jediphobic

Why helmets? Why not avoid crashing in the first place? I'm only mostly kidding. In fact, I almost always wear a helmet myself. I just think it's unfortunate that the first thing that comes up in any crash, whether there was head injury or not, is the helmet. It either saved a life, or it made the injury worse. I'm not an expert, and frankly I have no new ideas about this, but there must be better ways to protect ourselves from injury. Some quick ideas might be bike design to reduce certain types of crashes, and rider education in better ways to prevent crashes.

OP, I'm glad to hear you're ok. Good luck with everything.

CB HI

Remember the styrofoam helmets that did not have a plastic coating. Helmet manufacturers saw the increase in rotational brain and neck injuries that those helmets caused. They quietly changed the design, putting the plastic coating on to reduce such injuries before they got sued out of business. Now if they would only take the next step in safer helmets.

Safest - avoid the collision

Next safest - tuck you chin to your chest, do a shoulder roll, etc. so your head does not hit the ground

Least safe - rely on your helmet to save your brain

Leo H.

Sounds like another injury that could have been more likely prevented by riding a recumbent, helmeted or helmetless....


Leo H.
Sun Valley, NV

MTBLover

Truer words were never spoken...

DX-MAN

Wrong yourself. Proof?

desconhecido 

Ok. The OP says that certain types of brain injuries may be made worse or made more common by wearing typical bicycle helmets. There is a lot of support for this assertion and some of it has been referred to in this thread. Then you say, without substantiation, that forces required to cause the types of injuries being discussed would be sufficient to cause serious injuries in the absence of a bicycle helmet. Someone disagrees and you ask for proof. I don't know if you're right or wrong, but it is your burden to prove your assertion true, not the other party's burden to prove your assertion false.

chipcom 

Till you fall asleep on that hammock and a truck runs over you.

Dan The Man

Prove it.

desconhecido 

And there we are: just like the tea partiers versus MoveOn.org

closetbiker

well, I think there's one thing we can all agree on (or can we?), that in areas that have mandated helmet use, and usage rate has more than tripled over night, there has been no noticeable decline in head injuries in the riders who continued to ride bikes.

That much has been documented very well as there has been substantial documentation of the rise in head injuries that has corresponded with the rise in helmet usage. This is also happening at the same time that in areas that have almost no helmet use, these areas have the fewest amounts of head injuries to cyclists.

I think we can all see this is a very muddled issue and there is a fair bit of disagreement on the topic. Maybe we can agree, helmets have not been what a lot of people have made them out to be, and deaths and serious injury continue to cyclists who choose to wear helmets.

All that said, I don't think riding a bike makes anyone more vulnerable than many others, including pedestrians who continue to die from head injuries as do cyclists. Pedestrians could benefit from wearing helmets too. I dare say, it's as silly to expect a cyclist to wear a helmet as it is to suggest a pedestrian should be wearing a helmet.

desconhecido 

About 600 American bicyclists over the age of 15 die each year in bike accidents. Many of these die from head injuries. I'm not sure of the number, but somewhere from 20,000 to 30,000 (+ or-) Americans over 15 die in auto accidents each year, many of these from head injuries. If the goal is to reduce the number of head injury deaths in the United States it's very clear where the emphasis should be applied; it's very clear who should be encouraged to wear helmets.

Bicycling, in general, is not dangerous either with or without a helmet though I guess (but cannot prove) that it is a bit less safe without. So, if we assume, without proof, that it is a bit less safe without a helmet, how much less safe is it? How much, for example, does a typical 15 mile helmetless recreational ride reduce one's life expectancy, as compared to a 15 mile ride with a helmet? Is it measurable? Does it reduce life expectancy more than consuming a Big Mac? If the answer is no, and I expect it is, why don't people advocate wearing helmets when consuming Big Macs? It makes sense, doesn't it? Perhaps helmet advocates could reduce Big Mac consumption as effectively as they have reduced bicycle riding (assuming, without proof, that they have).

closetbiker

There are a few misconceptions about the safety of cycling that has been perpetuated by helmet proponents one of which is the cause of deaths to cyclists being from head injuries.

