Bicycle accident = glad i had my Helmet on this time

On Aug 7, 11:10*pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Aug 8, 12:13*am, "MikeWhy" wrote:



What would you suggest, Michael? A sticker, perhaps, to warn the
unsuspecting end user that the helmet does not protect against abrupt
rotational injuries?

How about a sticker saying "According to the same standards used by
the FDA for medical interventions, helmets like this one are useless.
But don't worry, bicyclists have less risk of serious head injury than
pedestrians do." *That would be perfectly accurate.

Egads Frank, have you ever looked at an FDA drug or medical device
study? The very second we issue placebo helmets and do double blind
studies, clinical trials, biologic testing, etc., etc. then you can
make this argument. And in fact, the biomechanical studies show that
helmets do have a beneficial effect -- as you know.

If helmets were medical devices, then we would see more extensive
testing on animals or cadavers or both where helmeted and unhelmeted
subjects were exposed to the same forces, and then their studied. We
have seen some of that in the helmet literature, and, btw, it has
come out in favor of wearing a helmet. With the hospital based case
studies (pro or con, I concede), it is impossible to say whether any
two patients suffered similar blows -- either in terms of angle or
force or even location. I think that the epidemiological evidence is
interesting, but it does not say anything about individual risk
patters -- e.g., people who mountain bike, race, etc.

Helmets help prevent certain injuries, and helmet owners manuals are
pretty clear that they won't save your life when you break your neck,
etc. http://www.bellbmx.com/media/content...nual_USCAN.pdf
-- Jay Beattie.

On Aug 8, 9:23 am, Phil W Lee wrote:
SMS considered Sat, 07 Aug 2010 07:31:35
-0700 the perfect time to write:

James wrote:

From the statistics page, the title is:
"Cyclists requiring treatment in US Hospitals 1991 to 2000"

I guess if you didn't suffer an injury because you were wearing a
helmet and didn't need hospitalisation, you went unnoticed by these
statistics. Also, had a cyclist died wearing a helmet or not wearing
one, they wouldn't need hospitalisation either, and again would go
unnoticed by these statistics.

The fact is that both population studies and ER treatment statistics
both show a significant protective effect of bicycle helmets.

Bull**** - Population studies show that helmets increase the rate of
head injuries due to the removal of the "safety in numbers" effect.


You do realize that what you're doing here is falling into the same
old cycle of responding to, with, and as never-ending knee-jerk
extremist.

However it
is true that the number of injuries and fatalities that are prevented by
helmet usage are still small because there just aren't that many serious
accidents in the first place. Helmet usage should be left up to the
individual.

You can view the current list of bicycle helmet myths and facts at
"http://www.cyclehelmets.org"

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I fixed that for you.

That's not too cool to modify attributed text - even with the "I fixed
that for you."

On 08/08/10 8:21 AM, Jay Beattie wrote:
On Aug 7, 11:10 pm, Frank wrote:

Egads Frank, have you ever looked at an FDA drug or medical device
study? The very second we issue placebo helmets and do double blind
studies, clinical trials, biologic testing, etc., etc. then you can
make this argument. And in fact, the biomechanical studies show that
helmets do have a beneficial effect -- as you know.

Irrelevant. Throughout the "helmet wars," Frank and few others have
never let the facts get in their way.

If helmets were medical devices, then we would see more extensive
testing on animals or cadavers or both where helmeted and unhelmeted
subjects were exposed to the same forces, and then their studied. We
have seen some of that in the helmet literature, and, btw, it has
come out in favor of wearing a helmet. With the hospital based case
studies (pro or con, I concede), it is impossible to say whether any
two patients suffered similar blows -- either in terms of angle or
force or even location.

Actually it's not impossible at all. It's relatively straight-forward to
assess the angle, location, and force of the blow.

On Aug 8, 11:21*am, Jay Beattie wrote:
On Aug 7, 11:10*pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:

How about a sticker saying "According to the same standards used by
the FDA for medical interventions, helmets like this one are useless.
But don't worry, bicyclists have less risk of serious head injury than
pedestrians do." *That would be perfectly accurate.

Egads Frank, have you ever looked at an FDA drug or medical device
study? *The very second we issue placebo helmets and do double blind
studies, clinical trials, biologic testing, etc., etc. then you can
make this argument. *

Jay, the standard that seems to be used for most medical interventions
is a double-blind test for effectiveness using randomly chosen
subjects as cases and controls. More specifically, if a drug were
submitted for approval based only on the type of science used by pro-
helmet folks, it would never be allowed to market.

The touchstone "science" behind helmet promotion isn't biomechanical
studies showing reduced forces, as you imply. After all, it's obvious
that almost any helmet (including a soft foam 1978 Skid-Lid) will
somewhat reduce forces in linear impacts. As Guy Chapman jokes, so
did his wooly hat.

