closetbiker

I'm no lawyer (but I'd be willing to check this out with one) but it seems to me that saying "Helmets are the single most effective means of preventing these injuries" is not a claim that helmets saves lives. The claim that helmets save lives is a blanket, unconditional guarantee.

I've long posted (and I believe we agree) that wearing one is better than nothing, but where we part company is where I agree with Mr. Walker when he says a helmet can be subjected to severity loads greater than it is designed to cope with. In some situations, it's just about as effective as that little umbrella Wile E. Coyote held up before the anvil fell on him.

I believe this is an example that Mr. Walkers tries to address in his claim that opinions have been technically adrift of reality or based on misinformation.

Helmets are the single most effective means of preventing these injuries is not a claim that helmets saves lives.

I still think prevention by behavior is far more effective and I've seen too many deaths of people who were wearing helmets (and not just a few, more along the lines of 50% of cyclists wearing helmets) and read too many pathologists reports, to put too much faith in a bit of shock absorbsion meant for a simple fall (and not a collision with a motor vehicle or an accelerated run into a solid object) to put up any protection beyond what it was made to absorb.

"In road traffic accidents, it's not unlikely for a helmet to be subjected to severity loads greater than it is designed to cope with. The helmet is not intended for high speed or long distance cycling or for riders taking part in competitive events."

Words put forth from an expert who knows what a helmet can and cannot do.

Believe what you will, but a country with no helmet wearers that has a much lower rate of mortality and injury of cyclists than a country that has a very high rate of helmet wearing and higher rates of mortality and injury of cyclists, tells me the answer to safe cycing has little to do with helmets.

I don't understand how it is that focus is put upon one risk over much greater risks just because the lesser risk has some type of societle oddity element even when that oddity is beneficial to everybody, except if there is some kind of self loathing, because one can't find it in themselves to contribute in such a beneficial manner to others.

What a load of judgemental guilt.

John C. Ratliff

Closetbiker,

I can disagree with nothing you have said in the above post. To me, preventing injury is analogous to saving lives, but you are correct about legal terminology, and either expressed or implied warrantees. Just as firefighters cannot depend upon their fire helmet to save their life when a building falls down, neither can a bicyclist depent solely upon a helmet when there is an auto collision. But, neither the firefighter nor the bicyclist should ignore the helmet as a tool in the toolbox of injury prevention.

I've been out diving today, and I wear a helmet for my scuba diving too. This provides surface visibility of me to boats which may be nearby. Mine is yellow, and has reflective tape on it, just as does my bicycle helmet. I continued wearing it as I climbed out of the Clackamas River, as I could foresee the potential of me falling down on the rocks in the 30 foot climb out of the river (and initially, the rocks were wet with water and slimy with algea). It was a beautiful morning, and a very enjoyable dive.

John

closetbiker

I ask you to look at this study done of all the deaths of cyclists in my province over an 8 year span
https://www.helmets.org/bcstudy.htm
(down close to the bottom of the study, part IV, appendix a) and see, of the 65 deaths of cyclists, 63 involved a motor vehicle, 1 involved a train and only 1 involved a simple fall. Note the report's first and perhaps most important recommendation was for legislation requiring cyclists to wear helmets. Note also that, the case used to highlight the push for the law was of the tragic death of Nathan Geminiano who was wearing a helmet at the time of his death.

The irony is too much.

John C. Ratliff

Closetbiker,

I've started looking at this study, but do not have much time to put into it at this moment. I'll give you a preliminary overview soon (within the next few days), and I'm now starting to understand where you are coming from. I'll have more time to put into it in about three weeks, and will look at it in more depth then.

Concerning helmets, let me tell everyone a story out of the Vietnam War. I served with a fellow named Duane Hackney, who was a pretty famous USAF Pararescueman. He served three tours of duty in Vietnam as a Pararescueman, and distinguished himself with bravery on every tour. On one tour, he was wearing a brand new, ballistic helmet that was said to be able to bounce a bullet off it without injuring the wearer. Well, on a mission shortly thereafter, Duane stuck his head out the helicopter window, and bounced a bullet off the helmet, proving its utility. On his next tour, he decided that he didn't like the weight of the ballistic helmet, and so wore a regular, fiberglass helmet. On a subsequent rescue mission, the helicopter came under enemy fire. a bullet entered the helmet to the side of Duane's head, nicked his ear, and exited out the back of the fiberglass helmet. Had he been wearing the ballistic helmet, that bullet would have entered, and bounced around inside the helmet until it hit his head. We felt Duane led a charmed life. Here's a write-up on his life:

