Helmet pondering

Quoted message said:

Hi All,

The subject says it all, almost. If anyone gets too excited by the
subject, feel free to tune out now. I'm actually interested in a semi-
intelligent discussion here. This is not a troll!

I went ice skating the other day and I managed to fall. Not a normal
wipe-out, but a full height cartoon-style feet in the air, flat on my
back fall. I wasn't wearing my helmet, because I only use that while
playing hockey, and I was just messing about. I didn't hit my head,
but my neck muscles are quite sore from the strain they suffered
keeping my head from hitting the ice.

So here's the thing: were I to have been wearing a helmet, my head
would have almost certainly hit the ice. Both as a result of the
greater size of the helmet, and the added weight. If I had hit my
helmeted head, would I have gotten a concussion, and subsequently gone
around telling everyone how lucky I was that I was wearing a helmet?

On the ice I wear a helmet when I expect a good chance of being hit in
the head with a puck, a stick, or similar. I don't wear one when speed
skating. On my road bike I wear a hard-shell "regular" helmet because
I often go quite fast and I am not sure how well I could control the
wearabouts of my head in a high speed crash. When I tool around slowly
and carefully on my fixed, I wear a modern hairnet, as here I am only
really worried about falling over, or some other low speed incident.

So what type of crash do you need to have to REALLY want to have a
"normal" hemet? How does this relate to how often a situation arises
like my recent ice fall where a helmet in such a case would have been
to my detriment?

Joseph

Troll.

email hidden said:

So what type of crash do you need to have to REALLY want to have a
"normal" hemet?

Er, one when you hit the pavement noggin first. I had one of those
freak accidents last week. Forehead got banged up when the front end
lost traction in a turn. Funny thing is, if I had been much of a
helmet wearer, the situation was one where I'd not have bothered
wearing it. I was simply dialing in the rear mech and took a little
test ride and sliiiikaplow! It wouldn't have done jack for my lip and
nose. But meh, stuff heals.

Off road where stuff is pointier would be a good place to have a lid.
It would definitely up the odds for man vs rock. Rocks kill, pavement
just gives you radical scars, man!

Guess I'm good for another ten years of blood free riding....

email hidden said:

So here's the thing: were I to have been wearing a helmet, my head
would have almost certainly hit the ice. Both as a result of the
greater size of the helmet, and the added weight. If I had hit my
helmeted head, would I have gotten a concussion, and subsequently gone
around telling everyone how lucky I was that I was wearing a helmet?

A big factor in helmet testimonials I think. Most of us will naturally
tuck out heads in a crash, but if we have a helmet on this is not
possible. Plus we will subconsciously *not* protect our head so well
since it is the only part of our body that has protection. So the
helmet hits the pavement and shatters, and we strain our necks from
the torque... but proclaim that the helmet saved our lives.

Per Ron Ruff:

Quoted message said:

So the
helmet hits the pavement and shatters, and we strain our necks from
the torque... but proclaim that the helmet saved our lives.

Call me morbid, but I've always wondered what happens when the
helmet snags on a deadhead or something while the rider's doing
10-15 mph.
--
PeteCresswell

Ron Ruff said:

email hidden said:

So here's the thing: were I to have been wearing a helmet, my head
would have almost certainly hit the ice. Both as a result of the
greater size of the helmet, and the added weight. If I had hit my
helmeted head, would I have gotten a concussion, and subsequently
gone around telling everyone how lucky I was that I was wearing a
helmet?

A big factor in helmet testimonials I think. Most of us will naturally
tuck out heads in a crash, but if we have a helmet on this is not
possible. Plus we will subconsciously *not* protect our head so well
since it is the only part of our body that has protection. So the
helmet hits the pavement and shatters, and we strain our necks from
the torque... but proclaim that the helmet saved our lives.

You could write fiction. LOL

(PeteCresswell) said:

Per Ron Ruff:

Quoted message said:

So the
helmet hits the pavement and shatters, and we strain our necks from
the torque... but proclaim that the helmet saved our lives.

