Originally Posted by Agave (Post 12297295)

Your english teachers just rolled over in their graves.

Originally Posted by Titmawz (Post 12299787)

Mozzarella FTW !

Originally Posted by surgeonstone (Post 12299437)

1) Absolutely wrong. As a general surgeon we are dealing with head trauma ALL the time, as initial evaluator and initiator or therapy and diagnostics . The neuro guys come in later.

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.

Originally Posted by Excelsius (Post 12299990)

I will assume you did not understand what I meant. When I am talking about head injuries, I am specifically referring to neurotrauma. I have no doubt that you are dealing with fractures or rashes, whether they be on the legs or on the scalp, just as a dermatologist will be consulted if a patient has a stye in the eyelid, even though the eyelid is located on the head. Scalping or any other injury you might deal with is unrelated to neurotrauma. Furthermore, I would propose that because you are dealing with injuries on the surface and are not really following up with the injuries to the brain itself, your assumption as to what type of injuries the brain might have sustained can be clouded by the damage you see on the outside. I still stand by what I said earlier - if there is any possibility of brain damage, the patient will be outside your domain. As far as the initial, basic assessments go, even nurses have some of these skills. That does not give them any expertise. Finally, my second point specifically concerned bench research, or at least clinical research. If you are not involved in either, I would hope you can concede that your expertise is limited to anecdotal evidence.

My last point then should address your concern about why in some cases legislation is not congruent to decrease in fatalities. In addition, you still did not provide a single paper that shows bicycle helmet falls result in such significant torsional injuries that they case neurotrauma and therefore, obviously, are not recommended. Again, just a single study. A lot of people here are just talking nonsense about helmets and it's not even really worth to address those claims. But what makes you different is that as a surgeon, I would expect your opinions to be the result of scientific fact (or flawed papers, which is still fine). I am hoping that you will oblige and provide a full citation to a paper(s). If you cannot, then it is only logical for you to admit that you might possibly be wrong.

P.S.: Even if a single paper did exist on torsional injuries of bike helmets, it is highly unlikely that the recommendation would be to not wear helmets. Why? Because to achieve torsional injuries, the the fall must be almost perfect in one particular set of requirements, such as high rotational inertia, the probability of the helmet grabbing the ground, the angle at which the head strikes the ground, etc. This still leaves out a large number of cases where bicyclists have a simple impact with the ground and hence it would take a lot of conviction and scientific data for someone to seriously suggest that one type of a fall that might result in injury from a helmet disqualifies the protection offered by it for the rest of the myriad types of falls.

Originally Posted by yugo campione (Post 12300102)

A question still remains unanswered in what you put forth. Maybe you can add insight, how do the number of people killed, or with severe head trauma, compare with say, auto accidents, or shower falls, or just walking and tripping? All those, as well as countless other activities, I'm sure offer significant potential for head injuries, yet it is not common at all for anyone to wear a helmet during those activities. Do you wear a helmet when you drive? Why not? I am willing to wager that there are far more head traumas due to auto accidents than bicycling every year. Am I wrong? If I am not wrong, why do you, specifically, not wear a helmet everytime you get behind the wheel of your car?

Originally Posted by LesterOfPuppets (Post 12300153)

Well if you're looking at it from an activity standpoint you need to look at it from a per participant per hour aspect. I think driving or riding in an automobile actually turns out to be safer statistically.

If you're looking at it from a commuting standpoint you'll need to assess head injuries per participant per mile.

From what I've seen there is just no really good data for cycling. Data is usually collected from hospital admissions. All kinds of cyclists end up in the hospital and everyone from BMX kids doing stunts at the skatepark to DH MTBers to MUPers who ride 20 miles per year on poorly maintained rigs really skew the stats.

You really have to go with your gut and your perceived risk. When in doubt, wear a helmet.

Originally Posted by yugo campione (Post 12300232)

I understand and can agree with your point, but then that leads into the next area to question, time spent during the activity. But it goes way beyond that, you also have to figure into that the skill level of the participants invloved. Look specifically at professional, top level road cyclists, They spend 6 to 8 hours every day on their bikes. Sometimes they wear a helmet, sometimes not, but the point is; what percentage of those individuals experience accidents involving head trauma, not in races, but training rides? My guess is the number is not very high at all, even though statistically they should be much more prone to it. The reason? They are much more skilled and competent on their bikes than a large majority of riders.

