
Helmets can fail for different reasons as well: They are only so good at dealing with secondary and tertiary impacts. The impact can simply overwhelm the helmet's ability to dissipate and redirect the force. The point of impact is so narrow that it slices or punctures though the helmet (or air holes).
They can also fail because the foam inside has begun to break down and it will crush too quickly. Another issue with age that affects secondary impacts is when the adhesive that holds the shell to the foam breaks down, thus hurting the helmet's ability to hold together after the first impact.
Helmets can fail for different reasons as well: They are only so good at dealing with secondary and tertiary impacts. The impact can simply overwhelm the helmet's ability to dissipate and redirect the force. The point of impact is so narrow that it slices or punctures though the helmet (or air holes).
They can also fail because the foam inside has begun to break down and it will crush too quickly. Another issue with age that affects secondary impacts is when the adhesive that holds the shell to the foam breaks down, thus hurting the helmet's ability to hold together after the first impact.
It's you in this case. The time I spent in college working at a lab that studied head injuries in motorcycle accidents and testing the effectiveness of Motorcycle and bicycle helmets is what I'm speaking from.
As somebody mentioned earlier, this is just like the seat belt argument in terms of "rational" thought. Like the CEO of a helmet company once said "It's obvious that it's better to have something between your head and the ground when you hit. That's not even worth arguing about."
As somebody mentioned earlier, this is just like the seat belt argument in terms of "rational" thought. Like the CEO of a helmet company once said "It's obvious that it's better to have something between your head and the ground when you hit. That's not even worth arguing about."
What irks me most is the public attitude about helmets. It is basically treated as the first and last word in safety, responsibility, and whether you are a good person or not.
If you are not wearing a helmet, expect drivers to give you lectures at stop lights, expect yells of "Where's your helmet?!" from complete strangers. I know people who will not ride with someone who doesn't wear a helmet. Online you mostly get comments like, you are stupid, or you are guaranteed to end up brain damaged if you don't wear a helmet. I mostly think of a helmet as an anti-heckling device nowadays.
If you want to voice your opinions about other peoples' risk and choices, start heckling fat people on the street. I have never heard of someone refusing to ride with a cyclist that chooses to eat red meat because they might have a heart attack.
If you are not wearing a helmet, expect drivers to give you lectures at stop lights, expect yells of "Where's your helmet?!" from complete strangers. I know people who will not ride with someone who doesn't wear a helmet. Online you mostly get comments like, you are stupid, or you are guaranteed to end up brain damaged if you don't wear a helmet. I mostly think of a helmet as an anti-heckling device nowadays.
If you want to voice your opinions about other peoples' risk and choices, start heckling fat people on the street. I have never heard of someone refusing to ride with a cyclist that chooses to eat red meat because they might have a heart attack.
It is fascinating how worked up both sides get over a choice....
03-01-11 | 04:56 PM
#122
The space coyote lied.
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 48,727
Likes: 10,984
From: dusk 'til dawn.
Bikes: everywhere
It certainly is, although I was RATHER worked up about it when a municipality near me passed a helmet law. Since it seems the cops aren't really going to enforce it much I've calmed down and things are back to normal. I'll go militant again if I ever get stopped for no lid.
Wore a helmet for every ride 1988-1998 (or so). Only for certain rides since then.
Wore a helmet for every ride 1988-1998 (or so). Only for certain rides since then.
03-01-11 | 05:52 PM
#123
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 11,222
Likes: 30
From: South Bend IN
Bikes: 1976 FRESCHI, 2004 Crumpton.
I wear a helmet sometimes - like when training, group rides, etc - . If it were for my personal experience, I wouldn't bother at all about wearing one. In my only serious accident in nearly 50 years of riding (hit from behind by a drunk driver) I wasn't wearing a helmet, and had no head injuries except for some road rash. To be honest, I had a mild concussion but without any sequels. A helmet wouldn't have prevented my broken shoulder blade, badly sprained ankle and lots of body road rash.
I was wearing a cycling cap, but didn't start a thread by the title "Caps work!".
I was wearing a cycling cap, but didn't start a thread by the title "Caps work!".
Exactly my point.
03-01-11 | 06:00 PM
#124
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 11,222
Likes: 30
From: South Bend IN
Bikes: 1976 FRESCHI, 2004 Crumpton.
First, a few points:
1. As a general surgeon, you do not deal nor are qualified to deal with head trauma. Neurosurgeons and neurologists are for this purpose.
