Helmets

yk said:

The price range from $10 - $200. What are the differences ? Are
expensive helmets safer or more aero-dynamically designed ? What to look
for besides fit and color ? TIA

Three things to look for in a helmet, fit, fit and ohh yes, fit.

More expensive ones may be 'cooler' in terms of temp and looks but all
are approved to the same 'low' standrards of safety in terms of height
and speed. 4 ft and 14 MPH...

On point! Hell-mutt nazis never address rotation/shear brain injuries. The
statistical data is corrupt but

The conspiracy of ignorance masquerades as common sense.

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I grant you that. He might have made it to dead sooner w/o the
helment. I don't remember anyone blaming his broken neck on the
helmet.

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

The price range from $10 - $200. What are the differences ?

Advertising. Lighter weight. Lastest fad color scheme.

Quoted message said:

Are expensive helmets safer or more aero-dynamically designed ?

Possibly more aero. If you as the manufacturer, they will tell you their
cheapest helmets are just as safe as their expensive ones.

Quoted message said:

What to look for besides fit and color ? TIA

ANSI or SNELL sticker is important. I find that high end helmets with prior
years color schemes tend to be the best deals. You can usually find them
for about 1/3 the price of the latest fad color.
---------------
Alex

mark said:

<[email hidden]> wrote ...

Quoted message said:

mark said:

In other words, look for fit, color, an acceptable level of ventilation

and

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

a reasonably sturdy retention system. And keep in mind that they really
won't help much at speeds over 12-15 mph, and they won't do much good in

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

typical cyclist/car collision.

It depends. If you go head first into a windshield, it will absorb some
of the energy, as will the windshield itself. It is certainly better
than nothing, but it is not designed to provide full protection from
that type of impact. If you are launched into the air, it will absorb
the energy of the fall from whatever height your head reaches, up to
about 6' (IIRC), due to the acceleration of gravity, and maybe will
have some capacity leftover to absorb some deceleration from any
frontal impact. All in all, your higher brain tissue may be left intact
while the rest of your body (including brain stem)gets beat to hell. I
would say that it will do a lot of good in a typical collision, but it
will not always be enough.

That's nice, I'll be sure and go through the windshield the next time a car
hits me, and I'll make sure not to get launched more than 6' into the air.

Stop taking it so personally and you might realize that I was trying to
explain what protection a helmet does provide, and what it doesn't.

If you think about it, your head is only about 4' from the ground when
you're on a bike. No matter how hard you are hit, your head will only
accelerate toward the ground from that height unless the angle of
collision somehow catapults you higher or into the ground.

So, in fact, contrary to your original statement, a helmet provides
significant protection to the brain in most types of collisions, but it
is the only part of the body that is protected to any degree.

If you don't want to use a helmet, fine, but at least don't go around
spreading nonsense.

Alex Rodriguez said:

ANSI or SNELL sticker is important.

Alex, I see this all the time (especially on ride event applications).
Guess what? If your helmet is less than 10 years old, it is NOT ANSI
certified. And it's there's only a very slim chance it's SNELL
certified.

Most helmets sold in the US are CPSC certified.

See:
http://www.bhsi.org/standard.htm

Art Harris

Quoted message said:

If you think about it, your head is only about 4' from the ground when
you're on a bike.

Um, you might want to measure that.

Quoted message said:

No matter how hard you are hit, your head will only
accelerate toward the ground from that height unless the angle of
collision somehow catapults you higher or into the ground.

So, in fact, contrary to your original statement, a helmet provides
significant protection to the brain in most types of collisions, but it
is the only part of the body that is protected to any degree.

You seem to be assuming the "collision" will involve only a rider
toppling to the flat ground. Things are a bit more complicated.

First, very few topples to flat ground are serious problems. People
have been falling off bikes ever since bikes were invented. Those
people land on their head only in vanishingly rare cases. IOW, those
incidents aren't worth worrying about. (Contrary to modern belief,
people actually survived riding bikes in pre-helmet days!)

The events that are used to promote helmets are those that cause
permanent injury or death. The vast majority of those events involve
collisions with moving motor vehicles. In those cases, it's very
common for the impact speed to be much higher than the 14 mph - that
is, to greatly exceed the rated capacity of a bike helmet.