Call me morbid, but I've always wondered what happens when the
helmet snags on a deadhead or something while the rider's doing
10-15 mph.

There's not much to snag on with Birkenstocks.

landotter said:

(PeteCresswell) said:

Per Ron Ruff:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So the
helmet hits the pavement and shatters, and we strain our necks from
the torque... but proclaim that the helmet saved our lives.

Quoted message said:

Call me morbid, but I've always wondered what happens when the
helmet snags on a deadhead or something while the rider's doing
10-15 mph.

There's not much to snag on with Birkenstocks.

Are they nudists?

Joseph

email hidden said:

landotter said:

On Sep 25, 2:18 pm, "(PeteCresswell)" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Per Ron Ruff:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>So the
>helmet hits the pavement and shatters, and we strain our necks from
>the torque... but proclaim that the helmet saved our lives.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Call me morbid, but I've always wondered what happens when the
helmet snags on a deadhead or something while the rider's doing
10-15 mph.

Quoted message said:

There's not much to snag on with Birkenstocks.

Are they nudists?

Probably. If they're dirty enough, it's just like a watermelon seed
between your fingers.

email hidden said:

...
So here's the thing: were I to have been wearing a helmet, my head
would have almost certainly hit the ice. Both as a result of the
greater size of the helmet, and the added weight. If I had hit my
helmeted head, would I have gotten a concussion, and subsequently gone
around telling everyone how lucky I was that I was wearing a helmet?

I think it's likely. As a teenager, I had an identical experience,
but I was riding a bike on the icy surface. Yes, if I'd worn a
helmet, I would have probably been hurt more than I was, and I might
have believed it "saved my life." As it was, the back of my head
barely touched the ground.

Quoted message said:

So what type of crash do you need to have to REALLY want to have a
"normal" hemet? How does this relate to how often a situation arises
like my recent ice fall where a helmet in such a case would have been
to my detriment?

I suppose you might want a helmet for those crashes in which you would
have hit your head anyway; and the impact is strong enough that you
would incur serious injury without the helmet; but the impact is still
gentle enough that it's within the very limited protection capacity of
a helmet.

Oh, and you want it only for linear impacts, because helmets aren't
designed, tested or certified for the more dangerous glancing blows.
The helmet may cause those blows to impart stronger rotational
accelerations than the brain would suffer without the helmet.

Benefits must occur only in a very narrow range of impacts.
Otherwise, massive increases in helmet use would actually produce
fewer serious head injuries per remaining rider. But that benefit has
not been observed in large, general population studies.

- Frank Krygowski

email hidden said:

Hi All,

The subject says it all, almost. If anyone gets too excited by the
subject, feel free to tune out now. I'm actually interested in a semi-
intelligent discussion here. This is not a troll!

I went ice skating the other day and I managed to fall. Not a normal
wipe-out, but a full height cartoon-style feet in the air, flat on my
back fall. I wasn't wearing my helmet, because I only use that while
playing hockey, and I was just messing about. I didn't hit my head,
but my neck muscles are quite sore from the strain they suffered
keeping my head from hitting the ice.

So here's the thing: were I to have been wearing a helmet, my head
would have almost certainly hit the ice. Both as a result of the
greater size of the helmet, and the added weight. If I had hit my
helmeted head, would I have gotten a concussion, and subsequently gone
around telling everyone how lucky I was that I was wearing a helmet?

On the ice I wear a helmet when I expect a good chance of being hit in
the head with a puck, a stick, or similar. I don't wear one when speed
skating. On my road bike I wear a hard-shell "regular" helmet because
I often go quite fast and I am not sure how well I could control the
wearabouts of my head in a high speed crash. When I tool around slowly
and carefully on my fixed, I wear a modern hairnet, as here I am only
really worried about falling over, or some other low speed incident.