2. As a doctor, it is unlikely that you do any bench research and hence you have no personal expertise in head injuries. If you are doing research, you can correct me.
Nevertheless, as someone educated in the sciences, I expect that when you claim helmets 1.don't work and 2.cause injury that you have read sufficient data that has formed your well-informed position. As such, the only thing that matters here is research. I would like to ask you if you could kindly share all the papers written on the topic that support your two claims. I am very open-minded and would love to see any data that suggests helmets do not work, no matter what the application is.
I would also like to take the liberty and address a few point you made. When you are reading a study that says helmet legislation increased the number of fatalities, you must tread very carefully to interpret that data. I did see a few articles like that as well. However, there is a big difference between a helmet causing those increased fatalities and the number of people who wear helmets and think they are invincible, therefore start riding more aggressively. The latter has been shown to happen. That is more of a psychological effect than anything related to helmets. Furthermore, when you read that this or that legislation did not decrease helmet fatalities, you must also try to see whether the study actually looked into the rate of helmet use. Legislation means nothing if people are going to ignore the law and not wear helmets or if they are going to wear helmets and assume they can do all types of dangerous maneuvers.
Here are a few, quick citations for you:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18646128
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8571008
1. As a general surgeon, you do not deal nor are qualified to deal with head trauma. Neurosurgeons and neurologists are for this purpose.
2. As a doctor, it is unlikely that you do any bench research and hence you have no personal expertise in head injuries. If you are doing research, you can correct me.
Nevertheless, as someone educated in the sciences, I expect that when you claim helmets 1.don't work and 2.cause injury that you have read sufficient data that has formed your well-informed position. As such, the only thing that matters here is research. I would like to ask you if you could kindly share all the papers written on the topic that support your two claims. I am very open-minded and would love to see any data that suggests helmets do not work, no matter what the application is.
I would also like to take the liberty and address a few point you made. When you are reading a study that says helmet legislation increased the number of fatalities, you must tread very carefully to interpret that data. I did see a few articles like that as well. However, there is a big difference between a helmet causing those increased fatalities and the number of people who wear helmets and think they are invincible, therefore start riding more aggressively. The latter has been shown to happen. That is more of a psychological effect than anything related to helmets. Furthermore, when you read that this or that legislation did not decrease helmet fatalities, you must also try to see whether the study actually looked into the rate of helmet use. Legislation means nothing if people are going to ignore the law and not wear helmets or if they are going to wear helmets and assume they can do all types of dangerous maneuvers.
Here are a few, quick citations for you:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18646128
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8571008
2) No personal experience expertise in head injuries. Absolutely, completely, totally wrong. From scalping injuries, to skull fx's to Oh why bother. Clearly you are clueless about what our experience is.
Your last point , however is valid. Though some posit the torsional injury from increase in head diameter it is also true that more aggressive riding may be part of the problem in wearing helmets.
03-01-11 | 06:09 PM
#125
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
You could get a much larger margin of safety by not bicycling or snowboarding at all. By choosing to snowboard you are choosing to put yourself at risk. Of course there is some trade off that you get enjoyment out of it.
Similarly, there is a trade-off to owning and wearing a helmet. Many have argued that there is no reason to ever not wear a helmet. But these people do not sleep or walk with helmets on, so obviously there is a downsides to having a helmet which is outweighed by the risk of certain activities. Which activities fall on which side of the risk/reward cutoff is certainly a personal and subjective matter. Personally, I find that the freedom of not lugging around a head-sized object to be worth quite a bit to me.
What gets me is how the argument always somehow ends up on helmets. The argument usually goes along the lines of: "Helmets are safer, so wear a helmet", which does not take into account the other half of the equation. Not bicycling is safer, so don't bicycle. Face shields are safer, so wear a face shield. How about just riding at 12 mph instead of 20? I bet that would more than cut your risk of any accident by a huge margin.
I would disagree with the statements that helmets don't work. But I would often agree with the statement that helmets are inconsistently applied. Nobody wears a helmet walking or driving, but the head injury risk is in the same range as bicycling, and probably in specific environments bicycling can be safer than walking.
I also believe that helmets are not the greatest or easiest risk mitigator for cyclists. There are a lot of habits and decisions that can easily reduce a cyclists risk much more than a helmet. But unfortunately these are not visible on your head. Few people talk about how their mirror, or braking skills or situational awareness saved them from permanent vegetable status.
