jwc

Well, yeah, I can see that.

I'm constantly harrassed at work by my fellow co-workers who seem to think that a bike helmet will save me from being killed when or if I ever collide with an auto doing 35+. They always bring up a wreck that happened outside of town when a girl on a club ride ran head-on into a F250 pickup that crossed the into her lane. They just guess that she was killed because she wasn't wearing a helmet, but I know the family and she was wearing one. I have to explain to them that a bike helmet is only truly designed to protect you from falls, not bike/car collisions, the same as a motorcycle helmet. Anything else is pure luck.

But, it makes them happy when they see me wearing mine and I've concluded I'm on this earth to please others.

sfcrossrider

All the cats saying lids don't work sound like newbee kooks. I don't know ANYONE who has spent YEARS on a bike... ANY bike that would say they would be better off hitting their head without a lid. (And yes... being hit by a car will kill my a$$ 90% of the time... even with a lid. Anyone who assumes otherwise is a moron.)
I'm all for choice. What you do with your head is your business. BUT saying you would be better off NOT wearing a helmet when your head hits the ground is funny at best. Put this same post in ANY other forum on this site and you'll be laughed at.

jwc

I've spent years on a bike. Some younguns probably don't remember the days when a bike helmet was a leather brain retaining device. You've grown up being spoon fed by your parents and teachers that helmets are going to save your life.

The passion of the helmet advocate side makes me wonder if everyone under 30 has fallen victim to the brainwashing of the very companies selling helmets.

You can call me a moron (maybe a hypocrite, since I do wear a helmet at times) or you can call me one who questions the greed of these companies and the lengths they will go to just for profit. Let's look at it another way....what are these plastic helmets made of...petroleum based materials.

I wonder how many millions of dollars the oil companies make off bike helmets? You know how dastardly those oil companies are...they will stoop to anything to make a profit.

It is also very funny, at least to me, that the only side that resorts to name-calling is the advocates.

endform

I think for this discussion to ever get worked out rather than people just get huffy and state their grand theory rather than debate the individual points of how a helmet is used and what it can do for a rider is to start from the bottom of the argument.

So start at the question of, does a helmet prevent a head injury when you hit your head?

Here's where it could lead from there.

Yes, ok so does this "gyroscopic wingwangs" cause people to hit their head more?

Does the risk increase factor actually exist? In what kind of people?

What causes most crashes that involve head injuries?

Are these common crashes?

etc etc.

endform

Or how about we look at supply and demand. Parents demand safety products for their children when they do a dangerous activity. Someone says "hey, helmets seem to prevent people from spilling their brains everywhere." And thus demand and supply work themselves out and we have a new industry. Yes, helmets don't work for everything but they work for some things which can happen on any bike ride any day.

Also good way to bring in oil company conspiracies, we hadn't gotten off track quite enough. Maybe you work for a cycling cap company and are in fact trying to smear helmet companies so that people will go back to wearing just cycling caps with no guilt. Cause we all know they aren't very comfortable under helmets. Cause the greed and etc etc.

sfcrossrider

Tisk, tisk JW. Now who is name calling? I was racing BMX for Mongoose when Carter was the Prez. So save the "back in the day B.S" for the kids who think Merckx is a bike and Lance is the man.

cavit8

"Evidence that casts doubt on helmet efficacy" states "Helmet laws in Australia, New Zealand and parts of Canada [15] have resulted in the great majority of cyclists wearing helmets, but there has been no reduction in rates of head injury relative to cycle use. An analysis of enforced laws in these countries found no clear evidence of benefit [16]." Citations 16 is whether mandatory helmet laws improve public health.

The big problem with this and many sources of information on bicycle helmets (pro or con) is that they often mix evidence that is looking at very different questions. For example, a question of whether a helmet use is associated with fewer serious concussions, say, in a crash below 20km hr is very different than whether mandatory helmet laws decrease public health by decreasing the number of active cyclists.