So what type of crash do you need to have to REALLY want to have a
"normal" hemet? How does this relate to how often a situation arises
like my recent ice fall where a helmet in such a case would have been
to my detriment?

Joseph

email hidden said:

Hi All,

The subject says it all, almost. If anyone gets too excited by the
subject, feel free to tune out now. I'm actually interested in a semi-
intelligent discussion here. This is not a troll!

I went ice skating the other day and I managed to fall. Not a normal
wipe-out, but a full height cartoon-style feet in the air, flat on my
back fall. I wasn't wearing my helmet, because I only use that while
playing hockey, and I was just messing about. I didn't hit my head,
but my neck muscles are quite sore from the strain they suffered
keeping my head from hitting the ice.

So here's the thing: were I to have been wearing a helmet, my head
would have almost certainly hit the ice. Both as a result of the
greater size of the helmet, and the added weight. If I had hit my
helmeted head, would I have gotten a concussion, and subsequently gone
around telling everyone how lucky I was that I was wearing a helmet?

On the ice I wear a helmet when I expect a good chance of being hit in
the head with a puck, a stick, or similar. I don't wear one when speed
skating. On my road bike I wear a hard-shell "regular" helmet because
I often go quite fast and I am not sure how well I could control the
wearabouts of my head in a high speed crash. When I tool around slowly
and carefully on my fixed, I wear a modern hairnet, as here I am only
really worried about falling over, or some other low speed incident.

So what type of crash do you need to have to REALLY want to have a
"normal" hemet? How does this relate to how often a situation arises
like my recent ice fall where a helmet in such a case would have been
to my detriment?

Gawd, I missed landing a jump on my skis and had the same kind of fall
with no helmet, and I whacked my head on the ice and got knocked out
for a split second and then had a wholloping headache and sore neck.
I now wear a helmet skiing, but primarily to keep my ears warm and
because I have to race my son down elf trails -- or because I
sometimes ski during the summer (wooohooo, one of the benefits of
living in Oregon). Hey, screw up on Palmer glacier and you end up in
a pile of rocks. On the other hand, these helmets probably do add to
rotational injury because they are pretty massive. I really should
read the literature on ski helmets. I still would use one for tree
skiing because I am not that good at it.

As for bicycle helmets, my personal experience has been that they help
reduce or eliminate scalp injury. I had two accidents (ice, pot hole
in the dark) where my head drove straight in to the pavement and the
helmet took a direct blow, and I assume that I escaped at least scalp
injury and maybe skull fracture. Now, my head hurt anyway, and I
could have (and probably did) have some rotational injury -- but at
least I escaped some focal injury. The studies generally find that
helmets do help prevent focal injury. The rub comes with claims that
they prevent death and serious closed head injury. -- Jay Beattie.

Frank Krygowski said:

Benefits must occur only in a very narrow range of impacts.
Otherwise, massive increases in helmet use would actually produce
fewer serious head injuries per remaining rider.

That's not a foregone conclusion. If the protective effects of
helmets are large, and the offsetting effects are similarly large,
then the net effect could still be negligible.

Quoted message said:

But that benefit has
not been observed in large, general population studies.

That's really the bottom line for me. It makes no difference to me if
helmets are exceedingly effective at preventing injury of some sorts,
if at the same time they increase the overall likelihood of accident,
or the incidence other sorts of injury, enough to cancel out the
entire benefit of wearing one. And I can't see how else to interpret
the data.

If you (no, not you, Frank) believe that helmets are of significant
net benefit, then you have to attribute their apparent lack of overall
effectiveness to other factors. I think it's a bit far-fetched to
assume that drivers or traffic patterns with regard to cyclists have
gotten significantly more dangerous over the last 20 years. If a
dramatic rise in helmet use during that time has resulted in no net
improvements in the likelihood of getting killed on the bike, then
what is it that cancels out the assumed protective effect of helmets?

Quoted message said:

From where I stand, it simply doesn't matter. If they don't help,

they don't help, and I don't need to use one.

