drumthebenway

I think you answered your own question. Correct me if I'm wrong.


And John: I've not really been roped into anything. I created my own mess by making an incautious remark. Still it has been interesting to note how my own argument is repeatedly ignored. I've been told to "read more carefully" and assured that the study really does address the issue that I've brought up.

This debate is clearly of great personal value to its main contributors. As I feel that I've said what I have to say, I won't feel compelled to keep tabs on a discussion that has about as much integrity and empirical rigor as a political debate.

closetbiker

I know it's a looooong thread, but if you go through it you'll find I've always claimed cycling helmets provide superficial protection, and that's nothing to sneeze at. It hurts to bop your head, but it also hurts when I bop my knees too and no one is advocating similar protection for them because the thing of it is it's really the brain that is the concern and while other parts can heal and we can get over the hurt, it's brain damage that we want to avoid and think we are avoiding when we strap on a helmet.

As testament to this, you'll find in flipping through these pages that I've worn (and continue to wear) a helmet for most probably as long or longer than than most of these posters here. Back before they were popular and when people were mocked for wearing them. I taught cycling safety courses to children and community groups where I explained not only to wear them but why it was important to wear them. In the years since it's become mandatory to wear them here all perspective on them has been warped beyond recognition. All of a sudden they became instruments for "saving lives", more vital than proper road use and the "cool" people started looking down on others who choose not to wear one and think that riding safely was more important than the minimal protection a helmet provides.

John can't seem to differentiate the difference between ridiculing an argument and ridiculing someone for making his/her own choice in doing something. I don't have to agree with someone but it's his/her right to do as he/she pleases.

The fact of the matter is, the vast majority of cyclists do not injure their heads any more than anyone else when they are riding a bicycle (despite what some would have us believe), so it's been in the over 21 years since I've been wearing my helmet that it has been as effective as the 20 years I rode with out one, I've (as with the vast majority of cyclists around the world) never hit my head in the first place. Not that it couldn't happen, it's just that it's just as likely I'm going to do so doing just about anything else.

st0ut

Actually MANY BMXers do advocate this and diferciate as to there riding style how much and what type of armor or none at all. fully padded with hard shells for verts is known as stormtrooper mode.

I ride with a helmet and gloves. my kids ride with helemts and gloves. They fall ALOT and they really help when they stop there falls with there hands. and my helmet has saved me from tree branches and shrubs that over grow on to the road.

I might be putting on kneee pads on my son untill he stops turing his head to watch something while he pedels in a different direction.

If i see a roadie on a bike without a helmet he is making an informed decision and thats that.

Just like i tell my kids i will let you do dangerous stuff as long as you fully understand the risk, understand the consequences and think more than you play. they have been hurt enough to know that when i say gear up because if you dont your palying more then you think and that equals getting hurt. They choose helmet and gloves now.

Elkhound

Read this:

https://thegearjunkie.com/bike-helmets-do-save-lives

'Nuff said.

GreenPremier

insane. how often are you going to have your head run over? Sure it seems that the helmet saved his head from getting crushed, but how would his head be if he hadn't been wearing the helmet? Styrofoam under the weight of a huge truck is like crumpling up a piece of paper in your hand.
but it looks convincing to me...

closetbiker

Yup. If you think a helmet is made to withstand something like that, there's not much hope for you

trombone

stOut,

I would never recommend or presume to suggest to parents the best way for them to protect their kids. It's a personal decision, and I utterly respect your position and am not suggesting you do anything different.

However, how much do you know about risk compensation in children? Here's the abstract of an interesting article (my emphasis):
I find it fascinating that, in general, as kids are given more and more protection they tend to put themselves at higher and higher risk, possible in excess of that mitigated by the gear they are wearing. Of course, it doesn't answer the question at an individual level, as so much depends on the circumstances, the individual kids, conditions etc. It's a very personal decision which, for an individual child, only the parent or guardian can make. But interesting nevertheless!

John C. Ratliff

Actually, it does happen. Here is one example from Roseburg, Oregon some years ago that I have previously posted here:


The mechanism would be that the helmet would crush, but would also push the child's head away from the vehicle. In this case, it actually stopped the vehicle. Without the helmet, it would have been his head, not the helmet, that stopped the wheel. The helmet is not made for this, but under just the right circumstances, it can mean the difference between scrapes and a broken skull, or worse.

Somewhere on my computer, I have more of this article. If I find it, I'll post it...

...found it, so here it is without further comment.






John

st0ut

I dont disagree with that at all. the Saftey nazi ave got it our kids heads that not a move should be made if there is any chance of injury or death.

