# Which is safer, helmet or no helmet?



## grdnfg (Feb 24, 2009)

You're welcome to argue that a helmet protects you, but don't say something obscenely silly (see wikipedia or http://www.cyclehelmets.org if you believe
* Cycle helmets prevent 85% of head injuries and 88% of brain injuries
* Cycle helmets could prevent 90% of fatalities
* "I know someone whose helmet saved his life" 
or ask yourself why pedestrians don't wear them)

I wear a helmet when I commute because I reason that if a driver sees a cyclist without a helmet the driver will panic (bikes are not common around here). Others argue that the driver is more careful and considerate to a cyclist without a helmet. Your opinion, which is safer, helmet or no helmet?

I also wear one because I don't want to bump my head harder than I have to if I fall off which has happened 0 times so far.


----------



## MisterC (May 17, 2007)

go away.


----------



## grdnfg (Feb 24, 2009)

you know the source I'm refering to about drivers being considerate is http://www.drianwalker.com/overtaking/overtakingprobrief.pdf

and my message does not read that saying a helmet protects is silly but that certain claims are. I tend to think a helmet will have overall helpful effect although some scientists disagree.


----------



## debusama (Dec 9, 2008)

I doubt that drivers see a cycleist with a helmet, and think, “Oh, yes got a helmet, I guess I can hit him.”


----------



## pop_martian (Mar 20, 2007)

Are you a troll? What a stupid post.


----------



## Vulcan (May 22, 2004)

what?


----------



## aaron04 (May 26, 2008)

It's true! When I'm tooling around town and I see a cyclist without a helmet I totally freak out! I panic so much that I dont know what to do, I think and think as fast as I can and when I cant think anymore my mind simply shuts down and I automatically swerve right into the helmetless cyclist! It's the only thing that can be done at that point. Science has been working on this issue forever, there has even been several $100,000 government grants to study the issue. One study concluded that cyclists should wear faux paper helmets that keep motorists from panicking and thinking they are seeing a helmetless cyclist and at the same time the cyclist wont have to worry if his or her helmet truly protects his or her skull/brain.


----------



## Cayenne_Pepa (Dec 18, 2007)

A helmet saved my brain bucket...twice. Thanx to Giro- I get to ride another day. 

OP- no more "trick" questions...


----------



## highdelll (Oct 3, 2008)

your troll skills are weak Daniel-San


----------



## tduro (Jan 2, 2007)

grdnfg said:


> You're welcome to argue that a helmet protects you, but don't say something obscenely silly (see wikipedia or http://www.cyclehelmets.org if you believe
> * Cycle helmets prevent 85% of head injuries and 88% of brain injuries
> * Cycle helmets could prevent 90% of fatalities
> * "I know someone whose helmet saved his life"
> ...


In your case, I'd definitely recommend helmetless.


----------



## grdnfg (Feb 24, 2009)

(superfluous)


----------



## wheelerfreak (Jul 3, 2007)

Zachariah said:


> A helmet saved my brain bucket...twice. Thanx to Giro- I get to ride another day.
> .


 Same with me, only once and with a specialized helmet. I know for a fact that the helmet saved my life. As it was it was the helmet was destroyed and I ended up in the ER, without a helmet I would have still gone to the hospital, only to the morgue. I hit a sharp corner of a rock and the helmet took the brunt of the impact from the point of the rock.

I feel you should ride however you want though. I will continue to wear my helmet and pay no attention to your "scientific" references from Wiki.


----------



## Gary the No-Trash Cougar (Oct 14, 2008)

grdnfg said:


> Well one (sarcastic) response from someone who has seen one of the websites I mention. Any comments from anyone on the other sites?


WTF, you're giving us a homework assignment? OK. Wear one or don't, no one gives a damn. I do think you'd be better off posting this kind of thing at trollforums.... I mean bikeforums.net, where it belongs.