Chalo

In article <[email hidden]>, Ron

Ruff said:

email hidden said:

If I had hit my
helmeted head, would I have gotten a concussion, and subsequently gone
around telling everyone how lucky I was that I was wearing a helmet?

A big factor in helmet testimonials I think. Most of us will naturally
tuck out heads in a crash, but if we have a helmet on this is not
possible. Plus we will subconsciously *not* protect our head so well
since it is the only part of our body that has protection. So the
helmet hits the pavement and shatters, and we strain our necks from
the torque... but proclaim that the helmet saved our lives.

I disagree with your assumptions about tucking heads and "subconscious"
actions. My testimonial:

This was a 1998 wreck when someone turned from the opposite direction
across my path from between a line of stopped cars in the left lane
(4-lane road cross-section) and I am doing between 25-30 mph in the
right lane. No warning. I hit the binders hard, try to get behind the
vehicle as it crosses my path, fail. Hit the rear quarterpanel of the
car, vault over the trunk, to land on the pavement beyond.

A most violent collision: Giordona SLX steel frame (I still miss that
bike, she was sweet); fork was bent straight back, and the front wheel
wedged firmly against the down tube (pretty impressive to see, I must
admit). Only one-quarter inch of the stem quill remained in the steerer
tube...nearly pulled the stem out of the steerer (I was braking hard,
with a good solid grip on the bars :-). Top tube bent sideways out of
line and "beer-canned." As I went over the trunk, the bike cartwheeled
after me as I pulled it up and over, and landed in the road beyond me
after bouncing off the side of one of the cars stopped beyond in the
left lane.

Boy was I [censored]. I got up, dusted myself off, grabbed my bike, and
threw it to the side of the road in disgust before stalking over to him
to give the teenage young turk (with an already long record of driving
infractions and DUI as it turned out) a stern tongue lashing. (Really
impressive that the front wheel was still wedged after the toss!) How,
you may ask, did I not die then and there on the pavement?

In my very young youth, I learned tumbling. Maybe one of those summer
activities parents sign us up for to spare their sanity; I was so young
I don't remember the details of what it was or how it came to be. But
somewhere along the way of growing up I learned to run very fast across
the room and launch myself over my fellow classmates who were
side-by-side on their hands and knees stretched seemingly to the
horizon.

While imitating a projectile, I learned how to tuck and roll as I
landed.

It had probably been 35 years, 130 pounds, and 2.5 feet in altitude
since I had done such a thing. Then I had a pad at the landing zone;
this time I didn't. But the motor skills were imprinted on me and I am
certain that the instinctual response is what got me through it safely.

You could follow the path of my roll along the pavement from the marks,
dents, and cracks on the helmet through the tears in my jersey and the
the road rash on my shoulder, arm, hip, and buttock. A human bowling
ball.

The helmet did not prevent me from tucking my head. I certainly had no
conscious *or* subconscious thoughts about not protecting my head
because it was helmeted as I flew through the air with the greatest of
ease. I have no recollection of thinking anything. It didn't happen in
slow motion for me.

The helmet did not shatter because it struck the ground in a rolling,
glancing way as did the rest of me as I distributed the forces of
landing across a greater area of my body through the roll. Certainly
friction of contact with pavement scraped up my clothes and me. But I
didn't have any scalp burn except for a bit of a red forehead (not
bruised, but 1st degree burn from the helmet pad). I ended up with a
badly sprained right wrist, and arthroscopic shoulder surgery after 3
years of trying to work out the inflammation with therapy and a couple
cortisone shots, both from the big yank on my arms as I clutched the
brakes.

I agree that a helmet is NFG in a blunt force collision of the head
with an object. But I found it very useful in preventing road rash on
my head, which is good enough reason for me. Healing all that other
road rash was plenty painful without adding my head to the quota.

Dan

Dan Becker said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Ron

Ruff said:

email hidden said:

If I had hit my
helmeted head, would I have gotten a concussion, and subsequently
gone around telling everyone how lucky I was that I was wearing a
helmet?