Perhaps you're imagining that the typical car-bike collision involves
simply knocking the cyclist to the ground. But AFAIK, that's never
been demonstrated to be the case. And even if it were, there's no
reason to think the head's impact with the ground would be at only 14
mph. Crashes like that are very chaotic, in the mathematical sense.
IOW, the motion of the cyclist's body would be extremely random. It's
entirely possible that the cyclist would be energetically "flipped" and
have his head impact the ground at higher speed, even if it managed to
miss impacting the car itself.

Try momentarily balancing a 6" wooden pencil on it's point, and hit it
with a horizontal impact about 1" above the table. You'll see the
eraser hit the table much faster than if the pencil just toppled. The
same motion (or a chaotic variation of it) is possible with a cyclist
hit by a car.

Whatever the details of the mechanics, it's good to keep one fact
firmly in mind: Helmets are NOT working as claimed. Head injury rates
are not being improved by helmet wearing, and indeed seem to be
worsening somewhat. There may be other factors involved, but one
likely one is that a helmet certified for only a 14 mph impact is -
guess what? - actually good only for a 14 mph impact!

Quoted message said:

If you don't want to use a helmet, fine, but at least don't go around
spreading nonsense.

Ditto if you want to use a helmet.

- Frank Krygowski

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If you think about it, your head is only about 4' from the ground when
you're on a bike.

Um, you might want to measure that.

Um, I would, except I'm nowhere near my bicycle. Is it less than 6'?
The answer is yes, so it doesn't matter.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

No matter how hard you are hit, your head will only
accelerate toward the ground from that height unless the angle of
collision somehow catapults you higher or into the ground.

So, in fact, contrary to your original statement, a helmet provides
significant protection to the brain in most types of collisions, but it
is the only part of the body that is protected to any degree.

You seem to be assuming the "collision" will involve only a rider
toppling to the flat ground. Things are a bit more complicated.

Um, no, hence the statement "unless the angle of collision somehow
catapults you higher or into the ground". Um, you seem to be making the
mistake of thinking that the acceleration of gravity is somehow more
when you are falling toward the ground as a result of being hit from
the side.

Quoted message said:

First, very few topples to flat ground are serious problems. People
have been falling off bikes ever since bikes were invented. Those
people land on their head only in vanishingly rare cases. IOW, those
incidents aren't worth worrying about. (Contrary to modern belief,
people actually survived riding bikes in pre-helmet days!)

All irrelevant since I wasn't talking about "topples", but [censored],
nevertheless. If you don't get an arm out to break your fall, you very
likely will bounce your head off the pavement, and the fall from the
height your head is at at the time of the crash is sufficient,
physiologically speaking, to bash your brains out.

Quoted message said:

The events that are used to promote helmets are those that cause
permanent injury or death. The vast majority of those events involve
collisions with moving motor vehicles. In those cases, it's very
common for the impact speed to be much higher than the 14 mph - that
is, to greatly exceed the rated capacity of a bike helmet.

But your head still accelerates to the ground at the acceleration of
gravity.

Quoted message said:

Perhaps you're imagining that the typical car-bike collision involves
simply knocking the cyclist to the ground. But AFAIK, that's never
been demonstrated to be the case.

Nope, I'm assuming that the typical collision involves getting knocked
sideways hard as hell but falling toward the ground at the acceleration
of gravity.

Quoted message said:

And even if it were, there's no
reason to think the head's impact with the ground would be at only 14
mph. Crashes like that are very chaotic, in the mathematical sense.

The only way a car will knock you into the ground at 14 mph is if it is
going 14 mph in the direction of the ground when it falls on top of
you.

Quoted message said:

Crashes like that are very chaotic, in the mathematical sense.

Again, recalling my statement "unless the angle of collision somehow
catapults you higher or into the ground", which added to the case of a
perfect sideways hit covers _all_ the possibilities of the maximum
acceleration toward the ground in that chaos.

Quoted message said:

IOW, the motion of the cyclist's body would be extremely random. It's
entirely possible that the cyclist would be energetically "flipped" and
have his head impact the ground at higher speed, even if it managed to
miss impacting the car itself.

Thank you. That would be covered by "catapults".

Quoted message said:

Whatever the details of the mechanics, it's good to keep one fact
firmly in mind: Helmets are NOT working as claimed. Head injury rates
are not being improved by helmet wearing, and indeed seem to be
worsening somewhat.

[censored]. Cite needed.