This is true, but misleading because what causes these head injuries that cyclists die from are collisions with motor vehicles and the forces of these collisions are far beyond a helmets ability to protect. For arguments sake, lets say bicycle helmets could withstand any impact from a motor vehicle. Cyclists would still die because it's been shown that in these deaths where cyclists have died from head injuries, the cyclists would have died from other injuries as well. Necks are snapped, spines are crushed, aortas are torn, spleens burst, etc., etc.. I don't even have to mention the lower half of the head (in which a large portion of the brain is exposed) below the fictional "perfect" helmet that could be smashed in too (Oops. I just did)

The association is drawn between helmets, head injuries and death, but it's a misleading association and distracts people from solving a problem by focusing on a red herring.

Another issue helmet proponents avoid (that has been verified many times over) is the fact that regular cyclists live longer than others who do not get the same exercise cycling provides. Cycling improves health in even taking into consideration the collisions (and deaths) involved.

People also seem to forget that less people are injured on the road when more people ride bikes because they cannot do the damage motor vehicles can. A lot has recently been made on the importance of quality of the air we breath and I think we can see where this is going, so I'll cut it off by saying, riding a bike is a good thing. Not a bad thing. More people on bikes = better place to live with healthier, safer people.

Helmet promotion relies on fear. If people thought riding a bike was as good and safe as going for a walk, helmets would be a rare thing to see. Instead, people are afraid of serious brain injury from collisions with cars, so they strap on helmets and (in those rare instances when it happens), get one anyway. At the same time, they don't worry about the same risk while walking, so don't wear a helmet and (in those rare instances when it happens), receive the same injuries in collisions with cars as cyclists do.

Leo H.

Leo H.
Sun Valley, NV

Leo H.

I think you spinach hating anti-helmetees really are deluding yourselves that there is this great unwashed horde of bicycle riders in the non riding world who are just aching to ride but are held back by a fear of lycra, or padded shorts or plastic helmets and, in some yearned for utopia, if we all just rode around in street clothes and bare headed, then the streets would be filled to the brim with bicycle riders.

Sounds sarcastic and exaggerated? Based on the 'reasoning' proposed and the 'conclusions' offered by the spinach haters, on any number of forums I've come across, this is what they believe to be the current state of bicycling around the globe.

I, for one, fail to see that this is the case. That said, if you want to ride without a helmet, fine. I can assure you one thing, concussion or no, I'll bet a dollar to a donut, I'll have less chance of dying from melanoma than you all will. Enjoy losing your body parts bit by bit y'all.


Leo H.
Sun Valley, NV

Giffen

I spend a lot of time advocating cycling among my friends and acquaintances. Most of them would rather drop dead than wear spandex and helmets.

I think enthusiasm for spandex and helmets is limited to countries were standards of dress are very low (non existent.) In many parts of the world, were people (especially those of middle and older age) are expected to dress elegantly, it is almost unthinkable to wear something as revealing and unflattering as tight underwear and a helmet.

I too, think the kind of roadside garbage collector chic that many cyclists don is quite demeaning. Most people on bikeforums.net have no idea how silly others (U.S. non-cyclists and the rest of the world) think they look.

Don't get me wrong though. I think that spandex can be a turn-on depending on the circumstances. Helmets, not so much.

closetbiker

While I can't really say if I hate spinach, I do appreciate your mentioning I'm not against spinach, however I'd be interested to know just who do you think is anti- helmet here, and where has anyone said if we all just rode around in street clothes and bare headed, then the streets would be filled to the brim with bicycle riders? (not that it doesn't happen. It just doesn't happen where helmets are most popular)

mikeybikes

How very rational and logical of you. I enjoy these types of well thought responses to a topic that should be discussed rationally.

Leo H.