A big factor in helmet testimonials I think. Most of us will
naturally tuck out heads in a crash, but if we have a helmet on this
is not possible. Plus we will subconsciously *not* protect our head
so well since it is the only part of our body that has protection.
So the helmet hits the pavement and shatters, and we strain our
necks from the torque... but proclaim that the helmet saved our
lives.

I disagree with your assumptions about tucking heads and
"subconscious" actions. My testimonial:

This was a 1998 wreck when someone turned from the opposite direction
across my path from between a line of stopped cars in the left lane
(4-lane road cross-section) and I am doing between 25-30 mph in the
right lane. No warning. I hit the binders hard, try to get behind the
vehicle as it crosses my path, fail. Hit the rear quarterpanel of the
car, vault over the trunk, to land on the pavement beyond.

A most violent collision: Giordona SLX steel frame (I still miss that
bike, she was sweet); fork was bent straight back, and the front wheel
wedged firmly against the down tube (pretty impressive to see, I must
admit). Only one-quarter inch of the stem quill remained in the
steerer tube...nearly pulled the stem out of the steerer (I was
braking hard, with a good solid grip on the bars :-). Top tube bent
sideways out of line and "beer-canned." As I went over the trunk, the
bike cartwheeled after me as I pulled it up and over, and landed in
the road beyond me after bouncing off the side of one of the cars
stopped beyond in the left lane.

Boy was I [censored]. I got up, dusted myself off, grabbed my bike,
and threw it to the side of the road in disgust before stalking over
to him to give the teenage young turk (with an already long record of
driving infractions and DUI as it turned out) a stern tongue lashing.
(Really impressive that the front wheel was still wedged after the
toss!) How, you may ask, did I not die then and there on the pavement?

In my very young youth, I learned tumbling. Maybe one of those summer
activities parents sign us up for to spare their sanity; I was so
young I don't remember the details of what it was or how it came to
be. But somewhere along the way of growing up I learned to run very
fast across the room and launch myself over my fellow classmates who
were side-by-side on their hands and knees stretched seemingly to the
horizon.

While imitating a projectile, I learned how to tuck and roll as I
landed.

It had probably been 35 years, 130 pounds, and 2.5 feet in altitude
since I had done such a thing. Then I had a pad at the landing zone;
this time I didn't. But the motor skills were imprinted on me and I am
certain that the instinctual response is what got me through it
safely.

You could follow the path of my roll along the pavement from the
marks, dents, and cracks on the helmet through the tears in my jersey
and the the road rash on my shoulder, arm, hip, and buttock. A human
bowling ball.

The helmet did not prevent me from tucking my head. I certainly had no
conscious *or* subconscious thoughts about not protecting my head
because it was helmeted as I flew through the air with the greatest of
ease. I have no recollection of thinking anything. It didn't happen in
slow motion for me.

The helmet did not shatter because it struck the ground in a rolling,
glancing way as did the rest of me as I distributed the forces of
landing across a greater area of my body through the roll. Certainly
friction of contact with pavement scraped up my clothes and me. But I
didn't have any scalp burn except for a bit of a red forehead (not
bruised, but 1st degree burn from the helmet pad). I ended up with a
badly sprained right wrist, and arthroscopic shoulder surgery after 3
years of trying to work out the inflammation with therapy and a couple
cortisone shots, both from the big yank on my arms as I clutched the
brakes.

I agree that a helmet is NFG in a blunt force collision of the head
with an object. But I found it very useful in preventing road rash on
my head, which is good enough reason for me. Healing all that other
road rash was plenty painful without adding my head to the quota.

Freaking excellent post. The biggest "fiction" as I called it in Ron's
hypothesis is that someone actually has time to consider whether he or she
is lidded when in a sudden bike crash. It's just ridiculous, as you aptly
describe.

