Wife & Whether to Helmet or not to Helmet

[Cam]

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

 

[Jay Beattie]

Michael Press wrote:
> 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.

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.

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 16:50:50 GMT, "H. Guy"
<[email protected]> 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
****************************

 

[peter]

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.

 

[Pat in TX]

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.

 

[[email protected]]

[email protected] 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

 

[H. Guy]

In article <[email protected]>,
John Forrest Tomlinson <[email protected]> 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.

 

[[email protected]]

Espressopithecus (Java Man) wrote:
> I'm unaware of statistics that indicate
> whether experienced cyclists are better or worse off wearing a helmet.

It's my understading that professional racing fatalities are far more
common since helmets became in vogue.

>From http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/

"HELMETS NOT PROTECTING COMPETITIVE CYCLISTS. Ordinary cycling may be
low risk but competitive cycling is looking decidely risky. Perhaps
helmets are encouraging cyclists to take unreasonable risks in a search
for competitive success. In one August week, five racing cyclists died
as a result of separate crashes.
Cyclingnews.com reported that on August 12th the U23 Vuelta Juventud
held during four days in Costa Rica was halted when a leading group of
20 riders crashed into a bus while going down a Cat. 2 hill. A 17 year
old cyclist died. In sanctioned races, cyclists are required to wear a
helmet. On August 15th, Cyclingnews.com reported that on the previous
weekend, a mountain biker landed on his head in a Norwegian
Championship MTB race and died shortly after. Two days later, it
reported another cyclist lost his life in a head-on collision with
another cyclist in Plano, Texas. According to the description the
cyclist was riding counter-clockwise on a circuit route near an
industrial part of southeast Plano when he collided with another
cyclist who was training clockwise on the same course. Both cyclists
were wearing helmets, but one suffered severe head trauma and died soon
after the accident. On August 16th, Cyclingnews.com reported that a cat
4 racing cyclist died of head injuries when he was involved in a
collision with a car in the North Park area of Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania. The day before, it reported that a cyclist died of severe
head and chest wounds on August 9th when he collided with a truck while
training for a triathlon in Loma Linda, California. In the latter two
cases it was not reported whether helmets were worn but helmet use is
almost universal among American triathletes and racing cyclists."

- Frank Krygowski

 

[[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. I think I'll wear one.

One noted researcher said "A bike helmet might possibly help, if you
could only convince yourself you weren't wearing one."

The implication, of course, is that you can't. And any feeling of
protection is likely to subconsciously generate a small increase in
risk-taking. If the increase in risk taking exceeds the minimal
protection of a helmet, you're probably worse off.

- Frank Krygowski

 

[[email protected]]

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.

Visit www.cyclehelmets.org

Incidentally, there is real difficulty finding information on both
sides of this argument. To illustrate: In the past month or so, I'm
aware of two new papers examining helmet effectiveness.

One was by a medical student. He took four human skulls, filled them
with water, strapped helmets on two of them, and dropped them from
three feet. He claimed the helmets definitely provided "some
protection," therefore bike helmets should be strongly promoted. His
paper was not peer reviewed, and was presented at a small conference.

The other was by a PhD in statistics, whose specialty is (among other
things) ferreting out mistakes in other researchers' statistics. She
examined data from many thousands of cyclists subjected to mandatory
helmet laws for well over ten years, and concluded that the helmets had
no detectable benefit - in fact, made things somewhat worse. This
paper was peer reviewed, and appeared in a very prominent medical
journal.

Which paper do you think got the publicity?

For those who don't see the obvious: Anything that sells helmets gets
trumpeted, no matter how weak it is. Anything that questions helmets
gets muffled, no matter how thorough and rigorous it is.

Now, would this possibly have anything to do with, say, a profit
motive?

- Frank Krygowski

 

[[email protected]]

[email protected] wrote:
>
> 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.

That's a statement of faith, not of fact.

The best data shows otherwise - that the helmet will make negligible
difference.

- Frank Krygowski

 

[[email protected]]

On 27 Apr 2006 21:02:00 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

[snip]

>For those who don't see the obvious: Anything that sells helmets gets
>trumpeted, no matter how weak it is. Anything that questions helmets
>gets muffled, no matter how thorough and rigorous it is.
>
>Now, would this possibly have anything to do with, say, a profit
>motive?
>
>- Frank Krygowski

Dear Frank,

While greed should never be underestimated, I doubt that the
people on RBT who believe that helmets are effective are
trying to make a buck. I think that they're sincere. In
fact, I think that the companies that sell helmets are
sincere, too.