----------



## sandmangts (Feb 16, 2004)

grdnfg said:


> Well one (sarcastic) response from someone who has seen one of the websites I mention. Any comments from anyone on the other sites?
> 
> Do you misunderstand what I mean by safe? I knew a DH rider who has had a lot of extened hospital visits due due to his riding style -various broken bones etc but this is not what I am referring to. I mean avoiding fatal or very serious injuries in an accident with a car as mentioned on the websites I gave as reading material.
> 
> I ask myself how many posters even read wikipedia. This cannot be serious. If there are no better replies delete this thread please moderator.


I think you should definately not wear a helmet.


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

grdnfg said:


> You're welcome to argue that a helmet protects you, but don't say something obscenely silly (see wikipedia or http://www.cyclehelmets.org if you believe
> * Cycle helmets prevent 85% of head injuries and 88% of brain injuries
> * Cycle helmets could prevent 90% of fatalities
> * "I know someone whose helmet saved his life"
> ...


OK, I read the passing distance study, and briefly looked over the other site.

The overtaking distance study is pretty interesting, though the conclusion regarding helmets is a bit muddled. First, look at the graph where they show the mean distance as it relates to position on the road and helmet usage. It looks like a significant relationship, but look at the scale on the vertical axis (mean distance). It starts at 1 m, not zero, so it exaggerates the effect. Further, they say that helmets and rider position together account for 8% of overtaking distance variation, but that in itself says nothing of helmets by themselves. Look again at the graph, and at just how much the mean distance for helmet vs no helmet changes for each rider position. Very, very little (again, remeber the scale on the vertical axis does not start at zero). They don't even tell you if the difference was statistically significant. On the other hand, it does shed some doubt on the conventional wisdom regarding drivers giving more room the farther onto the road you are. I am curious if they would get the same results in America, where the roads are generally much wider.

As far as the other site, it simply does not seem very credible to me. None of what I read over was very convincing, and much was misleading. They seem very selective about what stats they cite. Honestly, IMO that site is a joke. Have you actually tried to follow up on some of the studies they site? Some of it is pretty lame.

The biggest blunder I saw them make again and again has to do with the use of head injury stats. Any time they quote a study showing an increase of head injuries, keep the following story in mind: After soldiers starting wearing helmets in WWI, head injuries at the field hospitals dramatically increased. If you can figure out why, you can debunk much of what is on that site. The fact that anyone should know better makes me think that the creators of that site are either incompetent, or, more likely, have some serious bias and/or agenda.

And yes, I do know people who's brains were saved by a helmet. And that site does a TERRIBLE job in attempting to debunk that argument.

The internet is a great source of info, but you can't believe everything people put on a website. Be more discriminating about it.

I have no doubt that I am more safe with a helmet.

EDIT: I do, however, think that helmet laws may be detrimental to the genetic fitness of a given population, as natural selection is being prevented from weeding out the dim-witted.


----------



## chrisnei (Jun 5, 2008)

aaron04 said:


> It's true! When I'm tooling around town and I see a cyclist without a helmet I totally freak out! I panic so much that I dont know what to do, I think and think as fast as I can and when I cant think anymore my mind simply shuts down and I automatically swerve right into the helmetless cyclist! It's the only thing that can be done at that point. Science has been working on this issue forever, there has even been several $100,000 government grants to study the issue. One study concluded that cyclists should wear faux paper helmets that keep motorists from panicking and thinking they are seeing a helmetless cyclist and at the same time the cyclist wont have to worry if his or her helmet truly protects his or her skull/brain.


That gave me a good laugh. :lol:


----------



## seawind161 (May 1, 2008)

tduro said:


> In your case, I'd definitely recommend helmetless.


:thumbsup: Nominated for "Best All-Round Answer of the Day"!


----------



## rocks'r'friends (Mar 30, 2007)

Don't wear a helmet if you choose, but please remember to fill out your organ donor card. Plenty of nice people needing kidneys and hearts and stuff.


----------



## Helmsdini (Oct 23, 2008)

"helmets" are simply a scheme created by the government to keep tabs on cyclists. They serve no real safety purpose and that which is perceived as a safety benefit is simply an elaborate hoax. Instead, they actually contain small transmitters that track and monitor cyclists to make sure we dont take over the planet. I switched from a helmet to an aluminum foil skullcap (deters both mind control AND thought stealing practices) years ago after a friend's uncle informed us that he was one of the scientists behind the government hoax. Those that you see supporting helmet use are actually elite government agents that are charged with spreading the propaganda. Do a test for yourself- run your head into a wall with and without a helmet. I can guarantee you will have a headache both times.