The pro-helmet "science" rests most heavily on the 1989 Thompson &
Rivara study if a couple hundred kids. It's the one that claimed to
prove that these flimsy things are _enough_ - that helmets certified
only for a linear 14 mph impact of a decapitated head prevent almost
every head injury. It used self-selected subjects, with "cases" and
"controls" of wildly different characteristics. And its predictions
have been shown thoroughly wrong for 20 years now.

And of course, the helmet promotion "science" doesn't deal at all with
rational evaluation of the supposed need. Instead, we get "But you
_could_ kill yourself in your own driveway!!!"

But of course, you know all that. It's certainly been discussed
enough.

- Frank Krygowski

In article
,
Jay Beattie wrote:

Helmets help prevent certain injuries

Bike helmets cannot prevent certain brain injuries- shearing force
injuries from head rotation or shaking, in particular (e.g., diffuse
axonal injury). No helmet can prevent those injuries because it is not
a linear impact to the head (in some circumstances, such as a rider
tumbling down the road at 40 mph, the mass of the helmet could
accentuate the injury).

If you crash within the parameters of what the helmet was designed for-
a headform mass of 10.1 lbs experiencing a linear impact of about 14 mph
onto a flat surface (test 1) or a headform mass of 10.1 lbs experiencing
a 10 mph crash onto a curb-shaped surface- it may help. The more your
crash is outside of those parameters, the less protection the helmet is
going to provide. That's just the physics of the situation.

For this reason I think that helmets are more likely to provide some
protection for children- they are smaller, lighter, slower and more
likely to crash within the parameters of the helmet design.

If you review the BHSI standards, it's pretty clear that their goal is
to have standards that most helmets can pass for marketing purposes,
with window dressing to make it look like their goal is protection of
the consumer. Unfortunately the helmets design thresholds are
unrealistically low for adult cyclists.

So it's a crapshoot as to whether a helmet may protect your brain or
not. And, really, brain injury is really the issue of interest in these
discussions. I think that it's pretty obvious than a helmet can prevent
scalp lacerations, road rash on much of the head, etc. I've discovered
that helmets are helpful at keeping the top of my head from getting
sunburned and are more comfortable on a hot day than my cotton cycling
caps thanks to being ventilated. But those are superficial,
non-disabling and non-life threatening injuries. Unfortunately they are
also most of the 85% of head injuries helmets are claimed to prevent.

--
That'll put marzipan in your pie plate, Bingo.

On Aug 8, 10:00 am, Tim McNamara wrote:
In article
,
Jay Beattie wrote:

Helmets help prevent certain injuries

Bike helmets cannot prevent certain brain injuries- shearing force
injuries from head rotation or shaking, in particular (e.g., diffuse
axonal injury). No helmet can prevent those injuries because it is not
a linear impact to the head (in some circumstances, such as a rider
tumbling down the road at 40 mph, the mass of the helmet could
accentuate the injury).


As someone who has tumbled down the racetrack at speed plenty of
times, I'd rather have a helmet on in that situation.

In fact, it just occurred to me that a helmet *could* save you a
broken leg. When tumbling after a crash, it's a lot easier to tumble
with the flow and let forces dissipate with less awkwardness if you
don't have to worry about guarding your bare head so much against
every bump and scrape. (So there! .. Not you, Tim :-)

If you crash within the parameters of what the helmet was designed for-
a headform mass of 10.1 lbs experiencing a linear impact of about 14 mph
onto a flat surface (test 1) or a headform mass of 10.1 lbs experiencing
a 10 mph crash onto a curb-shaped surface- it may help. The more your
crash is outside of those parameters, the less protection the helmet is
going to provide. That's just the physics of the situation.


Hmm... I average something in the general neighborhood of 15 mph for
about 3-4 hours a day. That's some extended risk exposure at what
seems to be right there in the ballpark of what I think you're saying
is the designed protection parameters. Maybe I'm not such a
propaganda swallowing schmuck after all (?)

For this reason I think that helmets are more likely to provide some
protection for children- they are smaller, lighter, slower and more
likely to crash within the parameters of the helmet design.


Unfortunately common "helmet-promoters" just hammer on kids to "always
wear your helmet", rather than emphasizing quality, condition, fit,
comfort.

If you review the BHSI standards, it's pretty clear that their goal is
to have standards that most helmets can pass for marketing purposes,
with window dressing to make it look like their goal is protection of
the consumer. Unfortunately the helmets design thresholds are
unrealistically low for adult cyclists.

I'd like to see better helmets, too.

snip

On Aug 8, 12:47*pm, Dan O wrote:
On Aug 8, 10:00 am, Tim McNamara wrote:

In article
,
*Jay Beattie wrote:

Helmets help prevent certain injuries

Bike helmets cannot prevent certain brain injuries- shearing force
injuries from head rotation or shaking, in particular (e.g., diffuse
axonal injury). *No helmet can prevent those injuries because it is not
a linear impact to the head (in some circumstances, such as a rider
tumbling down the road at 40 mph, the mass of the helmet could
accentuate the injury).