It is human to embrace anything that promises protection.

It is normal to believe the apparent evidence of our own
eyes.

It common to err on the side of presumed safety.

And it is painful to find out that you've been wrong.

During WWII, the RAF asked Freeman Dyson to study the
appalling loss rate of its night bombers. Dyson found that
only two things contributed to survival over Germany at
night: speed and height.

He therefore recommended stripping the bombers of their
guns, turrets, ammunition, and gunners. With less weight and
drag, the bombers could fly higher and faster and would be
more likely to survive.

Dyson's ridiculous suggestion to remove the defensive guns
on the RAF bombers was, of course, rejected. Few soldiers
take kindly to the idea of giving up their weapons.

After the war, it was learned that the Luftwaffe was
shooting most of the RAF bombers down with dull twin engine
night fighters that simply cruised along below the bombers
and blasted them with upward-firing automatic cannons. The
number of bombers that could be shot down was limited only
by how many a fighter could intercept before returning to
base for more fuel and ammunition.

Bombers that flew higher and faster were harder to
intercept.

Unlike the U.S. daylight B-17, the night-time Avro Lancaster
lacked a belly turret, which meant that none of its doomed
gunners could even see their enemy in the darkness below,
much less defend themselves.

Bombers burdened by brave gunners and their equipment flew
lower and slower and were easier to intercept.

Greed had nothing to do with the RAF refusal to pay
attention to Dyson's statistics. It's just terribly hard to
give up what seems like your best hope. I cling hopefully to
the belief that my yellow helmet may save me--it's been
awfully hard to admit that it's not likely to be true.

(Anyone interested in Dyson's other stories can find them in
"Weapons and Hope.")

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

 

[41]

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

Beware the subtleties. For example, consider the pathetic "rebuttal" to
Robinson's excellent recent article in the BMJ. That group touted (old)
case-"control" studies. Of course, there were no controls: these are
case-reference studies. And what escaped all these old studies, and
what is deliberately hidden nowadays by these partisan ideologues, are
such things as the fact that 35-75% of bicyclists admitted to hospitals
with head injuries are DRUNK. Coincidentally, these drunken bicycle
riders tend not to wear helmets. So, why do they have so many head
injuries: because they are not wearing helmets, or because they are
drunk? Hint: this is why those old studies showed e.g. helmets reducing
the injury rate to knees.

There are suprisingly many drunken bicycle drivers. They are drunk
drivers who got their licences revoked, and who now have to make their
way to and from the bars on bicycles.

 

[[email protected]]

Pat in TX wrote:
> 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.

To borrow a phrase from Peter: Bing! Bing! Bing! We have a winner.

Congrats, Pat! Yours is the only intelligent comment in the thread.
BH is indeed trolling and is undoubtedly wallowing in glory at having
duped everyone into spending time responding. This hit me like a ton
of bricks when he responded to Carl's price point notation with this
bit of open trickery:

>But seriously, you're not suggesting that an item found at Walmart can be
>used to demonstrate that an entire industry can be profitable at their price
>point, are you?

This was a tip-off. Kinda like saying "you're not REALLY suggesting
that red and blue are different colors, are you?!?". Here he flaunts
the fact that he has his audience wrapped around his finger; at this
point can say anything at all, no matter how nonsensical or
content-free -- as long as his tone of voice be that of disdain, his
audience will continue to dance on his strings. Had me going too for a
while.

If there was still any doubt, he removed it with his next response,
also crafted to produce a knee-jerk response, and also completely
content-free:

>Source? I mean this opinion of yours is based upon some data... not just
>your assumptions, correct?

I think he's actually Ed Dolan.

-Doug

 

[Phil, Squid-in-Training]

41 wrote:
> Phil, Squid-in-Training wrote:
>> I'll check out Medline, too.
>
> Beware the subtleties. For example, consider the pathetic "rebuttal"
> to Robinson's excellent recent article in the BMJ. That group touted
> (old) case-"control" studies. Of course, there were no controls:
> these are case-reference studies. And what escaped all these old
> studies, and what is deliberately hidden nowadays by these partisan
> ideologues, are such things as the fact that 35-75% of bicyclists
> admitted to hospitals with head injuries are DRUNK. Coincidentally,
> these drunken bicycle riders tend not to wear helmets. So, why do
> they have so many head injuries: because they are not wearing
> helmets, or because they are drunk? Hint: this is why those old
> studies showed e.g. helmets reducing the injury rate to knees.