----------



## Cayenne_Pepa (Dec 18, 2007)

Helmsdini said:


> "helmets" are simply a scheme created by the government to keep tabs on cyclists. They serve no real safety purpose and that which is perceived as a safety benefit is simply an elaborate hoax. Instead, they actually contain small transmitters that track and monitor cyclists to make sure we dont take over the planet. I switched from a helmet to an aluminum foil skullcap (deters both mind control AND thought stealing practices) years ago after a friend's uncle informed us that he was one of the scientists behind the government hoax. Those that you see supporting helmet use are actually elite government agents that are charged with spreading the propaganda. Do a test for yourself- run your head into a wall with and without a helmet. I can guarantee you will have a headache both times.


lol...that's what social security numbers are for!

"Helmets do not determine who is right- but who is left"
--Confucius


----------



## nuck_chorris (Jun 6, 2008)

this is getting out of hand , the best protection for anybody is a cowboy hat, or does that just work on me.....guys im confused.....damn it grdnfg look at the mess you caused!!!


----------



## highdelll (Oct 3, 2008)

Here's me when I was younger....This is the helmet I wear - It's pretty Aero!!


----------



## damrtn (Jan 14, 2009)

Well, i must say VERY interesting, the study on cycling safety and statistics on helmet laws. Wether or not they are true is another story but nevertheless intersting. 

I have nothing against wearing a helmet, by all means if you feel you are safer with one then wear one!!! Just please don't annoy people that choose not to wear one. In 25 or so years i never wore one except for mountain biking and I am AGAINST helmet laws. They do so much harm to cycling and make people that cycle all that more alienated. I mean, if I have to cary a helmet to get to the corner store, then I'll take the car.

For me, a safety device that is a million times more effective is a MIRROR. I know guys that say that they can hear if a car is gonna hit them...HOW????Are you gonna turn your head before impact????


----------



## highdelll (Oct 3, 2008)

damrtn... said:


> They do so much harm to cycling and make people that cycle all that more alienated. I mean, if I have to cary a helmet to get to the corner store, then I'll take the car.
> 
> For me, a safety device that is a million times more effective is a MIRROR. I know guys that say that they can hear if a car is gonna hit them...HOW????Are you gonna turn your head before impact????


I agree helmet laws are kinda stupid... as well as seatbelts... as well as prostitution...as well as drugs etc..
But choosing to drive over wearing a helmet is dumb IMO.

Yes...a Mirror is a good device...but it does not stop you from being hit...people have several mirrors in their car...they get rear-ended all the time
does it help to navigate? - you bet!
will it save you from being hit?? 99-percent of the time - nope - uh-uh - sorry charlie...

*side -note 
what guys' say they're hearin' a car IF it's gonna hit 'em?... by the time I processed the sound- stereo-wise, It would be too late.


----------



## Helmsdini (Oct 23, 2008)

To each their own is my motto. 

I wear one, but I respect the rights of those that choose not to for whatever reason. Laws protecting us from ourselves never seem to do anything too productive.


----------



## Jwiffle (Jan 26, 2004)

He told us to read wikipedia   


Seriously, any teacher worth their pay would flunk any student who cited wikipedia on a research paper.


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

Jwiffle said:


> He told us to read wikipedia
> 
> Seriously, any teacher worth their pay would flunk any student who cited wikipedia on a research paper.


Where? Neither of the link he provided were wikipedia.


----------



## LWright (Jan 29, 2006)

Not having read any of the websites alluded to, here are a few obvious thoughts. If you hit your head, a helmet helps protect it. If you get hit by a car, massive internal trauma will kill you whether you wear a helmet or not.
The DOT (Department of Transportation) being unable to educate drivers to look or even see cyclist, motorized or not, yet wanting to appear concerned about safety, seek to create helmet laws. By focusing on head injuries, they can ignore that the real problem, is drivers not paying attention.