Quoted message said:

There may be other factors involved, but one
likely one is that a helmet certified for only a 14 mph impact is -
guess what? - actually good only for a 14 mph impact!

It protects the head from an impact of 14mph. That says nothing about
the speed of the cyclist or a car in a car/bicycle collision. It is
also stupid to suggest that no one ever has a bicycle slide out from
under them with a resulting bounce of the head off of the pavement, in
which case the forward speed of the bicycle is completely beside the
point and the impact will usually be very much like simplest case- the
acceleration of the head from the height it was before the crash to the
ground.

If you don't want to use a helmet, fine, but at least don't go around
spreading nonsense.

Quoted message said:

You seem to be assuming the "collision" will involve only a rider
toppling to the flat ground. Things are a bit more complicated.

First, very few topples to flat ground are serious problems. People
have been falling off bikes ever since bikes were invented. Those
people land on their head only in vanishingly rare cases. IOW, those
incidents aren't worth worrying about. (Contrary to modern belief,
people actually survived riding bikes in pre-helmet days!)

The events that are used to promote helmets are those that cause
permanent injury or death. The vast majority of those events involve
collisions with moving motor vehicles. In those cases, it's very
common for the impact speed to be much higher than the 14 mph - that
is, to greatly exceed the rated capacity of a bike helmet.

...

I have seen *at least* a crash where the helmet splitted in two, thus
absorbing energy that would have ended in the rider's head.
The rider had no injury, without helmet he would (if you don't believe
it, take an helmet, hit the road with it so hard that it gets seriously
damaged. Then hit your head against the road with about the same force,
this will convince you).

You say "the vast majority of those events", "in general", etc.
If in a crash every N the helmet can save my life, then I wear it,
period - no matter how big N is.

If you don't want to wear it because it doesn't protect you in every
kind of possible crash, that's your choice, but don't suggest it to
other people.

Francesco

Do you wear a helmet in your car? No? Why not? You're more likely to
incur a head injury in your car than on your bike. Why not protect
yourself? How about wearing a kevlar vest? No? Not worried about
getting shot? The risk is small, but it's there, nonetheless. Have
you got those little sticky things on the floor of your tub/shower?
No? Egad! Talk about a risk taker! I hope you have plenty of
insurance.

<[email hidden]> wrote .

Quoted message said:

If you think about it, your head is only about 4' from the ground when
you're on a bike. No matter how hard you are hit, your head will only
accelerate toward the ground from that height unless the angle of
collision somehow catapults you higher or into the ground.

So, in fact, contrary to your original statement, a helmet provides
significant protection to the brain in most types of collisions, but it
is the only part of the body that is protected to any degree.

If you don't want to use a helmet, fine, but at least don't go around
spreading nonsense.

Actually I do use a helmet, and I have used one quite consistently since
about 1979. As I've learned more about helmets, I've become increasingly
skeptical about their value, except in very limited circumstances. Looking
at the changes in helmet design since I bought my first Bell Biker in 1979,
it's pretty apparent to me that today's helmets offer distinctly less
protection than the hardshell helmets of the '70s and '80s.

You seem to be taking a very oversimplified view of what happens in a car /
bicycle collision. As a number of posters have pointed out, it's a little
more complex than car hits bike, bike falls down. As Carl Fogel points out,
a cyclist hit by a car can easily assume the characteristics of an object
accelerated about an axis, and the cyclist's head can get slammed into the
ground with far more force than would be the case if the cyclist just fell
over.

A number of the regulars on uk.rec.cycling have done some research on
bicycle helmets, and the findings are interesting. What impresses me the
most about this research is that the countries that have enacted laws
requiring cyclists to wear helmets have not seen a reduction in head injury
rates, they've just seen a dramatic reduction in the number of people
bicycling. Another interesting point is that the countries with the lowest
head injury rates for cyclists are the countries with the lowest rates of he
lmet usage by cyclists. Check this website: www.cyclehelmets.org and see
what they have to say.
--
mark

On 7 Jul 2005 17:51:58 -0700, "Scott" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Do you wear a helmet in your car? No? Why not? You're more likely to
incur a head injury in your car than on your bike. Why not protect
yourself? How about wearing a kevlar vest? No? Not worried about
getting shot? The risk is small, but it's there, nonetheless. Have
you got those little sticky things on the floor of your tub/shower?
No? Egad! Talk about a risk taker! I hope you have plenty of
insurance.