So what, you say, this article is convincing. Well, no it's not. It's a narrative review with no critical evaluation of any of the evidence quality, it mixes levels of evidence as if they're equivalent (which they're not), and provides no apriori statement of a clear hypothesis and so mixes studies that appear to be designed to answer very different questions. There is a clear partisan position here as well. Which is fine, opinions are like *******s, everybody has one. But there's an onus on an author to use transparent and clear methods when putting forward an opinion. This author doesn't: the work is unconvincing, welcome to the interweb.

fatbat

Finally, someone who speaks the truth!

Remember, these are the same people who forced us off the elegant penny-farthings onto the so-called "safety" bicycle, so that they could profit off the lubricants used on the wholly superfluous "chains".

Also, does anyone nowadays remember the exposure of the pneumatic tire cabal, who brainwashed cyclists into discarding their long wearing, puncture resistant solid gutta percha tires for the diabolical pneumatic tire, and then bread the goathead thorn in their underground chambers of evil so that they might profit off the pain and sorrow of cyclists?

Now, not content with the obscene and unholy profits of their previous perfidy, they have introduced these "helmets", and secretly planted EMT agents who strike unhelmeted riders in the skull while transporting them to the hospitals where studies are being performed on the "protective effect" of said infernal devices.

I salute you for your ability to stand up to these evil men.

cavit8

mmmm... goathead thorn bread...

jwc

I guess you didn't see the sarcastic attitude in that post, but it reflects my frustration with those who just blindly say and think what they have been coached to say and what to think all their lives. As well as, municipalities taking up helmet laws as proof that they are concerned for our safety...and go no further. Helmets have become nothing more that a cause to be championed at the expense of true safety.

jwc

Which also brings up a point from the 1970's and early 80's. BMX and "trick" riding almost required helmet use since it was so similar to motorcross. The question then was why was it spilling over to road biking?

cavit8

'cause all it takes is one turnip to spoil the show. Like Stalin said, one person is a tragedy, one million is a statistic... at least I think he said that, I read it ona website somewhere.

landrover4

It's hard to imagine a helmet having a negative effect during any kind of accident. It's possible, like you get a strap caught on a fence post and it snaps your neck in the fall, but not even the minimal extra weight is going to have any effect during an accident in terms of your head hitting the ground at any significant velocity or not. Sure, those extra couple hundred grams on your head may be just the difference to make your head hit the ground, but not with any velocity. If it were a question of whether your head would hit the ground with the helmet or not hit the ground without it, then even if it did hit the ground I bet you wouldn't even put a little mark on the helmet, that's how slow it would be going.

In terms of the helmet giving a rider an over-confident sense of security -- sure, it happens, just like when you have 4 wheel-drive and it snows and you don't slow down, or you think ou can take the corner in the rain because you just put new tires on your car. But you can't blame the tires -- or the 4 wheel-drive -- for any injuries sustained in the wreck, nor the helmet for your carelessness.

schnee

If you look at human physiology, helmets make a lot of sense.

The brain is very delicate. It's injured much more easily than other body parts, the things on your head are much more susceptible to permanent damage. Neural tissue, once damaged, does not grow back. Land on your arm heavily, you have multiple fractures, which can be re-set and healed. Land on your head heavily, and you have a subdermal hematoma that will likely give you brain damage.

When we ride bikes, we move faster than our bodies have evolved to protect... our brain cases evolved for the optimum balance of movement, weight and protection at running speeds over mostly yielding ground. With bikes, you move much faster over harder stuff. Yeah, there are always exceptions (dash your head on a rock) but the odds are much higher.

I know that's somewhat amateur physiology, but it seems like common sense to me. If you're going faster than a run, on hard material, it's wise to wear a helmet. If you're tooling along at walking speed on a beach cruiser, it's not really necessary.

kyle!

god. what a mess this is.


considering the brain is pretty important, as the previous post says, it doesn't hurt to have an extra layer over it. i'd rather break an arm than my head i guess.

but i can't say how it is riding with one, i've never worn one, but i'm starting to look around, my girlfriend is getting me one because she hates how fast and far i ride without one.

jwc

It is like one helmet safety site asked:

If helmets are that important to our safety, then why aren't they required in for auto drivers who suffered far more head injuries than cyclists?