I wear a helmet for exactly the kind of unfortunate, unavoidable accident in
which you were involved. Not to save my life, but to lessen my injuries,
pain and suffering.

It's really not that complicated.

Bill "OP trolled after all" S.

Bill Sornson said:

Dan Becker said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Ron

Ruff said:

On Sep 25, 9:07 am, "[email hidden]"
<[email hidden]> wrote:
> If I had hit my
> helmeted head, would I have gotten a concussion, and subsequently
> gone around telling everyone how lucky I was that I was wearing a
> helmet?
A big factor in helmet testimonials I think. Most of us will
naturally tuck out heads in a crash, but if we have a helmet on this
is not possible. Plus we will subconsciously *not* protect our head
so well since it is the only part of our body that has protection.
So the helmet hits the pavement and shatters, and we strain our
necks from the torque... but proclaim that the helmet saved our
lives.

I disagree with your assumptions about tucking heads and
"subconscious" actions. My testimonial:

This was a 1998 wreck when someone turned from the opposite direction
across my path from between a line of stopped cars in the left lane
(4-lane road cross-section) and I am doing between 25-30 mph in the
right lane. No warning. I hit the binders hard, try to get behind the
vehicle as it crosses my path, fail. Hit the rear quarterpanel of the
car, vault over the trunk, to land on the pavement beyond.

A most violent collision: Giordona SLX steel frame (I still miss that
bike, she was sweet); fork was bent straight back, and the front wheel
wedged firmly against the down tube (pretty impressive to see, I must
admit). Only one-quarter inch of the stem quill remained in the
steerer tube...nearly pulled the stem out of the steerer (I was
braking hard, with a good solid grip on the bars :-). Top tube bent
sideways out of line and "beer-canned." As I went over the trunk, the
bike cartwheeled after me as I pulled it up and over, and landed in
the road beyond me after bouncing off the side of one of the cars
stopped beyond in the left lane.

Boy was I [censored]. I got up, dusted myself off, grabbed my bike,
and threw it to the side of the road in disgust before stalking over
to him to give the teenage young turk (with an already long record of
driving infractions and DUI as it turned out) a stern tongue lashing.
(Really impressive that the front wheel was still wedged after the
toss!) How, you may ask, did I not die then and there on the pavement?

In my very young youth, I learned tumbling. Maybe one of those summer
activities parents sign us up for to spare their sanity; I was so
young I don't remember the details of what it was or how it came to
be. But somewhere along the way of growing up I learned to run very
fast across the room and launch myself over my fellow classmates who
were side-by-side on their hands and knees stretched seemingly to the
horizon.

While imitating a projectile, I learned how to tuck and roll as I
landed.

It had probably been 35 years, 130 pounds, and 2.5 feet in altitude
since I had done such a thing. Then I had a pad at the landing zone;
this time I didn't. But the motor skills were imprinted on me and I am
certain that the instinctual response is what got me through it
safely.

You could follow the path of my roll along the pavement from the
marks, dents, and cracks on the helmet through the tears in my jersey
and the the road rash on my shoulder, arm, hip, and buttock. A human
bowling ball.

The helmet did not prevent me from tucking my head. I certainly had no
conscious *or* subconscious thoughts about not protecting my head
because it was helmeted as I flew through the air with the greatest of
ease. I have no recollection of thinking anything. It didn't happen in
slow motion for me.

The helmet did not shatter because it struck the ground in a rolling,
glancing way as did the rest of me as I distributed the forces of
landing across a greater area of my body through the roll. Certainly
friction of contact with pavement scraped up my clothes and me. But I
didn't have any scalp burn except for a bit of a red forehead (not
bruised, but 1st degree burn from the helmet pad). I ended up with a
badly sprained right wrist, and arthroscopic shoulder surgery after 3
years of trying to work out the inflammation with therapy and a couple
cortisone shots, both from the big yank on my arms as I clutched the
brakes.