----------



## highdelll (Oct 3, 2008)

kapusta said:


> Where? Neither of the link he provided were wikipedia.


post #1...
"...obscenely silly (see wikipedia or http://www.cyclehelmets.org if you believe..."
not so much of a link but, 'see wiki'
I agree w/ Jwiffle tho...
all my teachers won't accept Wiki ref.s - unless it's _about_ Wiki 

I have to admit tho, It is pretty 'self-policing'


----------



## elvez (Jul 9, 2007)

Bingo!


----------



## citybiker (Mar 20, 2008)

Reminds me of a Monty Pyhton computer game. A Complete Waste of Time. More cycle time, less meaningless computer research would do us all good!!!


----------



## zarr (Feb 14, 2008)

The only safe place to be helmetless is in your coffin after you're dead. Even wearing one to bed at night is cool. Just in case a plane crashes on your house or your wife doesn't want to be bothered with you on those nights that you can't sleep!


----------



## -dustin (Jan 5, 2009)

my helmet from last thursday's ride to work...


----------



## zarr (Feb 14, 2008)

I saw guys riding with construction safety helmets on in midtown New York City. Maybe skate skate/BMX style helmets are better for commuting or one of those. For sleeping at night too maybe.


----------



## marzjennings (Jan 3, 2008)

-dustin said:


> my helmet from last thursday's ride to work...


"If a helmet splits before the liner has partially or fully compressed - and this is often the case - then it has simply failed. It will not have provided the designed protection and may in fact have absorbed very little energy at all."

Full text here...https://www.cyclehelmets.org/1019.html


----------



## -dustin (Jan 5, 2009)




----------



## ash240 (Jun 2, 2007)

IF a driver DOES see you half the problem is solved.

This is a stupid thread about an issue which has beendone over and over. 


I have a friend who is only alive due to wearing one. If you want to take the risk go right ahead BUT I don't see ANY reason I should be paying for a nurse to wipe your @rse for the next 30 years. Just do us all a favor, when you get hit, fall off or something have a DNR card on you and make sure it's put to use.


----------



## grdnfg (Feb 24, 2009)

For the record (!!) (I'm writing as if it mattered!!)

I was never intending to hijack mtbr forums and get you to do my 'homework.' 

How I got here : I was reading a cycling book copyright 2005 (an update of a 2000 book at that) with a page on helmets. As I recall it concluded neither for nor against helmets and named some pro riders who refused to wear helmets when riding in traffic. (no mention of tin foil). From the (outdated?) book I only get one authors opinion, and as anyone can write on wikipedia or set up a site as messy looking as cyclehelmets.org I thought I'd be better off asking experienced commuters what they think. As for the overtaking paper, it was widely covered in the UK on radio and press from Economist magazine to girlie-mag FHM I seem to remember. I thought there was a fair chance forum members would be familiar with it, otherwise I would not have introduced it without caveats. (No-one considered it definitive, and that's an understatement, (I can probably find the article from science and technology section of economist) but it became a talking point for raising an issue - this was not a tired topic as far as I knew, possibly is not a tired topic in the UK or at least to anyone but experienced riders.)

Anyway all in all I got/am getting what I was looking for, I'm still interested in the topic of safety but NOT in hijaking the forum, if anyone else is interested you mention accidents I'd like to learn what caused your commuter accident/friend's accidents eg bad weather, door opening on parked car, car turning without signal. 


Otherwise I'm not a troll and you'll find me following the advice in post #2. (And the donor card part of post #18).


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

marzjennings said:


> "If a helmet splits before the liner has partially or fully compressed - and this is often the case - then it has simply failed. It will not have provided the designed protection and may in fact have absorbed very little energy at all."
> 
> Full text here...http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1019.html


You can't believe whatever some fools you've never heard of post on the web. That site is a joke. Seriously, you would be better off with wikipedia, at least there there is some self monitoring and you can look to see how much discussion there is going on behind a page.

This is just some people writing whatever they want with very little to back anything up. Take a good look at what they actually cite studies on (usually it is not even pertaining to the main point they are claiming), what the studies actually say (often irrelevant to the point at hand), and how respectable some those studies actually are. You could have just written it yourself and it wold have just as much weight. Notice also how selective they are about the statistics they quote. Notice that they give NO evidence to back up the statement that you just quoted.