I have my flag from mt fuji from my climb and my kids ask about my motrcycles helemt ( which i dont ride that anymore)

I activily encourage my kids to push the envelope bt they have to understand that if they do so think more then you play. that means if your climbing a tree I wont tell them to get down. but I will tell them how they can move.

When we re at the beach they ask if there are sharks. I tell them yes. and i review with them what they should do to avoid getting bit and what to do if they are or almost ready to. I dont suger coat it but i also informethat that they is a lot to explore and learn if they face the dangerand that it is ok to not go as well.

My son s 6 and up on 2 wheels and a blue belt in his martail art..

black belt by 12 , tri-atholon at 15, a fundametal understaning of geo politics. the trainng is coming along nicly.

closetbiker

tit for tat


https://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pb...NEWS/707130322

Man survives pickup rolling over his head

July 13, 2007
BARNSTABLE — A 43-year-old man was taken to a Boston hospital by ambulance yesterday after a pickup truck he was working on ran over his head, fire officials said.

At about 11:30 a.m., the Barnstable Fire Department received a report of a motor vehicle accident. But it turned out the owner of a landscaping company was working beneath a three-quarter ton pickup truck trying to fix it when the vehicle suddenly rolled. A wheel went over his head and shoulder, Barnstable Fire Lt. Ed Guilford said. "But he's in great shape," Guilford said.

When the rescue squad arrived to the Millway address, they found the man smoking a cigarette with his crew. He had a tire track across his head, significant "road rash" and a missing patch of hair to prove he had been under the wheel.

Tests done at Cape Cod Hospital revealed no internal injuries. He was taken to Boston for some plastic surgery on his ear, Guilford said.

"It was really unbelievable," he said. "Someone was looking out for him."


***

really, here is one of the most ardent helmet promoting sites on the web on the story

https://helmets.org/truck.htm

While we would all like to believe that a helmet could save a cyclist run over squarely by the wheel of a car, truck or bus, that is not the case...A helmet that is capable of protecting a cyclist's head from a true full runover by a motor vehicle wheel would have to be reinforced far beyond any current bike helmet. It would be too heavy for bicycle use...A bike helmet is designed to manage the energy of a single, hard blow, but not to prevent crushing of the skull by a huge weight...there are no helmets designed for crush resistance on the market, including motorcycle helmets made with kevlar and fiberglass...It is curious that the articles never focus on the cause of the crash, or how it might be prevented next time. The press apparently does not consider the associated safety message to be newsworthy.

We tried a helmet under a car wheel:



***

if anyone truly believes the helmet has anything to do with the cyclists survival, it's an indication of how far out in space that individual is.

John C. Ratliff

Closetbiker,

I was only citing the obvious, that weird things do happen. Helmets are not made for this kind of situation, as you have rightly pointed out. Before you posted, I was getting info on the Beaverton bus accident outlined in this thread, which I researched fairly thoroughly:

https://www.bikeforums.net/showthread...t=bus+accident

This is the more likely outcome of a vehicle/cyclist collision with the bicyclist's head under the wheel.

But talking about the helmets cited in the Roseburg situation, and the other one above, it's kinda like trying to break an egg by putting it in your palm, and pushing on the ends rather than the middle. That makes in much harder to break. Things do happen, and sometimes surprises occur.

For all of these accidents, there are multiple causes. Closetbiker focuses on prevention, by staying out of a situation which would produce the accident in the first place. He maintains that with these precautions, the helmet is not necessary, although it is desirable in certain instances.

Closetbiker is adhering to a philosophy that is much like mine, where we have what is called a hierarchy of controls in the safety and industrial hygiene professions. In order, here's the hierarchy:

1. Elimination of the hazard.
2. Substitution of the hazardous substance or situation with a less hazardous alternative.
3. Engineering controls to keep the hazard from the individual.
4. Administrative controls to keep the hazard from the individual.
5. Personal Protective Equipment to protect the individual from the hazard.

Of these, the PPE is the least effective. In the Beaverton, Oregon bus situation (which was a fatal accident), an engineering control needs to be put into place for those who must use that area by bicycle. But there are alternative routes, which would be a substitution of a hazardous situation for a less hazardous situation. However, the hazard needs to be recognized, and kids often lack that ability to recognize the hazards. They may also use "risk compensation" as the study Trombone posted states.

Saying all this, this thread is about bicycle helmets, and that is why I discuss them in isolation to the other types of controls.

