Wife & Whether to Helmet or not to Helmet

H. Guy wrote:

i've been riding my bike several times a week for 40+ years.
of those, i've worn a helmet every time for the past 30+ years.

i'd estimate that, over the years, i've spent 15,000-20,000 hours
wearing a helmet without incident. one day a few years ago, i went
down, HARD, landed on my left side and my helmet-shod head slapped
the pavement. i walked away with a bruised hip, a lot of road rash
and a broken helmet.

did my helmet save me from serious injury? dunno, but judging from
the rest of the left side of my body i'd say that chances are good
that it did. statistically speaking, the ride that day was around
0.012% of my total time with the helmet. and i'd have to say that
that statistically insignificant event, FOR ME, made the other
wasted uses of the helmet worthwhile.

while my chances of escaping injury, according to statistics from
several nations, may not have been appreciably improved by my use
of the helmet, i myself judge that they improved significantly for
my purposes on that afternoon.

YMMV, and i would never think of legislating your use of this
device. nor would i wish to support you should this omission render
you incapable of supporting yourself.

This post is alarmingly reasonable. {pause} CUT IT OUT!!!

H. Guy wrote:

i'd estimate that, over the years, i've spent 15,000-20,000 hours
wearing a helmet without incident. one day a few years ago, i went
down, HARD, landed on my left side and my helmet-shod head slappe d
the pavement. i walked away with a bruised hip, a lot of road rash
and a broken helmet.

did my helmet save me from serious injury?

I had the identical accident, perhaps more severe judging from the
injuries to my shoulder and legs, but without the helmet. My head never
contacted the pavement and received no impact. The position of the mark
on my shoulder (still there after almost two years) proves that had I
been wearing a helmet, my helmet-shod head would have slapped the
pavement before the impact was absorbed by deformation of my shoulder.
Additionally, the side-angled blow would have resulted in major
torsion, likely leading to significant brain injury.

YMMV

Bestest Handsander wrote:
My wife and I have an agreement that I may cycle as much as I wish provided
that I recover fully from any injuries. In other words, no brain damage or
permanent disablity. In the event that such injuries are sustained, I am
instructed that I should die.

So, my questions is... in order to live up (har har) to my end of the
agreement, would I do better to wear a helmet or go hatless?

I'd say wear a helmet. If you are in an accident with a vehicle, the
helmet won't make much difference. You'll be dead or not by luck. But
most accidents I see are people crashing by themselves, on railroad
crossings, potholes, with other bikes, pedals breaking, etc. On these
low speed low impact accidents, the helmet works to keep your head from
being cracked open. So what could be a lengthy serious possibly
lifelong injury becomes a mild concussion that you recover from in a
week or so. This would fit your requirements as cited of either dying
or recovering quickly without permanent brain damage.

(Unfortunately, as Carl Fogel summarized, the evidence does not provide
convincing evidence that helmets actually help. )

The thing is, dear old Carl, for whom I have a lot of respect has not
survived the few wrecks that I have and which have given me irrefutable
evidence of the worth of a helmet.

Also, FWIW, (and you can quote me on this) it is an inevitable
consequence of riding a 2 wheeled vehicle that you WILL fall off.

Kind regards.

Lewis.

******

"41" wrote: (clip) My head never contacted the pavement and received no
impact. The position of the mark on my shoulder (still there after almost
two years) proves that had I been wearing a helmet, my helmet-shod head
would have slapped the pavement before the impact was absorbed by
deformation of my shoulder. Additionally, the side-angled blow would have
resulted in major torsion, likely leading to significant brain injury.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This is what call "tortured logic." The injury to your shoulder *proves*
nothing about what a helmet would have done. I can just as easily say that
it *proves* that by absorbing some of the energy, it would have lessened the
injury to your shoulder.

Phil, Squid-in-Training wrote:
(6) The statistical trends show increased rates of head injury with
increasing helmet use, not less.

Is there a place we can see these statistics? Are they publicly available?
I'm interested to know.

"A" place? Not exactly. But there is lots around, so much so that it
would take me quite a while to compile a list of the best for you. You
could start he

http://www.helmets.org/time2001.htm
This is in OPPOSITION to the claim I made, but I think the response is
telling.


Here is a grab-bag of references gleaned from somewhere I don't recall,
some for some against the position above. As you can see they are
older. Some of them conclude one thing, but if you look in more detail,
in fact the data show the opposite. The links may be expired. If I
recall the last two are in favor of helmets but the second to last
showed they lead to a 36% increase in neck injuries while the last
shows they lead to an 80% increase. Have fun.

Kennedy A, The pattern of injury in fatal pedal cycle accidents and the
possible benefits of cycle helmets, British Journal of Sports Medicine,
Vol 30(2):130-133, 1996
Robinson DL, Head injuries and bicycle helmet laws, Accident Analysis
and Prevention 28(4):463-475, 1996
Hendrie D et al., An economic evaluation of the mandatory bicycle
helmet legislation in Western Australia, Proceedings, Insurance
Commission of Western Australia Conference on Road Safety
Available at:
http://www.transport.wa.gov.au/roads...gislation.html
Robinson D, Helmet Laws and Health, Injuy Prevention 4(3):170-172, 1998

