Wife & Whether to Helmet or not to Helmet

41 wrote:
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

I've had this same fall with and without a helmet. This is the benefit
of living in a wet environment with steep hills and off camber corners.

Without a helmet, I did strike my head, but the impact was absorbed
primarily by my shoulder and hip. So, I had a headache for a while. I
think I had a minor scalp ow-ee. Lots of great scabs elsewhere.

With the helmet, there was no aditional rotation of my head, although
the helmet rotated a little and the headlock band gouged my forehead. I
was surprised by that. I had a head ache but no scalp laceration,
though. I broke two ribs, which was far worse than anything that
happened to my head.

I've had some real nasty OTBs where the helmet clearly did help prevent
scalp injury. As for fatal or near fatal brain injury, helmets help
prevent focal injuries, meaning injuries caused by an object depressing
an area of the skull. They do not particulary help diffuse rotational
injuries where the head snaps back and forth and the brain sloshes
around in the cranium. Nothing can prevent those types of injuries
AFAIK -- and in fact some helmets make them worse -- the headgear
boxers wear when sparring actually increases rotational injuries (this
is according to an expert I use). -- Jay Beattie.

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

There was a recent article in the British Medical Journal (March 2006
BMJ) on the real-world effectiveness of bicycle helmets. A copy of the
article along with a (not very convincing) rebuttal by helmet advocates
is available at:
http://press.psprings.co.uk/bmj/march/ac722.pdf

Also of interest are reader responses to the two articles:
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/332/7543/725
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/332/7543/722
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/332/7543/722-a
Many of these contain relevant statistics as well as those found in the
articles themselves.

jtaylor wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

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.

(some) helmet manufacturers include with their products literature that
specifically states the increased risk of torsion injuries and disclaims
manufacturers' responsibility for such.

And a study recently published in the CMA Journal shows that following the
helmet law, injury rates increased.

Thinking (or NOT thinking, in your case) is no substitute for research.

I wear a heavy helmet to make my neck strong, so I don't need to worry
about torsional injuries.

Just kidding. It is interesting to see the different perspectives and
situations (like torsional injuries) that I never thought of before. As
you say no substitute for research. I learn something new every day.

Joseph

Sorni wrote:
Styrofoam-whipped much? Be a man! Leave with it on so she sees you, then
ditch it. (Unless, of course, you really DO think wearing a helmet might
just be a smart thing to do?)

Practice this phrase: "Yes, dear."


On my commute I see lots of people who hang their helmet from the bars.
I always assumed thety had really nice bars but you've given me another
explanation.

Cam

Michael Press wrote:
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.

I am still waiting to see all the people with neck injuries -- and I've
been waiting since about 1975 when this argument was first made with
the Bell Biker. Modern microshell helmets are pretty slippery, and in
combination with their minimalist profiles, they may even reduce
rotational injury to the neck. Who knows. I am not aware of single
study using a modern helmet -- or any study -- that proves this point.

* 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.

You will get tons of anecdotes about people who crushed their helmets
in various accidents. You can assume that the energy absorbed by the
helmet would have been absorbed by the scalp and scull absent the
helmet. They have their uses. -- Jay Beattie.

On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 16:50:50 GMT, "H. Guy"
wrote:

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.

What is serious injury? Brain damage (concussion or worse) or a
broken bone? Considering that your brain in encased in a "helmet" of
bone, and that bone is fairly thick in most places, I don't see how
the bruising to soft tissue on other parts of your body can tell you
what would have happned to your skull or brain w/o a helmet. Or did
you actually break other bones in your body?

I believe your helmet saved you from a lot of
bleeding/scraping/bruising on your head.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Jay Beattie wrote:
Michael Press wrote:

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.

I am still waiting to see all the people with neck injuries -- and I've
been waiting since about 1975 when this argument was first made with
the Bell Biker.

Of course we're also still waiting to see the decrease in head injury
related fatalities that was projected to accompany increased helmet
use. Neither the benefit nor potential neck injury increase have been
clearly evident.

Modern microshell helmets are pretty slippery,

Only until the 'microshell' is abraded away from contact with the road.

and in
combination with their minimalist profiles, they may even reduce
rotational injury to the neck.

The overall width of my current helmet is actually very close to the
same as my Bell Biker. And the projection at the rear is substantially
greater, so I wouldn't be surprised if the possible twisting forces
were at least as great with today's helmets.

Who knows. I am not aware of single
study using a modern helmet -- or any study -- that proves this point.

Agreed. It has been discussed but I haven't seen much besides
conjecture as to the likelihood and severity of the problem.

You will get tons of anecdotes about people who crushed their helmets
in various accidents. You can assume that the energy absorbed by the
helmet would have been absorbed by the scalp and scull absent the
helmet.

The broken helmets I've seen after crashes have cracked with very
little evidence of crushing. I.e. comparison of the foam thickness vs.
that of an undamaged helmet showed no substantial difference. That has
been true even when the helmet was initially described as 'crushed'.
But cracking of the helmet foam can be done with very little energy and
is therefore not evidence that significant energy was absorbed by the
helmet during the crash.

They have their uses.

Yes, I find it to be more comfortable to lie down and catch a quick nap
while wearing a helmet if only hard surfaces are available. The Bell
Biker was better for this with it's more round and symmetrical shape.

Jeez, see what you've started? Another useless H&^*%met thread. You knew the
answer before you asked the question. Methinks that makes you a troll.

wrote:

I'll bet speed is an important factor. Cyclists in the US I'm guessing
tend more to be fitness-types who are probably riding on average much
faster than the average Dutch rider. In The Netherlands, you get all
sorts of normal people and old ladies riding bikes around at 3 mph in
addition to their fitness-types. Sure you can get seriously injured
getting doored at 3mph, but crashing at 25mph is a much better way to
ensure adequate injury!

From my couple of weeks in Holland, the difference is cultural. In
Amsterdam, especially, cyclists seem to be on top of the food chain,
rather than the bottom. Not to mention the red-paved bike lanes,
separate from MV lanes in many cases (reducing dooring and other), and
the paved, separate bike "roads" in places removed from cities, and the
sheer number of cyclists.

Don't kid yourself about the average speed of American dough-ball rec
riders v. a Dutch cyclist hauling ass to work, either. Fortunately,
said commuters are much more patient with dopey tourists standing in
their lane than are American drivers who can't spare a nanosecond for
the life of a cyclist. Of course, the Dutch riders are not ensconced in
two tons of steel... But, no shouting, just a tingling bell and rolling
eyes, in my observation.
--D-y

In article ,
John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:

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.

What is serious injury? Brain damage (concussion or worse) or a
broken bone?

fractured scapula. my "brain helmet" was intact.