As someone who has tumbled down the racetrack at speed plenty of
times, I'd rather have a helmet on in that situation.

Dear Dan,

Are you confusing hard-shell motorcycle helmets with bicycle helmets?

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

On Aug 8, 12:24 pm, "
wrote:
On Aug 8, 12:47 pm, Dan O wrote:



On Aug 8, 10:00 am, Tim McNamara wrote:

In article
,
Jay Beattie wrote:

Helmets help prevent certain injuries

Bike helmets cannot prevent certain brain injuries- shearing force
injuries from head rotation or shaking, in particular (e.g., diffuse
axonal injury). No helmet can prevent those injuries because it is not
a linear impact to the head (in some circumstances, such as a rider
tumbling down the road at 40 mph, the mass of the helmet could
accentuate the injury).

As someone who has tumbled down the racetrack at speed plenty of
times, I'd rather have a helmet on in that situation.

Dear Dan,

Are you confusing hard-shell motorcycle helmets with bicycle helmets?


Hi Carl,

No - at least, I don't think so. I also wear a hard shell bicycle
helmet, and stated later in my post, for the general case, that "I'd
like to see better [bicycle] helmets, too."

In any case, "tumbling down the road at 40 mph" is something that I
can well understand, and is a situation in which "I'd rather have a
helmet on".

Yours,
Dan

On Sun, 8 Aug 2010 12:37:51 -0700 (PDT), Dan O
wrote:

On Aug 8, 12:24 pm, "
wrote:
On Aug 8, 12:47 pm, Dan O wrote:



On Aug 8, 10:00 am, Tim McNamara wrote:

In article
,
Jay Beattie wrote:

Helmets help prevent certain injuries

Bike helmets cannot prevent certain brain injuries- shearing force
injuries from head rotation or shaking, in particular (e.g., diffuse
axonal injury). No helmet can prevent those injuries because it is not
a linear impact to the head (in some circumstances, such as a rider
tumbling down the road at 40 mph, the mass of the helmet could
accentuate the injury).

As someone who has tumbled down the racetrack at speed plenty of
times, I'd rather have a helmet on in that situation.

Dear Dan,

Are you confusing hard-shell motorcycle helmets with bicycle helmets?


Hi Carl,

No - at least, I don't think so. I also wear a hard shell bicycle
helmet, and stated later in my post, for the general case, that "I'd
like to see better [bicycle] helmets, too."

In any case, "tumbling down the road at 40 mph" is something that I
can well understand, and is a situation in which "I'd rather have a
helmet on".

Yours,
Dan

Dear Dan,

But you seem to be lumping bicycle helmets together with motorcycle
helmets in terms of rotational injury at 40 mph.

They're rather different in shape, construction, weight, and so on,
with the typical bicycle helmet being far more likely to catch and
spin the head, judging by appearance alone.

You wouldn't be allowed on a motorcycle race track with an ordinary
bicycle helment, would you?

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

On Aug 8, 12:58 pm, wrote:
On Sun, 8 Aug 2010 12:37:51 -0700 (PDT), Dan O
wrote:



On Aug 8, 12:24 pm, "
wrote:
On Aug 8, 12:47 pm, Dan O wrote:

On Aug 8, 10:00 am, Tim McNamara wrote:

In article
,
Jay Beattie wrote:

Helmets help prevent certain injuries

Bike helmets cannot prevent certain brain injuries- shearing force
injuries from head rotation or shaking, in particular (e.g., diffuse
axonal injury). No helmet can prevent those injuries because it is not
a linear impact to the head (in some circumstances, such as a rider
tumbling down the road at 40 mph, the mass of the helmet could
accentuate the injury).

As someone who has tumbled down the racetrack at speed plenty of
times, I'd rather have a helmet on in that situation.

Dear Dan,

Are you confusing hard-shell motorcycle helmets with bicycle helmets?

Hi Carl,

No - at least, I don't think so. I also wear a hard shell bicycle
helmet, and stated later in my post, for the general case, that "I'd
like to see better [bicycle] helmets, too."

In any case, "tumbling down the road at 40 mph" is something that I
can well understand, and is a situation in which "I'd rather have a
helmet on".

Yours,
Dan

Dear Dan,

But you seem to be lumping bicycle helmets together with motorcycle
helmets in terms of rotational injury at 40 mph.

I wasn't comparing any helmets - just qualifying my tumbling
experience.


They're rather different in shape, construction, weight, and so on,
with the typical bicycle helmet being far more likely to catch and
spin the head, judging by appearance alone.


I agree with the above about typical bicycle helmets. I don't like
them, don't wear one, and would like to see them better.

You wouldn't be allowed on a motorcycle race track with an ordinary
bicycle helment, would you?


Well I'd hope not, but people used to wear some funky helmets, and
Sidewinders used to parade us around in no helmets at all before the
National Anthem.