Wife & Whether to Helmet or not to Helmet

[Bestest Handsander]

"John Forrest Tomlinson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 23:52:37 -0600, "Bestest Handsander"
> <[email protected]> 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.
>
> Ask her if she looks forward to pushing you around in wheelchair due
> to your spinal injuries while your brain and mouth still function

I think she would argue that it has never been proven that both have ever
functioned properly.

 

[jtaylor]

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

 

[jtaylor]

"Richard B" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>
> In the end it is your choice.
>
>

Not everywhere, and where it is not, we all have to bear the increased
health costs.

 

[41]

[email protected] wrote:
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.

Au contraire. Helmets are both a direct cause of injury and a
contributing factor, for the following reasons:

(1) They increase the size and mass of the headform.
(2) Soft-shell helmets increased friction and no doubt seriously
contributed to injuries in the past. This problem was corrected.
(3) Especially with the football-shaped helmets in fashion for the past
15+years and the foreseeable future, the lever arm is substantially
increased, and torsional effects are among the most devasting in head
injury.
(4) Psychological effects: with helmets, risky behaviour is perceived
as less so.
(5) In children, the straps have caused strangulation leading to actual
death, when children e.g. climbed trees or playground equipment while
still wearing the helmets.
(6) The statistical trends show increased rates of head injury with
increasing helmet use, not less.

The possible protective effects of helmets in the narrow range of
crashes within their specs must be contrasted with the sum of all these
opposing factors. So far, the statistics say they lose.

I

 

[41]

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 23:52:37 -0600, "Bestest Handsander"
> <[email protected]> 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.
>
> Ask her if she looks forward to pushing you around in wheelchair due
> to your spinal injuries while yo ur brain and mouth still function
> fine.

It seems to me she has already addressed that unequivocally: he is
intructed to die. Apparently this is also the case if e.g. he loses a
thumb.

 

[41]

Richard B wrote:

> I wear a helmet:
> I hit some debris on a class 1 bike trail and took a header a year ago.
> I ended up unconscious on the bike trail, covered with blood from a head
> wound that took 11 stitches to close and had a minor concussion.
> After a year my only remaining symptom is some mild positional vertigo
> when I look straight up.
>
> I do not think I would have fared so well had I not been wearing a
> helmet.

Consider that more fully. Suppose you had not been wearing a helmet.
Would you have taken the ride on that class 1 bike trail at all? Would
you have walked around whatever the obstacle was?

Perhaps you would have fared much better without the helmet after all.


 

[Phil, Squid-in-Training]

> (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.
--
Phil, Squid-in-Training

 

[H. Guy]

>Judging by often-cited statistics from several nations on
>cycling head injuries versus helmet use, a helmet won't make
>any significant difference.

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.

 

[jtaylor]

"41" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> [email protected] wrote:
> 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.
>
> Au contraire. Helmets are both a direct cause of injury and a
> contributing factor, for the following reasons:


> (3) Especially with the football-shaped helmets in fashion for the past
> 15+years and the foreseeable future, the lever arm is substantially
> increased, and torsional effects are among the most devasting in head
> injury.


Here's a quote from the Australian National Health and Medical Research
Council:

"Whilst helmets may possibly reduce the incidence of scalp lacerations and
other soft tissue injury, there is the risk that helmets may actually
increase both the cerebral and non-cerebral injury rates. ... The addition
of a helmet will increase both the size and mass of the head. This means
blows that would have been glancing become more solid and thus transmit
increased rotational forces to the brain and may increase diffuse brain
injury".

So the trade-off is save my scalp being cut and risk damaging my brain. It
seems that people who wish to wear cycle helmets don't actually need one...

 

[Sorni]

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!!!

 

[41]

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

 

[[email protected]]

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.

 

[[email protected]]

(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.

******

 

[Leo Lichtman]

"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.

 

[41]

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

 

[Michael Press]

In article
<[email protected]>,
[email protected] 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

 

[Espressopithecus (Java Man)]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] 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

 

[Jay Beattie]

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.

 

[peter]

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.

 

[[email protected]]

jtaylor wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > 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