Also, the optimum helmet, according to a study in 1990, would have a clear face shield. Why hasn't that become the standard? Most head injuries for cyclists are facial.

A cycling helmet is designed to be effective at a speed...basically that of a person running. Why aren't runners required to wear helmets?

cavit8

I want airbags for my fixed... and a shoulder belt.... and legislation that prevents me from being decapitated if I run into the back of a parked truck.

endform

This says nothing about the effectiveness of helmets, this is a red herring.

Again, red herring, this says nothing about the effectiveness of current helmets, and let's hear some stats on "most head injuries are facial."

Who says they're designed to be used at the speed of someone running. Oh right, I forgot, your study doesn't want to risk being cited cause it's on the run from the feds.

jwc

There are plenty of studies and reports on the internet A helmet is designed for an impact of no more than 14mph. The average speed of a runner in a 100 yard sprint is over 20mph.

From magma.ca

The maximum 2 metre (6'8") drop simulates a 20 km/h (14 mph) impact. Direct impacts over 20km/h can be expected to be lethal.

"One has to agree that in high speed impacts [a helmet] won't prevent death."


Facial and head injuries, admitted to an emergency room, actually are about the same number. The consensus is that most facial injuries go unreported, but occur more frequently. The red herring about face protection indeed says nothing about current helmets and their effectiveness. If you had considered the question more thoroughly, you would have understood it's intent.

Why are we not using helmets that will, for a few pennies more, protect ourselves to an almost 100% level? Why use protection that only partially does it's job? Are you satisfied with just being partially protected?

sloppy robot

the worst part about helmets is you all sit around bickering about it.. giving weight to the issue for non bikers.. so when some dude gets plowed over by a truck in NYC, the press states "he was not wearing a helmet" and the person reading thinks "oh.. no wonder they are dead..."

Wear a helmet or dont... and let other people do whatever the **** they need to do...but drop it as an issue...because its being used against us when the real issue is the roads are not safe to bike on and our safety protection choices are being blamed for it

jwc

I have to admit that this is the most logical statement made, including those made by myself or anyone else. Unfortunately, the people who fall for the "no wonder they are dead" statement are the people who make our city and town ordinances. It goes back to lawmakers making helmet laws, thinking they've done everything to make cycling safe, and do not address the real issues of what would save lives.

sloppy robot

exactly...and anyhting after that has become our fault

Retem

I am not for or against helmets, but you can die just as fast from a side impact. Say you get hit by a honda and it pinches your leg between your top tube and the bumper breaking your leg and severing your femoral arterie. You would die in fifteen minute. When the femoral arterie is severed you bleed out rether quickly.

In another scenerio. Say you get hit by a pick-up or suv in the leftside. The impact breaks three ribs ruptures your kidney and spleen. You die within the hour. The bile enters your system and you die. If you ge tmedical attentioon right away you will still end up living life differently. You can't eat spicey foods you suffer from diabetes and many other conditions from the irepairable organ damage.

chason

I wear a helmet because my loved ones asked me to.

Its as easy as that. In any cause, the huge jumps of logic that the original study states are hardly convincing. Maybe sprinters should wear helmets... if they wove in and out of rush hour traffic in the middle of the road. I will continue wearing a helmet on the off-chance that I get into an accident at ~14mph, and you can not wear a helmet if you want. Why the ceaseless discussion on the topic?

dutret

Your helmet will protect you in crashes at faster speeds too it is just tested with conditions roughly equivalent. JWC et al. would like you to believe that this means its completely worthless in higher speed crashes but that is incorrect.

Likewise pointing out that you could injure yourself in another fashion when hit by a car does not mean a helmet is worthless just that it doesn't protect against every situation. Lots of car/bike accidents end with the rider hitting his head but not causing any damage to thoracic or abdominal organs. A helmet is quite goos in such a situation.