That's brilliant, we've never heard that arguement before. Tell me,
did you think that up, all by yourself? Or did Frank help you with
that one?

Well, anyway, you've convinced me, now I just have to decide, do I
discard the bike helmets, I own three? Or, do I go out and buy a car
specific helmet and a bullet proof vest? I already have the
tub/shower taken care of.

Hey, thanks for all your valuable help.

Life is Good!
Jeff

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If you think about it, your head is only about 4' from the ground when
you're on a bike.

Um, you might want to measure that.

Um, I would, except I'm nowhere near my bicycle. Is it less than 6'?
The answer is yes, so it doesn't matter.

:-) So a 50% error doesn't matter? You're being awfully charitable
toward yourself!

I just measured myself on the bike. Turns out that my head is at the
same height (plus/minus less than an inch) whether I'm standing or on
the bike. Obviously, there would be slight differences depending on
bike geometry - and big differences for a recumbent - but I think it's
safe to say 4 feet is usually _way_ off!

Quoted message said:

Um, you seem to be making the
mistake of thinking that the acceleration of gravity is somehow more
when you are falling toward the ground as a result of being hit from
the side.

Nope. I'm thinking nothing of the kind. I thought my pencil
illustration made that clear.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

First, very few topples to flat ground are serious problems. People
have been falling off bikes ever since bikes were invented. Those
people land on their head only in vanishingly rare cases. IOW, those
incidents aren't worth worrying about. (Contrary to modern belief,
people actually survived riding bikes in pre-helmet days!)

All irrelevant since I wasn't talking about "topples", but [censored],
nevertheless. If you don't get an arm out to break your fall, you very
likely will bounce your head off the pavement, and the fall from the
height your head is at at the time of the crash is sufficient,
physiologically speaking, to bash your brains out.

Good grief, such hysteria! Arm or no arm, falling off a bike does not
"very likely" mean you'll bash your brains out! Serious head injuries
were never "very likely" no matter what. The link between head
injuries and bikes was forged only AFTER Bell had a product they wanted
to sell.

If head injuries were at all common, do you seriously think Dr. Paul
Dudley White would have had the leader of the free world, Eisenhower,
bicycling for exercise? And doing so without a foam hat?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Crashes like that are very chaotic, in the mathematical sense.

Again, recalling my statement "unless the angle of collision somehow
catapults you higher or into the ground", which added to the case of a
perfect sideways hit covers _all_ the possibilities of the maximum
acceleration toward the ground in that chaos.

Quoted message said:

IOW, the motion of the cyclist's body would be extremely random. It's
entirely possible that the cyclist would be energetically "flipped" and
have his head impact the ground at higher speed, even if it managed to
miss impacting the car itself.

Thank you. That would be covered by "catapults".

I don't think you grasp the degree of chaos involved. Giving lip
service to the word "catapult" does not mean that a 14 mph
certification must cover all - or almost all - crashes.

As an illustration: In one of our university labs, we have a double
pendulum chaos demonstrator. Two metal bars on good bearings; one
hangs from the bottom of the other. The top hangs from a fixed
support. Each pivot is capable of 360 degree rotation.

The motion is absolutely unpredictable. Most interestingly, if you
hold them off to the side then release, they don't just swing smoothly.
One may suddenly jerk, spin or jump about at high speed. If you were
to stick your hand in at that moment, you'd certainly be hurt. And you
cannot mathematically predict when "that moment" will occur.

The human femur and tibia are similar, with the added spice that they
can move about other axes as well, and they are influenced by large
muscles that can jerk reflexively. Splice two of those onto a
twistable trunk, add two similar arms and a flexible neck, and there is
absolutely no way to calculate what will happen in a collision with a
car. Certainly, there is no justification for thinking a helmet
certified only to protect a decapitated headform at only 14 mph will
suffice for any large percentage of the impacts.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Whatever the details of the mechanics, it's good to keep one fact
firmly in mind: Helmets are NOT working as claimed. Head injury rates
are not being improved by helmet wearing, and indeed seem to be
worsening somewhat.

[censored]. Cite needed.

"A Bicycling Mystery: Head Injuries Piling Up." [Despite greatly
increased helmet use, that is.] New York Times, July 29, 2001.
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1028.html

There are similar reports from other countries. Australia bragged
about the drop in head injuries from its strictly enforced, all ages
helmet laws - but then people pointed out that cycling had dropped
_more_ than the head injuries, leaving more head injuries per remaining
rider.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

There may be other factors involved, but one
likely one is that a helmet certified for only a 14 mph impact is -
guess what? - actually good only for a 14 mph impact!