Available at: http://lash.une.edu.au/~drobinso/ozdoc.html
Attewell RG et al., Bicycle helmet efficacy: a meta-analysis, Accident
Analysis and Prevention 33(3):345-352, 2001
Available at: www.atsb.gov.au/road/research/cr-195.pdf
McDermott FT et al., The effectiveness of bicyclist helmets: A study of
1710 casualties, The Journal of Trauma 34(6):834-44, 1993
_

Leo Lichtman wrote:
"41" wrote: (clip) My head never contacted the pavement and received no
impact. The position of the mark on my shoulder (still there after almost
two years) proves that had I been wearing a helmet, my helmet-shod head
would have slapped the pavement before the impact was absorbed by
deformation of my shoulder. Additionally, the side-angled blow would have
resulted in major torsion, likely leading to significant brain injury.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This is what call "tortured logic." The injury to your shoulder *proves*
nothing about what a helmet would have done. I can just as easily say that
it *proves* that by absorbing some of the energy, it would have lessened the
injury to your shoulder.

You missed the point, perhaps I was not clear. The position of the mark
was, at maximal compression of my shoulder, scarcely outside the
outline of my head. With a helmet, that outline would have extended out
something like 1"+ on the side and much more to the front and back. The
impact was not square and would have spun my head around like a tether
ball. There is a mark on my shoulder but no lasting probem.
6

In article
.com,
wrote:

[...]

There are all sorts of arguments about why the statistics don't show so
much about how much a helmet helps, vs what sort of people use helmets
and what sort of people get into accidents. It can be argued that a
helmet does not really provide any protection. But does anyone argue
that a helmet is the cause of injury? I don't think so. So using a
helmet won't hurt you, and possibly will help.

This argument is not settled.

* A helmet struck an off-axis blow will impart a larger
torque to the neck, than will an off-axis blow to a head
with a cloth cap.

* It is proven that people in all situations, and
bicyclists in particular, adjust upward their risk taking
when provided with measures they believe will decrease the
harmful consequences of contrary events. `I would never
ride that descent without a helmet.'

Of all the anecdotes I have heard, the only one that
convinces me is that a helmet is useful riding trails with
low tree branches.

--
Michael Press

41 wrote:
Phil, Squid-in-Training wrote:
(6) The statistical trends show increased rates of head injury with
increasing helmet use, not less.

Is there a place we can see these statistics? Are they publicly
available? I'm interested to know.

"A" place? Not exactly. But there is lots around, so much so that it
would take me quite a while to compile a list of the best for you. You
could start he

http://www.helmets.org/time2001.htm
This is in OPPOSITION to the claim I made, but I think the response is
telling.


Here is a grab-bag of references gleaned from somewhere I don't
recall, some for some against the position above. As you can see they
are older. Some of them conclude one thing, but if you look in more
detail, in fact the data show the opposite. The links may be expired.
If I recall the last two are in favor of helmets but the second to
last showed they lead to a 36% increase in neck injuries while the
last shows they lead to an 80% increase. Have fun.

Kennedy A, The pattern of injury in fatal pedal cycle accidents and
the possible benefits of cycle helmets, British Journal of Sports
Medicine, Vol 30(2):130-133, 1996
Robinson DL, Head injuries and bicycle helmet laws, Accident Analysis
and Prevention 28(4):463-475, 1996
Hendrie D et al., An economic evaluation of the mandatory bicycle
helmet legislation in Western Australia, Proceedings, Insurance
Commission of Western Australia Conference on Road Safety
Available at:
http://www.transport.wa.gov.au/roads...gislation.html
Robinson D, Helmet Laws and Health, Injuy Prevention 4(3):170-172,
1998

Available at: http://lash.une.edu.au/~drobinso/ozdoc.html
Attewell RG et al., Bicycle helmet efficacy: a meta-analysis, Accident
Analysis and Prevention 33(3):345-352, 2001
Available at: www.atsb.gov.au/road/research/cr-195.pdf
McDermott FT et al., The effectiveness of bicyclist helmets: A study
of 1710 casualties, The Journal of Trauma 34(6):834-44, 1993
_

Thanks... I'll check out Medline, too.
--
Phil, Squid-in-Training

In article .com,
says...

H. Guy wrote:

i'd estimate that, over the years, i've spent 15,000-20,000 hours
wearing a helmet without incident. one day a few years ago, i went
down, HARD, landed on my left side and my helmet-shod head slappe d
the pavement. i walked away with a bruised hip, a lot of road rash
and a broken helmet.

did my helmet save me from serious injury?

I had the identical accident, perhaps more severe judging from the
injuries to my shoulder and legs, but without the helmet. My head never
contacted the pavement and received no impact. The position of the mark
on my shoulder (still there after almost two years) proves that had I
been wearing a helmet, my helmet-shod head would have slapped the
pavement before the impact was absorbed by deformation of my shoulder.
Additionally, the side-angled blow would have resulted in major
torsion, likely leading to significant brain injury.

Your fall may not have involved forces as high as those described by the
previous poster. I would speculate that a fall with forces high enough
to cause a helmeted head to hit the ground and crack the helmet, the
neck may not be strong enough to resist the lateral forces, thus
allowing an un-helmeted head to strike the pavement.

Undoubtedly, there are falls in which helmets prevent or mitigate injury
and falls in which they don't. I'm unaware of statistics that indicate
whether experienced cyclists are better or worse off wearing a helmet.
Unless more specific data exists, whether helmets are
safer/neutral/worse for typical RBT readers looks to me like
speculation. But it does prove one thing -- inadequate information
fuels great arguments! ;-)

Rick