https://www.af.mil/history/person.asp?dec=&pid=123006516

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duane_D._Hackney

Why do I put this into a bicycle helmet thread? Two reasons. The first is that it is coming up on Memorial Day, when in the United States we remember the veterans of our wars who have served to keep us safe and free. Duane Hackney was one of those, and unfortunately he is no longer with us. He died of a heart attack at age 46 in 1993.

But the second reason is to say that helmets are designed with a number of parameters in mind. The "perfect" bicycle helmet would be too hot and heavy for much use, and so we compromise. Closetbiker is correct in saying that they may not completely protect against some impacts, and that there are other things that we can do to protect ourselves, which have to do with how we ride, where we ride, how visible we are, and whether we can see others and they can see us. The study he gave me with links is something that he is having to cope with in Canada, and one I will be studying in about three weeks in detail. I urge others to look at this study, and also to comment on it here.

Thanks,

John

PS--Those wanting to know more about Pararescue, can visit these sites:

https://www.answers.com/topic/air-force-pararescue

https://www.pjsinnam.com/index.htm

ZachS

continuted from another thread:

think about basic physics for a second - when your head (helmeted or not) hits something, kinetic energy gets transmitted through your skull and spine. if you're wearing a helmet, and the helmet crushes, yes - the amount of energy it takes to crush the HDEP wil be absorbed - the question is, how much energy is that? answer: not much. not much at all - any energy that is "absorbed" gets turned into heat, and if it was a substantial amount, the helmet would get very hot. what the helmet does is slows the decceleration of your skull and brain when they hit something. but there is still a very rapid decceleration. helmets are very good at preventing minor injuries in low-speed collisions and falls, but not at keeping you from getting killed.

How quick would a rim get screwed up if you rode it with a foam tire? Wait, let's ask Sheldon Brown:

apples and oranges.

When have I tried to convince anybody that they shouldn't? I myself, though, am firmly convinced that nobody should feel bad about not wearing one.

sentinel4675

As is the case in many crashes, it is not the crash that kills or injures but the sudden stop. Having equipment that spreads crash forces over a wider area helps spread it. Try an experiment. Hit a desk top with a knuckle of your hand and then use the same force and hit the desk top with your open hand and see which hurts more.

closetbiker

Ya, that sudden stop where the brains movement continues on inside the skull despite the impact absorbsion of the helmet leading to brain damage that neosurgeons and pathologists say could not have been prevented even wearing a helmet.

When one of the leading experts on the mechanics of helmets publicly goes on record saying people have been technically adrift of reality or have beliefs based on misinformation, you have to take notice.

It's like the above post where I point out, Helmets are the single most effective means of preventing these injuries is not a claim that helmets saves lives. It's also like the study that claims "up to" 85% injury reduction. The, "up to" part gets dropped, then it's, helmets reduce brain injury, then it's helmets save lives in collisions with automobiles. Everything becomes technically adrift of reality and people have beliefs based on misinformation.

Helmets have never been made to withstand a collision with an automobile. Cycle helmets are primarily designed for falls without any other vehicle involved.They were simply an improvement to the old "hair net" bicycle helmets. The tests that helmets go through mean that they should offer protection to a pedestrian who trips and falls to the pavement. The forward to standards read: the standard specifies requirements for helmets intended for use by pedal cyclists on ordinary roads, particularily by young riders in the 5 years to 14 years age group, but which may also be used off road. It is not intended for high speed or long distance cycling or for riders taking part in competitive events.

How can you ignore this experts testimony?

What's the old saying? Never bring a knife to a gun fight? How long would cops wear vests that can't stop a .22? Maybe the vest might work in a knife fight, but it's not much good in a gun fight. A helmet might do some good, if you're not moving forward and just fall (even that's not that clear if it would) but as soon as you start cranking those pedals or if a car cuts you off and you go down, it usefullness is in very grave doubt (at least according to people who know about such things, not people who just assume based on promotional material used to sell a product).

ZachS

A better comparison might be a vest which stops a .22, but nothing larger. I don't think very many people would think highly of someone who wore such a vest because they believed it would slow down a more powerful round.