I fail to see how you fail to see that your posts are not advocating NOT wearing a helmet. You're not the only one and the fact that there are whole threads (helmets cramp my style), shows me you're not alone.

What any/most of the comments that I've read on this and numerous forums and blogs and whole websites actually, all have in common is, that the unspoken thought behind helmet bashers (how's that for a handle instead of spinach haters?)is that people are whining about someone else telling them what to do and then the helmet bashers go to great lengths to then 'prove' that helmets 'cause' injuries. You're actually using the same techniques as the helmet supporters, whom are decried long and loud.

I use the term spinach hater, because the image that comes to my mind when I read anti helmet posters, by and large are youngsters turning up their lips at something because they don't like the taste.

I work in a physical rehabilitation hospital and I won't go in to scary, emotional stories, blah, blah, blah. I will say that I have actually considered upgrading my helmet and wishing that there were more rigorous objective standards for comparing and testing sporting helmets like the motorcycle industry has with Snell.

I have also read numerous times where some poster at one point or another, states how bicycle riding is hampered because non riders see someone in a helmet and that scares them. IMO, the reason the vast majority of people aren't riding a bike is they don't want to exert the effort, or in the case of women, they find the extra time and inconvenience of preparing their appearance at work after riding in not worth the effort.

Because for me, riding to work regularly started as an uncertain thought as to whether I 'could' do it, then has progressed slowly to the point where I ride more often to work than not, it's taken me close to 2 years to do that and a very supportive non cycling wife. I encourage people I come across who don't ride, but I also tell them it's safer to do that they feel it might be and it's safer than I thought it would be.

Leo H.
Sun Valley, NV

Leo H.

As if the helmet bashers are the font of rational thought and enlightenment??? It was a joke, but a fact nonetheless. Humor and truth....

Leo H.
Sun Valley, NV

chipcom 

I've been riding a bike regularly for over 40 years and only wear a helmet when some event requires it. I never considered cycling dangerous enough to warrant wearing one and still don't. If you think it is that dangerous and wish to wear a helmet, that's cool with me. I also like spinach...even have some on the tuna salad sammich I brought for lunch.

Your perception is about as accurate as my perception of 'bent riders being old bearded fat dudes who can't stay awake long enough realize their dreams of being the next unabomber.

closetbiker

I guess that speaks to your level of comprehension on what has been posted.

I'd suggest a more careful reading and consideration of the merits on the points raised, rather than just a blanket assumption with what has been discussed.

Leo H.

When it comes down to it, the main points we're tossing around here are, helmets don't look cool and lycra spandex doesn't look cool. So the arguments against looking like a stereotypical cyclist are based on appearances. Not very logical.

Neither is the assertion that helmet wearers are dupes who haven't seen the latest statististics from Australia that 'prove' that helmets don't prevent head injuries, THEREFORE, toss that styrofoam bucket, they're all part of a plot organized by THEM to keep people from riding bicycles because they're scared.

If you fail to see that these are subtexts painted on this thread, I can't say I'm surprised. I don't think even a careful reading is needed to understand that.


Leo H.
Sun Valley, NV

closetbiker

what have you been smoking?

cudak888 

Spandex and helmets?

-Kurt

DX-MAN

My assertion is based on personal observation and experience, having fallen on the helmet a few times. I don't need to prove anything when someone else just says, "WRONG." They're the one making the cross-assertion, and just saying "Wrong" is no different from the "Did not!" "Did too!" arguments we see our kids have.

The OP's assertion also includes the action of torquing, and my assertion was that in order to torque, the force the helmet 'experiences' would be enough to do more than just remove skin. There are no more empirical facts involved in the OP's post than in anyone else's on this thread, so we're talking suppositions here.

If it wasn't for Dan the Man's masterful "leg sweep" of the whole thing, I'd be tempted to tell you that your condescension is misdirected and unwarranted.

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPPPSS................................................




DAN -- YOU ROCK!