San Rensho 

look at how many heads hit the pavement and tell me with a straight face that if they had not been wearing helmets, their head injuries (or lack thereof) would have been the same. Tell me that wearing a helmet didn't lessen thier injuries.

jfmckenna

Actually look at the neck rotation on that one hit, the guy in the spotty jersey.

longbeachgary

I thought the same thing - there would have been some very serious head injuries had they not been wearing helmets. Even with the helmets there were some bells rung.

onyourback

I'm trying to remember the last time I was hammering as hard as I could in the middle of a huge pack of other cyclists on my way to work. Can't think of any.

cudak888 

-Kurt

San Rensho 

Thats not the issue.

dougmc

How many "anti-helmet proponents" are there really, anyways? Sounds sort of like a strawman to me.

"Anti-helmet-law proponents", sure, but not many people go around saying that helmets never help.

longbeachgary

Please don't encourage the haters. Sufice it to say that injuries would have been much worse.

San Rensho 

Many anti helmet proponents here, in their partisan zeal, would never concede that point. Kind of like arguing the sun doesn't rise in the east, but they do it anyway.

mikeybikes

Sure, the helmets may very well have prevented some injuries. To what extent and what kind of injuries, we can't know for sure.

Now here's the question: When have you ever been in this situation? You may say, "It doesn't matter," but it really does if you're using it as an argument for helmet use.

closetbiker

Who's anti-helmet?

Adjective: anti 'an,tI or an-tee [N. Amer], an-tee [Brit]

Not in favour of (an action or proposal etc.)

Noun: anti 'an,tI or an-tee [N. Amer], an-tee [Brit]

A person who is opposed (to an action, policy or practice etc.)

"the antis smelled victory after a long battle"

Prefix: anti- 'an,tI or an-tee or an-ti [N. Amer], an-tee or an-ti [Brit]

Against, opposed to

"anti-war"

San Rensho 

Thank you, finally someone rational. And I agree with your second point, different situations may or may not argue for helmet use. When I ride in a big group of 50-100 riders on a training ride/race, I always wear a helmet, because what happened in the video happens on a regular basis on the group rides I go on. Now, when I ride 3 blocks to the store to get a newspaper, I don't wear a helmet.

San Rensho 

You are.

Paul Barnard

Very simply, the situation is that an accident caused their head to hit the ground. Should we wait until after accident causes our heads hit the ground to make a decision?

closetbiker

I'll post my stance from the thread asking for tolerance on the issue

you show me where I've posted that I'm against helmets

Paul Barnard

Everyone knows that helmets only protect you if you are going 14 miles per hour or less...I read that today.

Paul Barnard

Would his neck have rotated without a helmet?

San Rensho 

I don't see the rotation. All I see is a big hit of his head on the ground, a big bounce and the helmet coming partially off.

closetbiker

TRaffic Jammer

So... by the logic that caused this thread all motorists should wear a helmet because NASCAR & other motor sport drivers do and it's helped them in crashes.
Fugly crash though.

Paul Barnard

I'll bet those involved were pissed that they had helmets on and if given the chance to take that blow without a helmet would have chosen to remain without a helmet.

TRaffic Jammer

How many of them do you think where their lids going to the corner store or training for that matter?

jfmckenna

Who knows, look right at 1:01. But when those pointy shards that stick out of helmets, because I guess marketing departments think they look cool, hit the ground you can get some nice leverage. Not trying to say that it's worse.

chasm54

This is a typical example of the pro-helmet brigade's propaganda, in my view. "look at that, doesn't it look awful. someone would surely have died if they hadn't been wearing helmets".

Er, who knows? Since we don't have a control group reconstructing the same crash without lids, we have no way of knowing what would have occurred. And this isn't just sophistry. As I have posted on another thread, I have hit another vehicle, headfirst, at approaching fifteen miles an hour and suffered no significant damage despite not wearing a helmet. Had I done so helmeted, I might well have assumed, quite wrongly, that my escaping injury was to the helmet's credit.

In this instance, look at Cavendish. Despite the speed, despite the force with which he hits the road, he doesn't seem to sustain much of an impact to the head. These things aren't simple.

In any event, looking at individual incidents and trying to draw general conclusions is always flawed. The fact is that the increase in helmet usage here in the UK has not resulted in any discernible reduction in head injuries. So even if they have saved some people on some occasions - which I am certainly prepared to concede - they haven't reduced the risk. I don't think anybody understands why. I do think that many cyclists and parents of cyclists place a ludicrous amount of faith in a helmet's ability to protect them and their children, and I know for a fact that the chances of an unhelmeted cyclist sustaining a serious head injury are very small.

San Rensho 

You have argued that helmets cause more extensive injuries because of increased rotation forces, you have argued that statistically, there are more injuries in helmet wearing populations than in those that don't wear helmets. But of course you are going to say that the previous positions do not make you anti helmet.