Also, apropos of nothing, bulletproof vests are not generally stab-resistant at all: they're designed to stop bullets, which are soft and blunt.

closetbiker

Not the best analogy, I know, but I'm stretching for something that sentinel4675 could relate to.

How best to relay the misinformation that someone grasps to because they have a need to believe?

People see what they want to, not what's there.

closetbiker

The point in showing that study, is that virtually every death to a cyclist has been from a motor vehicles collision with a cyclist.

If you do indeed, not disagree with anything I had said in my previous post, and respect Mr. Walkers qualifications and expertise, you must acknowledge that helmets have not or could not have saved the lives of these cyclists. The behaviour of the dead cyclists (as well as the drivers) could be improved a great deal, and there will always be those who make mistakes, but clearly, these riders were the authors of their own demise, and a helmet would have not helped a lick.

Education, encouragement of cycling (to increase numbers of cyclists), and enforcement of current traffic laws are the best tools to improve safety on the roads, not a helmet that is only meant for a simple fall with no other vehicle involved.

John C. Ratliff

Closetbiker,

You have lost your credibility with me, as I told you that I would be looking at this study and give it a professional review. But instead of waiting until I had a chance to review it, you decided to make pronouncements about it which the study, by its design, could not validate. Here are your words:

First, this is a study of bicycling fatalities. You would expect to find a certain number of accidents where the helmet had failed in fatal accidents. But at this point I cannot say that none of these accident victims would have been saved by wearing a helmet. Certainly, the 4-year-old girl who was run over by a car (Case #2) probably would have died if she had been wearing a helmet. But I cannot say that for sure, as she may not have died if she had a helmet--remember the one incident several pages back where a helmet saved a boy's life in Roseburg, Oregon by stopping a car wheel from running over the head of the bicyclist? This is the story you would not comment upon. This study, Cyclinig Deaths in BC, (https://www.helmets.org/bcstudy.htm) does say this:

You say that this study is biased toward helmets, when in the study it also states:

I will comment in about three weeks about the more detailed information, but my initial look is that while this is an important study on bicycling fatalities, that in and of itself cannot show the effectiveness of helmets, as it looks only at the fatalities. What about the mishaps which did not result in a fatal accident, or even a hospital visit, because while the helmet was damaged, the bicyclists head was not?

Tomorrow, there will be a "Ride of Silence" to honor those bicyclists throughout the nation who have died riding bicycles. It was reported in The Oregonian, and will be held at 7 PM Wednesday, May 17th at Wilshire Park, NE 33rd Avenue and Skidmore Street in Portland, Oregon. It will also be held in over 200 other cities throughout the nation:

https://rideofsilence.org/main.php

In today's article in The Oregonian, writer Spencer Heinz noted:

See: https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/o...430.xml&coll=7
The point here is that if we looked only at the 14 people who died between 2000 and 2005 in the Portland area, we would miss those who did not die. Using the numbers in The Oregonian above, there were about 960 reported bicycle crashes which a study on the fatalities would not see. I was in two of those in that time period, and in one, according to the trauma doc, the helmet saved my life. The helmet also failed upon impact, and was later found in about twelve pieces. But it served its purpose during the initial phase of the crash, cushioning my head by compressing a huge amount, which I have documented on other threads.

Now, a comment on your analogy of the brain continuing forward within the skull when the head decelerates quickly. A helmet is designed to slow the deceleration, but a head without a helmet decelerates almost instantaneously. The helmet "cushions" the blow, and not only spreads the forces of the trauma over a larger portion, but also allows the foam to crush and absorb the shock, so that the head does not slow as quickly. This has the effect of lowering the deceleration forces, and protecting the brain. To suggest that because a helmet fails that a person would not be protected by it is erronious thinking.

That said, saying that bicycle helmets are not meant for car crashes is like saying that a fighter pilot's helmet is not made for a fighter plane crash; of course it's not. Even cars with all the protection, the engineering of a collapsing body, is not made to crash successfully with a truck. You won't see any warrantees about that in a car. But you will see all this engineering of the car body, the air bags, the passenger retention system, child seats, etc. in a car. But that doesn't invalidate wearing a helmet, either for a fighter pilot or for a bicyclist (who has no other engineering to protect him/her).