John

John C. Ratliff

Talking about watermelons, I thought this was rather cute:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otgrzYevqk4&NR=1

John

closetbiker

If only the human head were as delicate as a watermelon, there was no brain and it's involved connection of supportive mechanisms involved, we all fell when we weren't moving forward, directly on the tops of our heads and we didn't have a neck or body connected to our "watermelons" to affect the impact, this video might have some use. Instead all we have is a misleading and misrepresented experiment that will fool those gullible enough to promote something that has no representation of reality in the experiment.

It's important to use experimentation as a learning tool and not as misleading propaganda to those who wish to learn. This video is about as misleading as "Refer Madness" was.

(It'll probably be about as effective as well)

GreenPremier

Closetbiker, why do you choose to wear a helmet? out of curiousity...

closetbiker

well, outside of the reasons I listed up on this page, it's a mandatory requirement for adults to wear them here. Going without and you're subject to $100 fine and the police can seize your bicycle. They can even enter a place of business or residence to confiscate the bike.

Still, enforcement in my area has been lax and I go without a helmet about half the time.

For the first 10 years I was wearing one, I bought the "helmets reduce head injuries and brain damage by 88%" line, but then I started to do some research and since have changed my opinion. Funny how access to information changes a mind.

GreenPremier

Indeed, thanks for answering my question. I understand that helmets protection is merely cosmetic and I have long hair...if I were to crash and, by chance, hit my head, dragging it on the pavement, my hair would catch and likely tear my scalp...ick. I can't seem to find a good helmet that is comfortable and doesn't look idiotic. In the area where I live, it's pretty chill. It's not like riding in New York City or Washington DC where the traffic is hell. Most of my ride to work is on bike path, with about a mile of riding on the street. I feel my chances of an accident are fairly slim.
The question that STILL sticks in my mind from following this debate is, "Is cycling risky enough to necessitate a helmet?"
Mountain biking, yes. City riding, questionable. Road riding, questionable. Racing, definitely.
The risk factors of how you ride, where you ride, and how fast you're riding are key, I think.
Most people riding in the city with their lazy cruisers and whatnot, don't need to where a helmet. what are the chances they'll get into an accident at such slow speeds? They mostly avoid the streets as well.
I should be wearing a helmet as I take more risks than the average rider, especially the dorky safety nazis. But I choose to use my higher awareness ability to keep out of trouble as much as possible. I haven't had an incident to date that required a helmet in anyway.
Most of the safety nazis make it sound like you'll get hit by a cars all the time. How are they riding? Seriously though, most people see you, most people won't antagonize you, most people are scared of you. I like to make car drivers scared of me, because it makes them a more careful driver. If they fear that they'll kill you and have the power to end your life and put a ton of guilt and shame upon themselves, they'll, hopefully, drive more carefully.
Maybe it's all horsesh*it, and I'm sure someday I'll bring myself to wear a helmet full time, but for now, it's just not that hazardous an activity to warrant one all the time. Only when mountain biking or going for a longish road ride. Not for my 4.5 mile commute on bike path to work or ride downtown on residential streets.

closetbiker

Everybody has a different risk factor than somebody else and there hasn't been any evidence that I've found that even the "average" cyclist is at any more risk of a head injury than anyone else.

The more pertinent point I find is this, does a helmet prevent what causes a brain injury? From my understandings, there is very little chance of that.

Helmets are subjected to the most rudimentary standards while brain injury is exceedingly complex.

Chances are, one is not going to fall onto the top of a helmet, and forward momentum, a force that changes the direction of travel as well as downward momentum are not taken into consideration as the brain is subjected to such forces in a typical crash that is reasonable for a cyclist to expect. The brain is a fairly rigid organ that doesn't compress or change shape under pressure much.

The brain is injured when it's constituent particles are pulled so far apart that they can not rejoin afterwards. Sudden rotation of the head was found to be the cause of most severe brain injuries. This results in strains which can cause permanent displacement of matter throughout the entire brain. Shear strain present at any point in the brain should be a rough measure of injury at that point. It's not unlikely in a crash that this is what can happen whether a helmet is worn or not.

Still doesn't mean there can be some type of superficial protection.

John C. Ratliff

Please note this quote, from Wikipedia about the brain:
I think you need to study a bit more. There are many types of brain injury, and the one you describe, and have focused upon, is not the only one. Here are all the different brain injuries:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head_injury

But diffuse axonal injury is the one you focus upon. It is explained here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffuse_axonal_injury

According to an ER doctor that I recently talked to who specializes in trauma, the side of the head is thinner than the top of the head, and therefore needs better protection. This is precisely where a lot of bicyclists do get hit (mine, for instance). And a helmet does help protect this area too. It further slows the deceleration forces by compressing and allowing the head to continue to move, whereas without the helmet, the head would come to a complete and abrupt stop, causing either fractures or greater interior damage as the brain collides with the inside of the skull.