I agree that a helmet is NFG in a blunt force collision of the head
with an object. But I found it very useful in preventing road rash on
my head, which is good enough reason for me. Healing all that other
road rash was plenty painful without adding my head to the quota.

Freaking excellent post. The biggest "fiction" as I called it in Ron's
hypothesis is that someone actually has time to consider whether he or she
is lidded when in a sudden bike crash. It's just ridiculous, as you aptly
describe.

I wear a helmet for exactly the kind of unfortunate, unavoidable accident in
which you were involved. Not to save my life, but to lessen my injuries,
pain and suffering.

It's really not that complicated.

Bill "OP trolled after all" S.

You guys can say what you like. I'm more than happy to wear my helmet.

Dorf

Dan Becker said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Ron

Ruff said:

email hidden said:

If I had hit my
helmeted head, would I have gotten a concussion, and subsequently gone
around telling everyone how lucky I was that I was wearing a helmet?

Quoted message said:

A big factor in helmet testimonials I think. Most of us will naturally
tuck out heads in a crash, but if we have a helmet on this is not
possible. Plus we will subconsciously *not* protect our head so well
since it is the only part of our body that has protection. So the
helmet hits the pavement and shatters, and we strain our necks from
the torque... but proclaim that the helmet saved our lives.

I disagree with your assumptions about tucking heads and "subconscious"
actions. My testimonial:

This was a 1998 wreck when someone turned from the opposite direction
across my path from between a line of stopped cars in the left lane
(4-lane road cross-section) and I am doing between 25-30 mph in the
right lane. No warning. I hit the binders hard, try to get behind the
vehicle as it crosses my path, fail. Hit the rear quarterpanel of the
car, vault over the trunk, to land on the pavement beyond.

A most violent collision: Giordona SLX steel frame (I still miss that
bike, she was sweet); fork was bent straight back, and the front wheel
wedged firmly against the down tube (pretty impressive to see, I must
admit). Only one-quarter inch of the stem quill remained in the steerer
tube...nearly pulled the stem out of the steerer (I was braking hard,
with a good solid grip on the bars :-). Top tube bent sideways out of
line and "beer-canned." As I went over the trunk, the bike cartwheeled
after me as I pulled it up and over, and landed in the road beyond me
after bouncing off the side of one of the cars stopped beyond in the
left lane.

Boy was I [censored]. I got up, dusted myself off, grabbed my bike, and
threw it to the side of the road in disgust before stalking over to him
to give the teenage young turk (with an already long record of driving
infractions and DUI as it turned out) a stern tongue lashing. (Really
impressive that the front wheel was still wedged after the toss!) How,
you may ask, did I not die then and there on the pavement?

In my very young youth, I learned tumbling. Maybe one of those summer
activities parents sign us up for to spare their sanity; I was so young
I don't remember the details of what it was or how it came to be. But
somewhere along the way of growing up I learned to run very fast across
the room and launch myself over my fellow classmates who were
side-by-side on their hands and knees stretched seemingly to the
horizon.

While imitating a projectile, I learned how to tuck and roll as I
landed.

It had probably been 35 years, 130 pounds, and 2.5 feet in altitude
since I had done such a thing. Then I had a pad at the landing zone;
this time I didn't. But the motor skills were imprinted on me and I am
certain that the instinctual response is what got me through it safely.

You could follow the path of my roll along the pavement from the marks,
dents, and cracks on the helmet through the tears in my jersey and the
the road rash on my shoulder, arm, hip, and buttock. A human bowling
ball.

The helmet did not prevent me from tucking my head. I certainly had no
conscious *or* subconscious thoughts about not protecting my head
because it was helmeted as I flew through the air with the greatest of
ease. I have no recollection of thinking anything. It didn't happen in
slow motion for me.

