rufvelo

...probably banging her helmetless head somewhere;

Titmawz

Mozzarella FTW !

rufvelo

A few things I know...so I'd like to share:
Seniors should wear a helmet when taking a shower. The impact sustained from bathtub falls are often more severe than motorcycle racers.
The cheese helmet suggested earlier in the thread is ineffective by day 6 or a few centuries later.
Bicycle helmet design is rather poor, especially the trendy pointed rear types which will catch, rotate the head on impact; helmets need to be thick and round like the type kids wear.
I believe my helmet saved my life, was a Bell Furio as well, just like the OP's
I often think the weirdly dressed full faced helmet wearing dude on the trail is way smarter then the rest of us roadies.
I've got to iron my clothes for the rest of the week now.

rufvelo

I disagree. A fine Gouda with a custom cutout > Moz anyday.

Excelsius

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.

yugo campione

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?

LesterOfPuppets

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.

yugo campione

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.

hamfoh

I was just thinking "do I realllly want to wear a helmet all the time" - and then I checked this thread out. Glad I had previously made the decision of "yes" and have a new one already on the way to me.

Glad everything is okay. It was a painful but useful lesson I'm sure

LesterOfPuppets

I agree.

Additionally I think kids (18 and younger) and new riders (I'll just arbitrarily pick less than 500 hours or 5,000 miles) should wear helmets for every ride.

Agave

Wondering how many people on just BF have never fallen and hit their heads.

I never have. On a bike.

Bet it's a lot.

Pedaleur

Is "concussed" really a word? It looks awkward to me.

LesterOfPuppets

Checks out with Merriam-Webster. Always has a weird feel to it for me also.

hamfoh

You heard the word a lot if you watched Steve Young play back in the day

Excelsius

There can be a quite lengthy answer to that, especially since you're asking several different questions. But to concentrate on the main point: I am not wearing a helmet while driving because our cars already have a "helmet" incorporated into them. It's threefold: the outer metal casing that crumbles during an accident, a seatbelt, and an airbag. I am much safer inside the car even at high speeds than on a bike on lower speeds (compared to each medium). NASCAR drivers do wear helmets. There are numerous additional variables. For example, when you're in the shower or doing other daily personal activities, you're mostly in control and your cerebellum is a pro at these movements. In contrast, when you're riding, you can be the best professional, but you do not have control on what other cyclists or drivers will do to you - more prone to accidents outside of your control.

Here is another report over the course of almost 10 years in NYC: 97% of cyclist who died were not wearing a helmet. I could cite so many additional papers where people actually did a study using the scientific method, but I have yet to see a single paper backing up the dangers of helmets.

I am surprised that there is so much controversy about this. The bottom line is that if a helmet can slow down your impact even by a few fractions of a second, you will definitely benefit. This is not a matter of opinion but physics. What is the purpose of helmets, airbags, vests, etc? All they're trying to do is spread the amount of applied force in time. F=ma=dp/dt. Delta p, or change in momentum, is also known as impulse. Therefore, F=I/dt.

Let's take a very rough example: cyclist weight = 70kg, speed=9 m/s. The impulse in an inelastic collision (full stop, no deformation) = 70*9=630 kg*m/s. To calculate the force, use F=630/dt and start plugging in some numbers for dt (change in time) to play around. If dt=0.150 s, which is how long a car crash can last, the force is 4200 N (newtons). To give you an idea, it takes 2200N to break the bones of your skull (assuming ~6 cm square area). Now lets slow down that time twice: dt=0.3 s. Then F=2100N. This is the proof that a helmet is going to help your skull because regardless of anything else, the helmet is always going to slow down the amount of time it takes for the impact to occur and hence dramatically decrease the force. This is what is meant by "cushioning" and the extra lining.

BarracksSi

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.

zonatandem

Been there, done that . . .
A helmet is cheap insurance.

Nerull

How many impacts is your skull designed to handle? How is handling 'one impact' worse than handling 'no impacts'?

merlinextraligh

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.

yugo campione

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?".

yugo campione

Here again, you are using degrees of safety, as am I, it's just that our levels of risk tolerance are different. It is my contention that if you feel driving is in the least bit unsafe, in relation to head trauma, then you should be wearing a helmet at all times while in a car. I would still like to know the overall numbers of head trauma in a car versus a bike, and I still maintain that the number in cars is vastly higher in overall volume of head injuries. It should not matter that they are made with a "built in helmet", nor that the percentage of injuries on bikes versus cars is proportionally higher, because head trauma in cars still happens on a regular basis. You simply feel that it is an acceptable risk that you will not be one of the injured, I maintain the same when I ride my bike. Levels of risk tolerance and natural ability/skill/balance on a bike.

RT

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

Phantoj

Yeah, I find it amazing that people are so idiotic as to disagree with me too.

yugo campione

What is remarkable to me is that you can make a statment like that and yet you still do not wear a helmet when you are in your car. Have you seen head trauma from a high speed car accident?

Again, you are willing to accept that risk, even though it will only take 1 time for it to happen and you may have significant head trauma. I have been in 1 crash on my bike where I hit a portion of my head and I broke my collar bone, I was 18 at the time, I am now 46. When I did hit I instictively rolled forward onto my shoulder causing the broken collar bone. I am willing to play these odds, just as you are willing to play the odds in a car. Why then, am I judged for it, or needed to be degraded for my justification for my decision? This is what I find truly remarkable.

Excelsius

No. Just like those uninjured without a helmet have been excluded from the study, understandably, those who wear a helmet, fall, and are uninjured are not factored into the study either. Thus, it does not really matter.

If people read and try to think about all the studies published here, it should be clear that there is a lot of good data supporting helmet use. Once again, over 10 years, 97% of NYC bicycle fatalities were lacking a helmet.

As far as comparing bicycle fatalities to car fatalities, it can be done, but it will take some time to collect all the research papers. But it's not worth it. If we're talking about personal tolerance of risk, a research paper isn't going to change anything. It's like faith - no amount of proof matters. Logically, you are doing an activity where your body is completely exposed and you have a very easy solution to decrease damage. The choice not to do so is completely yours. The only thing that matters here is when someone claims helmets don't work or can be harmful, the statements must be corroborated by proper citations.