Originally Posted by yugo campione (Post 12300102)

A question still remains unanswered in what you put forth. Maybe you can add insight, how do the number of people killed, or with severe head trauma, compare with say, auto accidents, or shower falls, or just walking and tripping? All those, as well as countless other activities, I'm sure offer significant potential for head injuries, yet it is not common at all for anyone to wear a helmet during those activities. Do you wear a helmet when you drive? Why not? I am willing to wager that there are far more head traumas due to auto accidents than bicycling every year. Am I wrong? If I am not wrong, why do you, specifically, not wear a helmet everytime you get behind the wheel of your car?

Originally Posted by BarracksSi (Post 12288496)

Having stomped on an old helmet to break it before I threw it away, I just want to postulate that the amount of force it took to crunch your helmet like that would have really hurt badly if it hit your bare skull. Good thing it worked when you needed it. Take it easy for a while. :thumb:

Originally Posted by snowman40 (Post 12299152)

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.... :D



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....

Originally Posted by merlinextraligh (Post 12296576)

...The Effectiveness of Bicycle Helmets:A Review
Revised Edition Prepared by Dr. Michael Henderson
for the Motor Accidents Authority of New South Wales, Australia.
1995

"SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Wearing a helmet substantially reduces the risk of head injury to a cyclist in a crash. This has been shown by a raft of strong evidence generated by epidemiological and biomechanical research, and cited in the present report. ....

Among the findings of the better studies are the following:
The effectiveness of crash helmets for motorcyclists has been studied for decades, and they are known to reduce the risk of severe head injury by about one-third
The most careful, conservative estimates from good studies show that the reduction in risk of head injury to a bicyclist as a result of wearing a helmet is in the order of 45 per cent. In other words, at the very minimum a helmet halves the risk of head injury.
Other estimates from controlled studies give even higher risk reduction figures. Depending on the type of impact and the severity of injury, the reduction in the risk of head injury as a result of wearing a helmet has been shown in several studies from all over the world to be in the range of 45 per cent to 85 per cent.
Those who do not wear helmets are several times more likely to sustain injury to the brain tissue than riders who do.
For children, an Australian study has shown that the risk of injury is reduced 63 per cent for head injury and 86 per cent for loss of consciousness, when a helmet is worn. For loss of consciousness, the risk is over seven times higher among non-helmet wearers than among helmet wearers.
In the two years after the compulsory helmet legislation was introduced in Victoria, the number of bicyclists with head injuries decreased by 48 per cent and 70 per cent in each of the two years, relative to the last year before the law.
In Queensland, the rate of head injury from bicycle crashes fell by more than half following the introduction of a helmet-wearing law; admissions to hospitals with bicycle-related injuries other than to the head remained unchanged over the same period.
Helmets designed to the Australian and Snell standards provide a margin of protection in the real world greater than the respective standards require.
Old-style helmets that do not comply with the Australian Standard reduce the risk of head injury by little or nothing.
The vast majority of head impacts occurring in the real world of traffic are easily survivable if a Standards-approved helmet is worn.
No studies have come to conclusions contrary to the above."

...

Originally Posted by merlinextraligh (Post 12301356)

As for tossing around opinions without data, did anyone bother to read this? No one in the helmets don't work crowd apparently did, or at least they're ignoring it.

Originally Posted by BarracksSi (Post 12300811)

Quoting myself here:

If anyone saw exactly what I had to do to break that old helmet, I'm pretty sure they would not volunteer to have me do the same thing to their bare head.

Originally Posted by RTDub (Post 12301613)

It is remarkable to me that such simple truths as this do not make sense to some.

Originally Posted by RTDub (Post 12301613)

It is remarkable to me that such simple truths as this do not make sense to some.

Originally Posted by yugo campione (Post 12301529)

The major issue with using studies like this is that the falls by cyclist in which their head hits the ground, then they stand up and shake their head and say "whoa, that hurt", then get right back up on their bike and ride away, all without ever going in to see a doctor, are not included. Now you may say, "those should not be included in the study because there was not significant head trauma" and I would respond, "well...that's the point, isn't it?".