John

John C. Ratliff

The term "safety nazi" is an oxymoron. You and others are using it here to denigrate the efforts of concerned individuals who feel that bicycle helmets have value. Here is the current definition of the term "nazi":

To use this term in the way that you do is offensive to those of us who know what the word Nazi really means, and who fought those with a like will in Vietnam. How would you like it if I used the term "anti-helmet Nazi" to describe those who disagree with me on this forum thread? To use this term as it is being used here is to express a complete ignorance of what that term really means, and a disservice to those millions who have suffered and died at the hands of the Nazis. To be likened to Nazis by trying to increase the safety of bicyclists shows an intolerance on your part, and complete callowness to the true meaning of that word.

Words matter, and how you address people matters. What you say could be likened to the first phrase in your last paragraph above.

So far as the argument that you haven't needed a helmet yet, and you can rely upon your "higher awareness" to keep you out of trouble, time will tell. Wait another thirty years, and say that again if it is still true then.

John

Six jours

It wouldn't be much different from the other words "your side" uses on a regular basis. Moron, idiot, organ donor, Darwin candidate, etc.

Perhaps that might have something to do with the irritation expressed by so many "pro-choice" advocates, hmm?

Another tired old cliche. "Just because you haven't yet died from riding helmetless doesn't mean you're not going to."

At least you didn't call him an idiot, I guess.

closetbiker

and I think you don't need to be argumentative for arguments sake.

First, you post a cute video equating a watermelons damage to that of a humans head, next thing you're posting about brains. Then you post how helmets protect the side of the head when in the past you've posted links that showed that helmets are insufficient to protect this area.

John C. Ratliff

Closetbiker,

First, I posted the video clip because the kids in it were cute, and I thought it would be an easy way to lighten this discussion a bit. You took it the wrong way, although apparently their little demonstration had to be refuted by you. Oh, and by the way, you were the first to put up the watermelon on this page. Second, yes there are studies that some helmet designs could do better for protecting the side of the head. But realize that this is where my impact occurred, and many others. If the chin is tucked, the helmet and shoulder will protect the side of the head from a flat surface. By the way, that statement came from an ER trauma doctor, not me, and it came after he had examined a helmet that was in a crash. Third, we all could study a bit more, and I have attempted to do that. Your statement was not correct about the brain, which is why I said maybe you could use some study too.

Six Jours,

Now, I have not used the words that you talk about, but they are not as bad as the word "Nazi," in my opinion. Some may have used those other words, but not me, and I don't endorse that kind of discussion either, no matter the side. The comment about waiting for thirty more years is not a cliche, but an attempt by this ol' guy to tell someone who appears much, much younger that perhaps he needs to live a bit longer to ensure that he knows what he is really talking about--you cannot depend upon a "higher awareness ability" forever. I had my first helmet impact when I was in my 50s.

trombone,

I have not forgotten your post, and will give it more study time later this week. I'm rather busy planning for the summer right now.

John

GreenPremier

Being a safety nazi is not an oxymoron. You're a fascist of safety and those who aren't "safe" are inferior to you. You call them idiots, stupid, and that Darwin will sort out the rest. I choose not to wear a helmet, you're a stupid **** for saying I'm stupid for not wearing one.
I'm not a fascist "anti-helmet" nazi. I believe them to have cosmetic protection, but I choose not to wear one. Go sit in your tower, dude.

closetbiker

Sorry, just another note.

I find it quite odd that from someone who received a concussion while wearing his helmet, claiming the helmet prevented brain injury and suggested I need to study a bit more, it seems the entry that's been suggested confirms what I've posted.

John C. Ratliff

First, I have not called anyone any of those names. You are profiling. Second, you apparently do not know, or have not looked up, the meaning of the word "oxymoron."

I really do not care whether you wear a helmet or not. I hope you enjoy your cycling. I feel, and will express those feelings, that helmets have value over and above the "cosmetic protection" that you and Closetbiker discuss. Will they keep me from being killed if I become a hood ornament on a Mac truck? No. But they may help out if I avoid the truck by the narrowest of margins, and go into a ditch somewhere.

Enjoy,

John

PS, for the record, I did not call you an anti-helmet nazi; I said how would you feel if that term were applied to you? It was a question, not a statement. I forgot the question mark, and for that I apologize. I have corrected that on that post.