I once pulled two fighter pilots out of the Yellow Sea who had died in a fighter crash into the water. The pilots did not have a working altitude indicator (radar altimeter), and came through the clouds at what they thought was about 10,000 feet, but it was only 1,000 feet over the water. The Yellow Sea was flat calm that day, without wave indication the pilots could relate to their altitude. Their last transmission before the tower lost them was that they were descending toward 1000 feet; in reality they flew their aircraft into the water at that point. They were wearing helmets, but that did not protect them when they were ejected through the canopy and into the water. But that's not what their helmets were designed for. Does that mean they should not be concerned about wearing their helmet? Of course not. The fighter's helmet has many uses, with a visor for sun protection to the eyes, a built-in radio system, and hearing protection from the ear muffs. It also serves as head protection to a certain extent, especially when the pilot ejects and is in a parachute.

In a similar manner, just because a bicycle helmet may not protect against the huge forces of an auto (or a truck--several of the BC fatalities involved trucks) does not mean that bicyclists should not wear a helmet. Actually, the reverse is true, because without a helmet you don't stand much of a chance; with it, there is a possibility of living through it. Granted, it is best to totally prevent the accident in the first place, but the bicyclist's helmet does have its place in the prevention equation.

John

Bikepacker67

99% of the time I wear a helmet.

1% of the time I am truly free (test rides around the neighborhood when I'm flucking up my derailleurs).

I hate to admit it, but riding sans skullcap is to brainbucket-cycling as cycling is to caging.

ZachS

you mean that it's safer, or just more pleasant? i would never argue the former, but certainly wouldn't disagree with the latter....

closetbiker

That's fine. At last we're mutual now. You lost yours with me long ago.

I think Mr. Walkers credentials and qualifications trump yours, as does the neurosurgeons and pathologists that have testified in court on how effective helmets are.

You can have your opinion, but an opinion can't change physics.

You only create confusion when I post, and you post and then you post Additionally, when you post you create even more confusion because the point is not weather someone should wear a helmet or not, the point is simply the limits of the effectiveness of the helmet one is wearing.

When you say things like when I actually quoted the report saying, once again reveals, this inability you have a nack for, to be unable to discern differences in positions or points.

That you claim I didn't comment upon the story where a helmet was claimed to have saved a boy's life in Roseburg, Oregon by stopping a car wheel from running over the head of the bicyclist (ya, right...that's a good one ), when that post was specifically mentioned in post #557 and that story was used to submit Mr. Walkers testimony and bring my non-compliance of responding to your posts to an end, shows again, that you can't form proper arguments because you can't even keep straight what has or has not been gone over, or you just make things up and say something hasn't happened when it has.

Don't bother with the detailed, "professional" review John. I have doubts that it'll be worth the bandwidth it's posted on.

John C. Ratliff

Closetbiker,

I don't think you really understand the intricacies of language, and specifically the difference in the meaning of the two words, "comment" and "mention" (from: https://www.m-w.com/ ).

comment

2 entries found for comment.
To select an entry, click on it.

Main Entry: 1com·ment
Pronunciation: 'kä-"ment
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Late Latin commentum, from Latin, invention, from neuter of commentus, past participle of comminisci to invent, from com- + -minisci (akin to ment-, mens mind) -- more at MIND
1 : COMMENTARY
2 : a note explaining, illustrating, or criticizing the meaning of a writing
3 a : an observation or remark expressing an opinion or attitude b : a judgment expressed indirectly

mention

3 entries found for mention.
To select an entry, click on it.

Main Entry: 1men·tion
Pronunciation: 'men(t)-sh&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mencioun, from Middle French mention, from Latin mention-, mentio; akin to Latin meminisse to remember, ment-, mens mind
1 : the act or an instance of citing or calling attention to someone or something especially in a casual or incidental manner
2 : formal citation for outstanding achievement

I grant that you "mentioned" this in post #557, but you certainly did not "comment" on it. What you did do was to cite someone else's writings, but not do more than mention this story. But, I will grant that you have now commented on this story:

Did I once say something about you using ridicule toward those with whom you disagree? Maybe my memory isn't quite there all right, and if I did not, perhaps now would be a good time.

ridicule

2 entries found for ridicule.
To select an entry, click on it.