It protects the head from an impact of 14mph. That says nothing about
the speed of the cyclist or a car in a car/bicycle collision.

Hmm. Well, one of the most common serious car-bike collisions is the
left hook: car turns left into cyclist. Typical closing speed perhaps
35 mph. Do you think the impact with the cyclist will usually be
below 14 mph?

Quoted message said:

It is
also stupid to suggest that no one ever has a bicycle slide out from
under them with a resulting bounce of the head off of the pavement, in
which case the forward speed of the bicycle is completely beside the
point and the impact will usually be very much like simplest case- the
acceleration of the head from the height it was before the crash to the
ground.

Nobody suggested that "slide out" doesn't happen. In fact, I take
great comfort in the fact that it's _always_ happened, yet it's never
caused any significant number of serious head injuries.

Cyclists make up less than 1% of the head injury fatalities in America.
This has _always_ been the case. The "bashing of brains" that you
fear was never an issue UNTIL Bell had a new product that needed to be
sold.

And it's certainly being sold! We now have an entire generation of
people who have been taught to link "bicycle" and "serious head injury"
without ever examining the data. We now have avid cyclists who mock
anyone who chooses to ride without the hat they prefer.

Quoted message said:

If you don't want to use a helmet, fine, but at least don't go around
spreading nonsense.

I will back up whatever I say with data and reason. I don't spread
nonsense.

Here's some reading for you, complete with citations.

http://www.bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/SafetyQuiz.htm

Bicycling is NOT very dangerous. It does us no good to pretend it is.

- Frank Krygowski

Francesco Devittori said:

I have seen *at least* a crash where the helmet splitted in two, thus
absorbing energy that would have ended in the rider's head.
The rider had no injury, without helmet he would (if you don't believe
it, take an helmet, hit the road with it so hard that it gets seriously
damaged. Then hit your head against the road with about the same force,
this will convince you).

And I have seen a crash where a person was hit by a car hard enough
that he destroyed the grill, badly dented the hood, smashed the
windshield, was tossed in the air higher than the car, landed on his
head on the road, and was unhurt but for a scratch over the right ear.

If he were wearing a helmet, you would certainly claim it saved his
life. But he had no helmet.

This is no exaggeration. I can post the entire story, if you like.
But it proved to me that any one crash tells you nothing at all.

Quoted message said:

You say "the vast majority of those events", "in general", etc.
If in a crash every N the helmet can save my life, then I wear it,
period - no matter how big N is.

But let me guess: Only when you're on a bicycle, right?

Cycling causes less than 1% of America's head injury fatalities. And
its risk per hour of HI fatality is about the same as motoring or
walking near traffic.

So why not apply your same level of protection to the other situations
that cause 99% of the problem? Why take your helmet off at all? Or
alternately, why the effort to make only bicycling look so dangerous?

Quoted message said:

If you don't want to wear it because it doesn't protect you in every
kind of possible crash, that's your choice, but don't suggest it to
other people.

:-) I suggest you strap your helmet on immediately! Why, you may trip
when you get up from your computer!

And don't _you_ be so irresponsible as to say a computer helmet isn't
needed! Why, if only ONE life can be saved... <wring hands here>
;-)

- Frank Krygowski

Quoting Francesco Devittori <frenkatfrenkdtcm>:

Quoted message said:

I have seen *at least* a crash where the helmet splitted in two, thus
absorbing energy that would have ended in the rider's head.
The rider had no injury, without helmet he would

When did you repeat the experiment with a control head?

Quoted message said:

You say "the vast majority of those events", "in general", etc.
If in a crash every N the helmet can save my life, then I wear it,
period - no matter how big N is.

Really? Presumably if you come to the UK you will wear heavy boots at all
times to protect against adder bites - there's only been one fatal one in
the last few decades, but no matter how big N is, it's worth it, right?
--
David Damerell <[email hidden]> Kill the tomato!
Today is Second Friday, Presuary.

David Damerell said:

Quoting Francesco Devittori <frenkatfrenkdtcm>:

Quoted message said:

I have seen *at least* a crash where the helmet splitted in two, thus
absorbing energy that would have ended in the rider's head.
The rider had no injury, without helmet he would

When did you repeat the experiment with a control head?