Good, Lord, it amazes me what people will believe, just because it is written somewhere. Most people on these boards know that you can't believe what everyone here says. Why do people assume that it changes anywhere else on the web? There are websites explaining why the Freemasons actually control the world, and ones claiming we did not land on the moon. Guess those must be true as well.

Sorry, rant over.


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

grdnfg said:


> For the record (!!) (I'm writing as if it mattered!!)
> 
> I was never intending to hijack mtbr forums and get you to do my 'homework.'
> 
> ...


Dude, you already KNEW what a joke cyclehelmets.org was waist of time and you posted a link to it anyway? WTF??!! Thanks for wasting my time. I read the first overtaking paper (which was worth reading, thank you) so I thought that there might actually be something worthwhile in the cyclehelmets.org site. As someone who doesn't just believe whatever i read, (or immediately discount what I don't agree with), and actually follow up on cited literature if something sounds interesting, sites like THAT are just a huge waist of time, and your credibility is in the toilet so far as I am now concerned. Don't bother linking to any websites, I'm not going to have my time wasted again.


----------



## saf-t (Nov 6, 2008)




----------



## peitro (Dec 8, 2006)

A co-worker showed me this NYT article about the whole theory of drivers and helmets and perceptions.... What BULLS**T!

I bike commute and work hard to stay visible bright clothes rear and front lights and there are still drivers that don't see you.

Check any ER tech the difference between someone living after a head collision or dying (or worse...) is whether or not they had a helmet on their head.

of course you really only need to wear your helmet if you are going to crash... so just ask yourself if you feel "lucky" I am super impresses by the brain trust I see riding singletrack without helmets... guess they are just very good and know where every tree limb is.

doh!


----------



## marzjennings (Jan 3, 2008)

kapusta said:


> You can't believe whatever some fools you've never heard of post on the web. That site is a joke. Seriously, you would be better off with wikipedia, at least there there is some self monitoring and you can look to see how much discussion there is going on behind a page.


A common misunderstanding is to assume that a broken helmet has prevented some serious injury[citation needed]. "the main impact was to my head. So much so, that my helmet broke in two (as it is designed to do). Without the helmet, it would have been my head that was broken and I wouldn't be writing this blog entry! I'd be dead..."[50]

Helmets are designed to crush without breaking; expanded polystyrene absorbs little energy in brittle failure and once it fails no further energy is absorbed. "cracks developing partly or fully through the thickness of the foam-slab renders it useless in crushing and absorbing impact forces"[51] To prevent overt fragmentation, the foam in most helmets is reinforced inside with plastic netting to keep the foam together even after cracking.

Source...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_helmet

It is very simple material science, the foam in a bike helmet is designed to absorb energy through compression and deformation and is functional within a range of forces.

For a small force the foam will not compress and the force will be transferred directly to the skull.

For a force within the design range, the foam will compress, absorbing some of the force and hence reducing the resultant force to the skull.

For a large force, above the design range, again the foam does not compress and the original force is transferred directly to the skull.


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

marzjennings said:


> A common misunderstanding is to assume that a broken helmet has prevented some serious injury[citation needed]. "the main impact was to my head. So much so, that my helmet broke in two (as it is designed to do). Without the helmet, it would have been my head that was broken and I wouldn't be writing this blog entry! I'd be dead..."[50]
> 
> Helmets are designed to crush without breaking; expanded polystyrene absorbs little energy in brittle failure and once it fails no further energy is absorbed. "cracks developing partly or fully through the thickness of the foam-slab renders it useless in crushing and absorbing impact forces"[51] To prevent overt fragmentation, the foam in most helmets is reinforced inside with plastic netting to keep the foam together even after cracking.
> 
> ...


Yes, as I said, you gain more from wikipedia than that site I was referring to, assuming you spend some time reading the discussion page (which I am guessing you did not, or you would have thought twice about quoting anything from that entry).