Main Entry: 1rid·i·cule
Pronunciation: 'ri-d&-"kyü(&)l
Function: noun
Etymology: French or Latin; French, from Latin ridiculum jest
: the act of exposing to laughter : DERISION, MOCKERY

By the way, that was not only my comment, but the comments of Erik Robinson, reporter for The News Review at the time; Ron Beach, the police officer on scene; and Randy Wetmore, the father of the boy, Stewart Wetmore, who's life was saved by the helmet.

John

NoReg

I've been in the legislative sector, and a conclusion in a government report relating to the need to continue with government policy (or the same kind of thing from lobbies) is of no value whatever.

closetbiker

in a number of postings here, there is no value whatsoever as well.

Sometimes, you have to laugh, or you'll end up crying.

chipcom 

Sorry to disagree, John, but the helmet did not save Stewart - his diety of choice did. It was not his time. When it is your time, you can be hiding away in a bunker, armed to the teeth, encased in armor, surrounded by dozens of dobermans who only know two words; 'EAT EM!!', and it still won't save you. Yes, the helmet did it's job, but the result of the entire affair was in the hands of <your diety here>.

There's the aspect of helmets, seatbelts and other safety devices that nobody ever mentions. I'm no religious fanatic, but I choose to put my life in the hands of Jesus and the Almighty, having faith in the gifts they gave me, that they will guide and watch over me, protecting me from harm unless such harm is in their plan, rather than to put my faith in some man-made gadget. My faith has served me well for nearly 5 decades of my life, who are you, or anyone else, to tell me that my faith is misguided and that you know a better way?

Just another point of view that doesn't require facts, figures & statistics.

Edit: Some might say 'what's the harm in a helmet, just in case?' Having faith that a bullet won't kill you while donning a bullet-proof vest isn't an act of faith, standing bare in the path of the bullet is an act of faith. Of course that is my personal view, I am not in any way questioning the faith of others or their choice to wear a helmet.

closetbiker

Like I said (back on page # 21, post #523), maybe the whole issue has to do with faith.

An illogical belief in the irrational.

I'd like to believe that an all mighty being that designed me and placed me here, would have given me the ability to use the mind He gave me to decide what best to do in any given situation.

sentinel4675

Maybe God is giving you the best way to protect yourself and that is by the helmet or the seatbelt etc. We have free will to do what we wish, and God gives us the chance to decide.

noisebeam

Well its helmet season here again. That is, the time of year where wearing a helmet keeps ones head cooler than no helmet or even just a cycling cap. That extra thick styrofoam, the airspace and vents keep ones head shaded and breezy, perfect for high sun, high heat, low humidity days.

Al

chipcom 

I'm the opposite. I like just my coolmax cap or a baseball cap in the summer, but in the winter the helmet with reflective cover and warm thingies underneath keep my melon warm...plus the odds of going down on my winter commute is greater - snow and ice do funny things! But some folks ain't got to deal with winter...yes Al I am calling you a bastardo!!!

closetbiker

My free will to use my God-given common sense tells me that too much faith in something not shown to be worthy of faith is wasted faith.

I've read of tests that claim heads are cooler with helmets because of the way the vents are designed to channel the air, but in my experience, I don't buy those claims. My head is always much cooler without than with a helmet on.

Daily Commute

.
It ain't "bias" if it's a judgment based on the evidence in the study. John, did the study address the argument that helmet laws cause health risks by discourage cycling and encouraging people to be less active?

Closebiker, other than the conclusion and alleged "bias," what's wrong with this study? In response to the study, you are just giving the standard anti-helmet rhetoric. That's not persuasive. I'll be interested in seeing John's opinion.

As I've said before, I'm on the fence about helmets. I wear one, but I haven't seen good studies proving the usefulness of helmets. I also oppose having the government force cyclists to wear them.

closetbiker

I think the study and most of it's recomondations are good. You can read it from the link if you want, but there was a better study done in the same time period by a firm hired by BC's monoploly auto iinsurer, ICBC.

As I said before the position of the office that produced the study was biased (even before the study was done) and the report doesn't even support the bias for mandatory helmets. The featured incident that leads off the study involved a helmet wearing cyclist being run over by a truck.

In light of the newly linked information made public by Mr. Walker, you can see the point being made when vitually all cycling deaths in the report were linked to automobile crashes. Helmets not the cure the office is looking for to solve the problem.