Quoted message said:

You say "the vast majority of those events", "in general", etc.
If in a crash every N the helmet can save my life, then I wear it,
period - no matter how big N is.

Really? Presumably if you come to the UK you will wear heavy boots at all
times to protect against adder bites - there's only been one fatal one in
the last few decades, but no matter how big N is, it's worth it, right?

Except that in this case N is bigger than one in a few decades. But
again, nobody forces you to wear an helmet.

Quoting Francesco Devittori <frenkatfrenkdtcm>:

Quoted message said:

David Damerell said:

Quoting Francesco Devittori <frenkatfrenkdtcm>:

Quoted message said:

You say "the vast majority of those events", "in general", etc.
If in a crash every N the helmet can save my life, then I wear it,
period - no matter how big N is.

Really? Presumably if you come to the UK you will wear heavy boots at all
times to protect against adder bites - there's only been one fatal one in
the last few decades, but no matter how big N is, it's worth it, right?

Except that in this case N is bigger than one in a few decades.

Excuse me, I thought you would use the protective device no matter how big
N is? It says so right there.
--
David Damerell <[email hidden]> Kill the tomato!
Today is Second Friday, Presuary.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] wrote:
>
>
> If you think about it, your head is only about 4' from the ground when
> you're on a bike.

Um, you might want to measure that.

Um, I would, except I'm nowhere near my bicycle. Is it less than 6'?
The answer is yes, so it doesn't matter.

:-) So a 50% error doesn't matter? You're being awfully charitable
toward yourself!

4' ot 6', they're both within the design limits for which a helmet is
designed to protect a head during a fall. Arguing the distance between
your head and the pavement when you're sitting on a bicycle is
completely irrelevant UNLESS YOU ARE GOING TO ALSO MAKE THE POINT THAT
THE HEIGHT IS OUTSIDE THE LIMIT FOR WHICH THE HELMET IS DESIGNED TO
PROVIDE PROTECTION!

Quoted message said:

Arm or no arm, falling off a bike does not
"very likely" mean you'll bash your brains out! Serious head injuries
were never "very likely" no matter what.

Wrong. A mere "topple" on from a bicycle even standing still will
accelerate your head to a high enough speed that you can sustain a
fatal head injury. It's that simple.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Thank you. That would be covered by "catapults".

I don't think you grasp the degree of chaos involved. Giving lip
service to the word "catapult" does not mean that a 14 mph
certification must cover all - or almost all - crashes.

I don't think you grasp what I was saying, which is actually the
opposite of how you interpreted it. The catapult is one reason why a
14mph certification does not provide protection in somes types of
crashing. Why are you arguing with me about something I agree with you
on?

Quoted message said:

Certainly, there is no justification for thinking a helmet
certified only to protect a decapitated headform at only 14 mph will
suffice for any large percentage of the impacts.

I said something along the lines of, "it will protect your upper brain
tissue while the rest of your body (including brain stem) gets beat to
hell". Again, arguing with me where I agreed with you three posts back.

Quoted message said:

"A Bicycling Mystery: Head Injuries Piling Up." [Despite greatly
increased helmet use, that is.] New York Times, July 29, 2001.
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1028.html

It says, "No one is very sure, but safety experts stress that while
helmets do not prevent accidents from happening, they are extremely
effective at reducing the severity of head injuries when they do occur.
Almost no one suggests that riders should stop wearing helmets, which
researchers have found can reduce the severity of brain injuries by as
much as 88 percent."

"'Bicycle helmet technology is the best we have for protecting the
brain,' Dr. Kelly said. 'The helmets serve the function of an air
bag.'"

"But the most effective way to reduce severe head injuries may be to
decrease the number of accidents in the first place."

Nothing in that article suggests that helments don't provide protection
from head injuries. What it does ask is why are head injuries occurring
more frequently in the first place. One of the hypotheses is that
helmets make the rider feel more secure and therefore take more
chances. Well, that's a point: helmets may protect your brain, but they
won't make it any smarter than it was before you put the helmet on.

Quoted message said:

Hmm. Well, one of the most common serious car-bike collisions is the
left hook: car turns left into cyclist. Typical closing speed perhaps
35 mph. Do you think the impact with the cyclist will usually be
below 14 mph?