----------



## RockyRider (Nov 21, 2004)

*Stevie Wonder could see helmets make a difference*

And sorry but I, as well as some of my friends, have been saved by helmets. It's like asking if it's safer to skydive with or without a parachute. Where I live you can get ticketed for not wearing one and I'm not sure how many insurance companies would pay out if you were hurt in a place that requires them if you weren't wearing. It's really silly not to and there's no excuse for not wearing one anymore. They have become so comfortable, inexpensive and even stylish in the last 10 years that everyone needs one. The people that aggrivate me most are the families you see out on a bike path with the kids wearing helmets and the parents going without- what kind of message is that sending?

So what is safer: skydiving with or without a parachute? Discuss...


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

RockyRider said:


> So what is safer: skydiving with or without a parachute? Discuss...


Well, according to some of the logic from one of the sites mentioned, parachutes are dangerous, because if you outlawed them for skydiving, you would have fewer skydiving injuries.


----------



## Gary the No-Trash Cougar (Oct 14, 2008)

Parachutes kill! Studies show that 9 out of 10 skydiving accidents occur because the skydiver was wearing a parachute. I have this uncle who was skydiving, and because he was wearing one of those damn dangerous parachutes it hung up on a branch when he landed in some trees. Part of the harness wrapped around his neck and started to choke him. He creamed his jeans right as the rescue workers got to him. It was _terrible._


----------



## damrtn (Jan 14, 2009)

I fell about a hundred times and never hit my head. I grew up in the country and no one ever wore one. I have never seen anyone injure their head on a bicycle commute.I guess an angel is following me...

The only time i have seen injuries is in "sporty cycling" as in speed road cycling, mountain biking (dh and xc).Everyone wears a helmet for those types of cycling in my entourage.

I must say thanks a lot for this post. It really stirred up some thoughts and frustrations.
I'm a bit disapointed that some people in this forum are extremely close-minded and one-track-minded.I guess i like stats and numbers more than some.....and I do think a lot of it may be false but, i still enjoyed it.


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 3, 2008)

try putting a condom on your head, that should be some good protection


----------



## hmto (Jun 13, 2006)

good waste of 5 min


----------



## scaryguy137 (Feb 16, 2007)

I ride every single day as a commuter, and have had a LOT of crashes over the years. I have never once hit my head, and do not wear helmets when riding bikes for the same reasons i dont wear helmets while showering or walking down stairs.....

HOWever, the one reason i would and do consider wearing one from time to time is because I have a theory that "some" motorists will take you more seriously ie give you more space or be less likely to cuss at you when they pass if they see you wearing a helmet, simply because doing so makes you look a little less like just some kid or hobo playing around in the street on a bike.....

just my two cents. :thumbsup:


----------



## comfort biker (Feb 28, 2009)

I think that anticipating whether or not motorists will take you more seriously or pay more respect is inconsequential. Unfortunately, cyclist, motorists, parents, children or any other qualifying element you choose to identify yourself as, don't pay attention as often as they should. Period. To speculate on the mental state of motorists you are sharing the road with is risky. Helmets protect your head from injury. Why would any person not want to protect his or her head?

With regards to showering or walking downstairs... those activities are conducted at your normal movement speed. Cycling is at an increased, unnatural speed... in addition, you are not showering with enormous moving objects (presumably, ha! ). If you fall, you only have to worry about gravity... Cycling you have gravity and inertia to consider. 

Just my humble opinion.


----------



## peitro (Dec 8, 2006)

ok lots of joking in this post... and scaryguy is really scary for thinking he is not going to hit his head sometime..

don't be a schmuck wear your freaking helmet I have had my motorcycle helmet save my life 1x and my bike helmet save my live 2x one good hit to the head and it is all over for you but sadly not all over for your loved ones who get to spoon feed your braindead butt for the rest of your life.

http://www.10ad.org/wear-a-helmet-and-protect-your-life/


----------



## s0ckeyeus (Jun 20, 2008)

There's some goofy logic floating around these forums...

...and that's what it takes to believe that not wearing a helmet is just as safe as wearing one.