Not only that, but they're often high, too.

> There are suprisingly many drunken bicycle drivers. They are drunk
> drivers who got their licences revoked, and who now have to make their
> way to and from the bars on bicycles.

In my locale, the penalty for drunk bicycle riding is exactly the same as
in/on a motorized vehicle. You won't ever find me getting caught RUI.
--
Phil, Squid-in-Training

 

[[email protected]]

41 wrote:
> Phil, Squid-in-Training wrote:
> >I'll check out Medline, too.
>
> Beware the subtleties. For example, consider the pathetic "rebuttal" to
> Robinson's excellent recent article in the BMJ. That group touted (old)
> case-"control" studies. Of course, there were no controls: these are
> case-reference studies. And what escaped all these old studies, and
> what is deliberately hidden nowadays by these partisan ideologues, are
> such things as the fact that 35-75% of bicyclists admitted to hospitals
> with head injuries are DRUNK. Coincidentally, these drunken bicycle
> riders tend not to wear helmets. So, why do they have so many head
> injuries: because they are not wearing helmets, or because they are
> drunk? Hint: this is why those old studies showed e.g. helmets reducing
> the injury rate to knees.
>
> There are suprisingly many drunken bicycle drivers. They are drunk
> drivers who got their licences revoked, and who now have to make their
> way to and from the bars on bicycles.

In my opinion there are only 5 types of cyclists (arranged below in
increasing order of dangerousness to themselves and others):

Tourists with panniers and trailers and beards.

Practical users ranging from Chinese-food delivery guys to recumbent
riding commuters.

Fitness types ranging from chubby couples with matching windbreakers
and hybrids to Lance wannabes.

Thrill seekers ranging from DH/FR nutcases to fixed-gear in traffic
messengers.

And the drunk you mention. We've all seen him. He's wearing a stained
Member's Only jacket, has about 100 keys hanging from his belt, velcro
sneakers, a worn out baseball cap, and an old rusty 10-speed with the
drop bars twisted back so the brake levers are pointing straight up. He
usually has a plastic bag swinging from said bars as he careens around
in oblivion. Needless to say, he does not wear a helmet.

Joseph

PS: I'm just having some fun, don't anyone get too worked up about it.

 

[Tim McNamara]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] 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.
>
> Visit www.cyclehelmets.org
>
> Incidentally, there is real difficulty finding information on both
> sides of this argument. To illustrate: In the past month or so,
> I'm aware of two new papers examining helmet effectiveness.
>
> One was by a medical student. He took four human skulls, filled them
> with water, strapped helmets on two of them, and dropped them from
> three feet. He claimed the helmets definitely provided "some
> protection," therefore bike helmets should be strongly promoted. His
> paper was not peer reviewed, and was presented at a small conference.

And suffers from the fundamental problem that bone is more brittle in
dead people than living people. Not to mention that my head is 6 feet
off the ground when riding my bike, and usually going 18 mph or faster.

> The other was by a PhD in statistics, whose specialty is (among other
> things) ferreting out mistakes in other researchers' statistics. She
> examined data from many thousands of cyclists subjected to mandatory
> helmet laws for well over ten years, and concluded that the helmets
> had no detectable benefit - in fact, made things somewhat worse.
> This paper was peer reviewed, and appeared in a very prominent
> medical journal.
>
> Which paper do you think got the publicity?
>
> For those who don't see the obvious: Anything that sells helmets
> gets trumpeted, no matter how weak it is. Anything that questions
> helmets gets muffled, no matter how thorough and rigorous it is.
>
> Now, would this possibly have anything to do with, say, a profit
> motive?

Not in peer reviewed journals nor in the general media. The helmet
lobby doesn't control much of anything, being quite tiny and advertising
little outside of the bike magazines. It has everything to do with
media bias in general, which is that bicycling is a perilous activity.