I also agree with the statement that helmet saves are over-reported. As I pointed earlier, no matter the outcome, the helmet will always appear to have worked, even if it were made of wet paper.
I also think that you are more likely to hit a helmet than you are to hit a bare head in a crash on flat ground. Your body is designed to minimize hitting your head in a fall. Falling from a bicycle on a flat surface like a road, I have always hit the ground shoulder first, or hand then shoulder, or hip/butt first and then shoulder. There are of course exceptions, but I bet that %80 of crashes end up taking a hit on your shoulder before your head if you hit your head at all. In general your neck is relatively flexible so that your head fits into your shoulder or gets pushed into your chest and cannot directly strike the ground. It might glance it, but it won't straight up bounce off the ground. Add an inch of helmet to your head and your head now sticks out around your shoulder and neck and it is much easier to get a direct impact. I believe that the resulting destroyed helmet leads many to say that their skull would surely have been shattered otherwise. As far as I know, there haven't been any studies on this though.
Similarly, there is a trade-off to owning and wearing a helmet. Many have argued that there is no reason to ever not wear a helmet. But these people do not sleep or walk with helmets on, so obviously there is a downsides to having a helmet which is outweighed by the risk of certain activities. Which activities fall on which side of the risk/reward cutoff is certainly a personal and subjective matter. Personally, I find that the freedom of not lugging around a head-sized object to be worth quite a bit to me.
What gets me is how the argument always somehow ends up on helmets. The argument usually goes along the lines of: "Helmets are safer, so wear a helmet", which does not take into account the other half of the equation. Not bicycling is safer, so don't bicycle. Face shields are safer, so wear a face shield. How about just riding at 12 mph instead of 20? I bet that would more than cut your risk of any accident by a huge margin.
I would disagree with the statements that helmets don't work. But I would often agree with the statement that helmets are inconsistently applied. Nobody wears a helmet walking or driving, but the head injury risk is in the same range as bicycling, and probably in specific environments bicycling can be safer than walking.
I also believe that helmets are not the greatest or easiest risk mitigator for cyclists. There are a lot of habits and decisions that can easily reduce a cyclists risk much more than a helmet. But unfortunately these are not visible on your head. Few people talk about how their mirror, or braking skills or situational awareness saved them from permanent vegetable status.
I also agree with the statement that helmet saves are over-reported. As I pointed earlier, no matter the outcome, the helmet will always appear to have worked, even if it were made of wet paper.
I also think that you are more likely to hit a helmet than you are to hit a bare head in a crash on flat ground. Your body is designed to minimize hitting your head in a fall. Falling from a bicycle on a flat surface like a road, I have always hit the ground shoulder first, or hand then shoulder, or hip/butt first and then shoulder. There are of course exceptions, but I bet that %80 of crashes end up taking a hit on your shoulder before your head if you hit your head at all. In general your neck is relatively flexible so that your head fits into your shoulder or gets pushed into your chest and cannot directly strike the ground. It might glance it, but it won't straight up bounce off the ground. Add an inch of helmet to your head and your head now sticks out around your shoulder and neck and it is much easier to get a direct impact. I believe that the resulting destroyed helmet leads many to say that their skull would surely have been shattered otherwise. As far as I know, there haven't been any studies on this though.
Bravo! Says everything I would say. I would only add that I, in most circumstances, do not wear a helmet. I assess the ride I am going to take and make a decision as to whether or not I will wear one. If I am going to be riding in a pack of riders, or in a large volume of automotive traffic, I will probably wear one. However, my normal rides are on mainly country or rural roads. I trust in MY ability to ride a bike competently, but when I am exposed to others(cyclists or cars) I don't trust their ability to not cause a fall. If I am hit on a rural road, the speed I would be hit at will be significantly higher than any cycling helmet would be rated for anyways, so in my mind it would not be of any help.
The main reason I felt the need to post is this though, people talk about "anti helmeters" as getting too angry or passionate about this subject. It has nothing to do with the helmet per se, it has to do with the constant need for others to tell us what we already know "Hey! You're not wearing a helmet!" Uuuhhh....thanks? Why do believers in helmets have this need to tell us that we need to have a helmet on? A lot of you say in this thread, "I don't care if you wear a helmet or not", but there sure are a helluva lot of you that do care.
I passed an overweight woman on a bike one day wearing her helmet when she decided to take her fist and knock on her helmet, implying "hey stupid, where's your helmet". In hindsight I should have told her straight up that she was fat and probably suffering from heart desease which may cause her death. There is no difference in the two statements.