----------



## marzjennings (Jan 3, 2008)

peitro said:


> ok lots of joking in this post... and scaryguy is really scary for thinking he is not going to hit his head sometime..
> 
> don't be a schmuck wear your freaking helmet I have had my motorcycle helmet save my life 1x and my bike helmet save my live 2x one good hit to the head and it is all over for you but sadly not all over for your loved ones who get to spoon feed your braindead butt for the rest of your life.


It's not clear from the video/link whether they're promoting motorcycle helmets or bicycle helmets, two very different things.

It's true that a good hit to the head could mean it's all over, but unfortunatly your average bicycle helmet, I think, can not save lives, but only to reduce injury.

Wear one, I do, just stop believing in fairies.


----------



## tduro (Jan 2, 2007)

marzjennings said:


> unfortunatly your average bicycle helmet, I think, can not save lives, but only to reduce injury.


Ummm. Did you bump your head or something?

If injury can be reduced by wearing a helmet (which you conceded by making the above statement), then an injury which would otherwise result in death could be reduced to an injury that does not result in death. Right? Isn't that the same as saving a life?

Hello? Is there anybody in there?


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

tduro said:


> Ummm. Did you bump your head or something?
> 
> If injury can be reduced by wearing a helmet (which you conceded by making the above statement), then an injury which would otherwise result in death could be reduced to an injury that does not result in death. Right? Isn't that the same as saving a life?
> 
> Hello? Is there anybody in there?


Reason has no place in this thread:nono:


----------



## ericpulvermacher (Nov 1, 2008)

I did my own informal passing distance study and found that riding a unicycle instead of a bike made a hell of a lot more difference than helmet/no helmet. I have not been hit, nor have I had nearly as many close calls since I switched to commuting with a unicycle.


I wear a helmet if it isn't too cold out (otherwise I wear a toque and balaclava)


----------



## sanjuro (Sep 29, 2004)

What's safer when it comes to helmets, advice on the intraweb or common sense?


----------



## bucksaw87 (Jun 18, 2007)

so basically, if you wear a helmet in the US, you're gonna die in a bike wreck...whereas, the same bike wreck in the netherlands without a helmet, you're gonna live?

i don't get it

or maybe...just maybe...it's got something to do with the countries that those numbers were taken in. because the US isn't very "bike friendly" accidents are more likely to involve cars, and therefore be fatal...whereas, someplace like the netherlands where it IS very bike friendly isn't going to have nearly as many fatal car-bike accidents,

methinks this guy just found the website, got all heated because the site told him to, and decided to post up here...he didn't think anything through himself


----------



## marzjennings (Jan 3, 2008)

tduro said:


> Ummm. Did you bump your head or something?
> 
> If injury can be reduced by wearing a helmet (which you conceded by making the above statement), then an injury which would otherwise result in death could be reduced to an injury that does not result in death. Right? Isn't that the same as saving a life?


EDIT(belligerent crap removed)

My problem isn't with helmets themselves, or with the opinion of others that differs from mine, but with the development of legislation and laws regarding their use. Laws for the use of seatbelts are based on scientific and statistical research that has proven their value in saving lives. The same can not be said for helmets where data regarding their value is sparse and open to interpretation and misrepresentation.

If cyclists want to wear a helmet that has a chance of saving their lives in an automobile accident they should wear a motorcycle helmet. Something designed for high impact forces, but for most a motorcycle helmet is too cumbersome and therefore we're left with a compromise, the modern bicycle helmet. I think in designing a helmet light and comfortable enough for cyclists to wear, its safety performance has been compromised to the point of only providing protection against minor injuries and not able to prevent death.

So overall I'd say wearing a helmet is a good thing, but no I don't think they save lives. I just wish the current design of helmet was really up to the job. Maybe somebody will bring the principles of the cone-head (http://www.coneheadhelmets.com.au/about_c.html) helmet to cycling.


----------



## tduro (Jan 2, 2007)

marzjennings said:


> EDIT(belligerent crap removed)
> 
> My problem isn't with helmets themselves, or with the opinion of others that differs from mine, but with the development of legislation and laws regarding their use. Laws for the use of seatbelts are based on scientific and statistical research that has proven their value in saving lives. The same can not be said for helmets where data regarding their value is sparse and open to interpretation and misrepresentation.
> 
> ...