 

[[email protected]]

[email protected] 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.
>
> Visit www.cyclehelmets.org
>
> Incidentally, there is real difficulty finding information on both
> sides of this argument. To illustrate: In the past month or so, I'm
> aware of two new papers examining helmet effectiveness.
>
> One was by a medical student. He took four human skulls, filled them
> with water, strapped helmets on two of them, and dropped them from
> three feet. He claimed the helmets definitely provided "some
> protection," therefore bike helmets should be strongly promoted. His
> paper was not peer reviewed, and was presented at a small conference.
>
> The other was by a PhD in statistics, whose specialty is (among other
> things) ferreting out mistakes in other researchers' statistics. She
> examined data from many thousands of cyclists subjected to mandatory
> helmet laws for well over ten years, and concluded that the helmets had
> no detectable benefit - in fact, made things somewhat worse. This
> paper was peer reviewed, and appeared in a very prominent medical
> journal.
>
> Which paper do you think got the publicity?
>
> For those who don't see the obvious: Anything that sells helmets gets
> trumpeted, no matter how weak it is. Anything that questions helmets
> gets muffled, no matter how thorough and rigorous it is.
>
> Now, would this possibly have anything to do with, say, a profit
> motive?
>
> - Frank Krygowski

Ok, I am now convinced that as a public health measure compulsory
helmet laws and safety campaigns are not all they've cracked up to be,
what with all the negative unintended consequences like kids getting
strangled in trees, people not cycling as much due to fear and thus
cyclists not reaching the critical mass necessary for group safety as
is found in places like The Netherlands, etc.

But what about performance in actual crashes? Pointers to info on this?
For my own use, I know I will not be climbing any trees, I have already
chosen to ride no matter what, I use a very light helmet, and I'd like
to think I take no risks I wouldn't otherwise were I not wearing a
helmet. As far as crashing goes, the only thing I am concerned about is
getting hit or clipped by a passing car from behind and going down in a
non-controlled manner. I've had wipe-outs and other lone crashes where
I was somewhat in control and felt as though I was able to keep my head
out of danger. But getting blindsided from behind would be different.

So, when I am flying through the air moments after being hit by a car,
moments from hitting the ground and/or other stationary objects, do I
want a helmet or not? Please point me to info about this. I'm not
worried about the likelyhood of crashing which I know is low.

The things that I dislike about a helmet are the wind-noise that makes
hearing cars more difficult, and the fact that the strap has to be a
bit loose to breath. I worry that the loose strap defeats the whole
purpose.

Joseph

 

[[email protected]]

[email protected] wrote:
>
> Ok, I am now convinced that as a public health measure compulsory
> helmet laws and safety campaigns are not all they've cracked up to be...
> But what about performance in actual crashes? Pointers to info on this?

Let's think about how this could be determined.

You can't have people perform crashes with and without helmets. Not
only would it be ethically sketchy, you can't duplicate a crash. Bike
crashes are infinitely more chaotic than car crashes. This is because
the mass of the system is so low, and the number of degrees of freedom
of an unrestrained human body are so high, and the effect of muscle
contractions (volunary or not) are so large.

For the same reasons, using crash test dummies on bikes won't work.

Case-control studies are notoriously bad. The problem is, there is no
"control." People who have put helmets on are bound to behave
differently than those who have not, in many unpredictable ways.

What we need is to get rid of the large variations in individual
crashes, by averaging things mathematically. For that, we'll need a
large number of data points. How can we get lots of data on people
crashing with and without helmets, where the people are "the same
type"? That is, not comparing gonzo downhillers with mom's on bike
paths?

One way - perhaps the only way - is to look at a large population of
all types of cyclists, during a time when few of them wear helmets,
then compare to a time when that same population has most of the people
in helmets. See how many head injuries there are per thousand cyclists
in, say, one year.

One way - perhaps the only way - to arrange for a sudden change in
helmet wearing is to force people to suddenly start wearing helmets.
They won't do it in mass unless there's an enforced law on the books,
or maybe soon to be on the books. If you can find such a situation, it
can be a good "before - after" test.

And of course, this has been done. It's specifically this type of
study that shows the least benefit for helmets. In fact, the latest
such study showed negative benefit.

Keep in mind, bike helmets are designed, tested and certified for a
laughably low standard. This is necessary because a really strong
helmet would be unbearable on a bicycle. Helmet proponents never let
on how weak the standard is - but the entire point of Thompson &
Rivara's 1989 paper was to prove that yes, by golly, these super-flimsy
helmets really do work. It wasn't stated that way, and the study was
notoriously faulty, but that was the point.

What real-world, before-after data seems to show is that a helmet
designed, tested and certified for low level collisions actually works
only in low level collisions.

- Frank Krygowski

 

[[email protected]]

Jay Beattie wrote:

> 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.

Jay, have you looked for such a study or are you saying that you
haven't found one in your Cheerios, and that no little red-haired girl
has slipped on into your pocket?

Took me about 60 seconds.

http://www.helmets.org/hurtmemo.htm
http://www.hprl.org/

I admit, the pages cited above are not the studies itself/themselves,
they only refer to them.

Doug