No, and if your head impacts the car, you will be in trouble. But, if
what happens is that you get knocked away from the car, when you hit
the ground the speed vector in the direction of the ground will be <
14mph, and your head will be protected while the "rest of your body is
beat to hell".

Quoted message said:

Nobody suggested that "slide out" doesn't happen. In fact, I take
great comfort in the fact that it's _always_ happened, yet it's never
caused any significant number of serious head injuries.

Brain injuries are about the only way to die from a "slide out".

Quoted message said:

Cyclists make up less than 1% of the head injury fatalities in America.

That is a meaningless statistic, so ridiculous that I am not going to
spend the time picking it apart in the many ways it could be done.

Quoted message said:

This has _always_ been the case. The "bashing of brains" that you
fear was never an issue UNTIL Bell had a new product that needed to be
sold.

My memory of it was that it was recognized that the leather hairnet did
not provide any significant protection, and people wanted more. I knew
racers that had had concussions, they were scared, and they wanted real
protection.

Quoted message said:

And it's certainly being sold! We now have an entire generation of
people who have been taught to link "bicycle" and "serious head injury"
without ever examining the data. We now have avid cyclists who mock
anyone who chooses to ride without the hat they prefer.

If you don't personally understand the relationship between head injury
and bicycling, you either don't ride enough, or you and your
acquaintances have been very, very lucky.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If you don't want to use a helmet, fine, but at least don't go around
spreading nonsense.

I will back up whatever I say with data and reason. I don't spread
nonsense.

Hardly. You used your cite above to suggest that helmets themselves are
causing head injuries when it actually states that they DO reduce the
severity of head injuries.

Quoted message said:

Here's some reading for you, complete with citations.

http://www.bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/SafetyQuiz.htm

Bicycling is NOT very dangerous. It does us no good to pretend it is.

I didn't say it was. But don't pretend that this cite is suggesting
that bicycling is so safe that you don't need to wear a helmet.

This is the crux of the matter: there are many types of injuries that
you can have on a bike, from the bruise I have on my leg right now from
a little mtbing last weekend, to road rash, to broken bones. But,
because, of the fact that cycling is a relatively safe activity, there
are very few types of injuries that are likely to be fatal. Like a
said, a mere "topple" at a standstill is all it takes to accelerate
your brain to a speed high enough to scramble it against the inside of
your skull, so a helmet provides protection against the type of injury
that is most likely to be fatal to a bicyclist.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Arm or no arm, falling off a bike does not
"very likely" mean you'll bash your brains out! Serious head injuries
were never "very likely" no matter what.

Wrong. A mere "topple" on from a bicycle even standing still will
accelerate your head to a high enough speed that you can sustain a
fatal head injury. It's that simple.

I notice that these two statements are not mutually exclusive. "Can" is
very different from "very likely".
--
Benjamin Lewis

"Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra and then suddenly it flips
over, pinning you underneath. At night, the ice weasels come."
--Matt Groening

Benjamin Lewis said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Arm or no arm, falling off a bike does not
"very likely" mean you'll bash your brains out! Serious head injuries
were never "very likely" no matter what.

Wrong. A mere "topple" on from a bicycle even standing still will
accelerate your head to a high enough speed that you can sustain a
fatal head injury. It's that simple.

I notice that these two statements are not mutually exclusive. "Can" is
very different from "very likely".

There are pretty objective answers to this: the average brain in the
average head will be fatally injured in an unbroken fall from six feet
to an impact with an unyielding surface. It does not mean that that
type of impact will always or even usually occur in a "topple", hence
the use of the word "can".

Quoted message said:

Benjamin Lewis said:

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] wrote:
> Arm or no arm, falling off a bike does not
> "very likely" mean you'll bash your brains out! Serious head
> injuries were never "very likely" no matter what.

Wrong. A mere "topple" on from a bicycle even standing still will
accelerate your head to a high enough speed that you can sustain a
fatal head injury. It's that simple.

I notice that these two statements are not mutually exclusive.
"Can" is very different from "very likely".

There are pretty objective answers to this: the average brain in the
average head will be fatally injured in an unbroken fall from six feet
to an impact with an unyielding surface. It does not mean that that
type of impact will always or even usually occur in a "topple", hence
the use of the word "can".

You should have used it twice: "A mere 'topple'...from a bicycle even
standing still /will/ (*can*) accelerate your head to a high enough speed
that you can sustain a fatal head injury."

Bill "brain bucket buster...but not THAT often" S.