The helmet did not shatter because it struck the ground in a rolling,
glancing way as did the rest of me as I distributed the forces of
landing across a greater area of my body through the roll. Certainly
friction of contact with pavement scraped up my clothes and me. But I
didn't have any scalp burn except for a bit of a red forehead (not
bruised, but 1st degree burn from the helmet pad). I ended up with a
badly sprained right wrist, and arthroscopic shoulder surgery after 3
years of trying to work out the inflammation with therapy and a couple
cortisone shots, both from the big yank on my arms as I clutched the
brakes.

I agree that a helmet is NFG in a blunt force collision of the head
with an object. But I found it very useful in preventing road rash on
my head, which is good enough reason for me. Healing all that other
road rash was plenty painful without adding my head to the quota.

Dan

I had a gym-teacher in grade school who had the exact same thing
happen. He did a perfect dive and tumble, got up and walked back to
the car and said, "Lady, that ain't right."

I think the idea that a helmet impeads a tuck has to do with the mass
of the helmet, and the fact that it's greater size means a tuck has to
be tighter. For the crash you very entertainingly described (glad you
weren't injured even more!) a modern helmet with 4" of styrofoam
sticking off the back might be the last thing you'd want. A slimmer
helmet that doesn't weigh down your head, not protrude too much. Sure
avoiding road rash is nice, but at the potential expense of other
types of injuries?

I like my Carrera "helmet" because it is super light (100g?) and only
adds 1cm to each side. But I'm still wary of using it in circumstances
where I expect high speeds.

Joseph

Chalo said:

That's really the bottom line for me. It makes no difference to me if
helmets are exceedingly effective at preventing injury of some sorts,
if at the same time they increase the overall likelihood of accident,
or the incidence other sorts of injury, enough to cancel out the
entire benefit of wearing one. And I can't see how else to interpret
the data.

That is I think the bottom line for me too. But I am just going by
feel; I don't know anything about the numbers. Can you (at least
qualitatively) explain how you see that the downside cancels the
upside?

Joseph

Chalo said:

. But if we take a leap of
faith and assume that helmets must, by their very nature, provide some
significant protection against fatal head injury, then to make sense
of the fatalities numbers we also have to assume that they save the
lives of some number of people and kill approximately the same number
of others. If that's the case, then why bother?

Because what happens at the population level is different from the level of
the individual.

Taking your premise "helmets must, by their very nature, provide some
significant protection against fatal head injury" the stats do not show if
it is the same populations being killed. If inexperienced cyclists are
encouraged to cycle weaning a helmet and are killed in disproportionate
numbers while helmets at the same time do protect experienced cyclists who
do not take unnecessary risks, the overall population stats could be as we
find them but to you as an individual, experienced cyclist the helmet would
provide protection.

pk

p.k. said:

Chalo said:

. But if we take a leap of
faith and assume that helmets must, by their very nature, provide some
significant protection against fatal head injury, then to make sense
of the fatalities numbers we also have to assume that they save the
lives of some number of people and kill approximately the same number
of others. If that's the case, then why bother?

Because what happens at the population level is different from the level of
the individual.

Taking your premise "helmets must, by their very nature, provide some
significant protection against fatal head injury" the stats do not show if
it is the same populations being killed. If inexperienced cyclists are
encouraged to cycle weaning a helmet and are killed in disproportionate
numbers while helmets at the same time do protect experienced cyclists who
do not take unnecessary risks, the overall population stats could be as we
find them but to you as an individual, experienced cyclist the helmet would
provide protection.

pk

That's just what I was trying to find words for! Or if we assume that
all deaths are winos who presumably don't wear helmets, the helmet use
of those not killed makes no difference anyway.

As has been shown in other threads, deaths are so infrequent, perhaps
they are not worth using as a measure of helmet safety.

It makes sense to me that in some circumstances a helmet can be the
cause of injury that otherwise would not have happened, or would have
been more mild without a helmet. It also makes sense that in certain
types of crashes a helmet can provide significant protection from both
minor and serious injury.

It also makes sense to me that for populations or as a policy thing
that helmet usage apparently doesn't accomplish it's goal.

But I can't reconcile these things into what this means for me as an
individual.

Joseph