If you concede that bike helmets can reduce injury, then simple logic dictates that the reduction in injury can make the difference between life and death. That's all I'm saying. Opinions and statistics are not needed to reach that conclusion. Maybe you meant to say that there is no guarantee that a helmet will save a life in every accident. I would then have to agree with you. But unless they cause more injury than they prevent, they save lives overall.


----------



## Cayenne_Pepa (Dec 18, 2007)

This thread should have been closed, long ago. Helmets save lives...PERIOD.


----------



## marzjennings (Jan 3, 2008)

tduro said:


> If you concede that bike helmets can reduce injury, then simple logic dictates that the reduction in injury can make the difference between life and death. That's all I'm saying. Opinions and statistics are not needed to reach that conclusion. Maybe you meant to say that there is no guarantee that a helmet will save a life in every accident. I would then have to agree with you. But unless they cause more injury than they prevent, they save lives overall.


Simple logic would require a helmet that never fails and would always reduces the amount of force transferred to the skull and therefore reduce injury. But as far as I understand it, given enough force, a helmet will fail to compress and will transfer 100% of the impact force to the head and not reduce injury.

So if helmets are tested to function and protect up to 300g's, but in general serious injury doesn't occur until 400g's how are helmets supposed to protect from serious injury or death?

More reading here...http://www.helmets.org/whatneed.htm


----------



## tduro (Jan 2, 2007)

marzjennings said:


> Simple logic would require a helmet that never fails and would always reduces the amount of force transferred to the skull and therefore reduce injury.


Sorry, but that's not simple logic. That would be called miraculous. To have that expectation invites disappointment. Don't take this the wrong way, but is English your first language? If not, you're doing quite well, and speak more languages than I do. But it seems there are some words you don't completely understand. Perhaps that's why we're having trouble communicating.


----------



## marzjennings (Jan 3, 2008)

tduro said:


> Sorry, but that's not simple logic. That would be called miraculous. To have that expectation invites disappointment. Don't take this the wrong way, but is English your first language? If not, you're doing quite well, and speak more languages than I do. But it seems there are some words you don't completely understand. Perhaps that's why we're having trouble communicating.


I was responding to your comment so I'll clarify my statement a bit more and remove the spurious "S" typo.

Your simple logic would require a helmet that never fails and would always reduce the amount of force transferred to the skull and therefore reduce injury.

The point I was trying to make is that you seem to think a helmet will always reduce the impact force. I.e. If X is the original impact force, Y the absorption capacity of a helmet and Z the resultant force then X-Y=Z and Z<X always. And while the relationship is pretty linear there seems to be a point at which helmets fail and Y=0 and therefore Z=X. And from what I've read the point at which helmets fail falls below the level of serious impact and they don't provide any protection against a potentially lethal or brain damaging force.

I get *****y about this because it seems insurance companies are now reducing payment or not paying out at all in automobile accidents with cyclists who are not wearing a helmet. I believe these decisions are not based on any science and are unfair.

So English is your only language, when do you hope to comprehend it?


----------



## tduro (Jan 2, 2007)

marzjennings said:


> I was responding to your comment so I'll clarify my statement a bit more and remove the spurious "S" typo.
> 
> Your simple logic would require a helmet that never fails and would always reduce the amount of force transferred to the skull and therefore reduce injury.
> 
> ...


Sorry I offended you. That was not my intent. Although I must say, the things you attribute to me are a total fabrication on your part. I know helmets aren't perfect and will not save a life in every accident. I never said or suggested otherwise.

You repeatedly mention automobile accidents. There are no automobiles where I ride. After all, this is a mountain biking forum. You could make a helmet the size and weight of an automobile, and it wouldn't protect you on the road.

To save lives, helmets only need to reduce injury occasionally. That's it. On some of those occasions, the injury will be reduced slightly from "fatal" to "near-fatal". Each time that occurs, a life saved by a helmet. I don't understand why you can't comprehend this. It's really pretty simple.

BTW, my comprehension of English is just fine (when it's used properly).


----------

