Cycle helmets save lives says Neurosurgeon - in ongoing helmet row

chokofingrz wrote:

Well even if the impact energy is not absorbed, surely the styrofoam distributes the force over a greater area of skull compared to bashing your head directly on concrete.

Though presumably regardless of how concentrated or distributed the impact on your skull is, your brain will still bounce around inside it in the same way? And isn't that what causes the worst damage?

Am not sure at all about the medical/mechanical, as opposed to sociological/moral, side of it.

Where's a brain surgeon when you need one?

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

chokofingrz wrote:

Well even if the impact energy is not absorbed, surely the styrofoam distributes the force over a greater area of skull compared to bashing your head directly on concrete.

Though presumably regardless of how concentrated or distributed the impact on your skull is, your brain will still bounce around inside it in the same way? And isn't that what causes the worst damage?

Most of what you want the helmet to do is slow the deceleration rate down, which will hopefully reduce the injury your brain receives when it smashes into (nearly) your skull. That can happen even if the helmet splits, see here for some more details and better explanations than i'll manage

http://www.helmets.org/liners.htm

chokofingrz wrote:

Well even if the impact energy is not absorbed, surely the styrofoam distributes the force over a greater area of skull compared to bashing your head directly on concrete.

Yes its can spread the force, dependent on design, and the argument about not absorbing the impact is not strictly correct - there is energy absorbed my the compression prior to the split, and the split itself takes energy out of the system. The degree to which energy is taken from the impact will be effected by a number of factors, including the split, but to say it's the same as not having the foam in the way is nonsense (even ignoring lacerations). The helmet may have contributed to potential rotational injuries however, another something which is not part of the statistics i've seen so far.

fukawitribe wrote:

chokofingrz wrote:

Well even if the impact energy is not absorbed, surely the styrofoam distributes the force over a greater area of skull compared to bashing your head directly on concrete.

Yes its can spread the force, dependent on design, and the argument about not absorbing the impact is not strictly correct - there is energy absorbed my the compression prior to the split, and the split itself takes energy out of the system. The degree to which energy is taken from the impact will be effected by a number of factors, including the split, but to say it's the same as not having the foam in the way is nonsense (even ignoring lacerations). The helmet may have contributed to potential rotational injuries however, another something which is not part of the statistics i've seen so far.

Myth 33: The weight of bicycle helmet can increase the severity of rotational injuries in a crash.

Fact 33: A bicycle helmet weighs very little. It's not like wearing a heavy motorcycle helmet. There has never been any evidence of increased rotational injuries caused by a bicycle helmet.

From the website link I posted ealier

Wesselwookie wrote:

fukawitribe wrote:

chokofingrz wrote:

Well even if the impact energy is not absorbed, surely the styrofoam distributes the force over a greater area of skull compared to bashing your head directly on concrete.

Yes its can spread the force, dependent on design, and the argument about not absorbing the impact is not strictly correct - there is energy absorbed my the compression prior to the split, and the split itself takes energy out of the system. The degree to which energy is taken from the impact will be effected by a number of factors, including the split, but to say it's the same as not having the foam in the way is nonsense (even ignoring lacerations). The helmet may have contributed to potential rotational injuries however, another something which is not part of the statistics i've seen so far.

Myth 33: The weight of bicycle helmet can increase the severity of rotational injuries in a crash.

Fact 33: A bicycle helmet weighs very little. It's not like wearing a heavy motorcycle helmet. There has never been any evidence of increased rotational injuries caused by a bicycle helmet.

From the website link I posted ealier

It's not the weight i'm thinking of, see my post just above this.

Wesselwookie wrote:

Myth 33: The weight of bicycle helmet can increase the severity of rotational injuries in a crash.

Fact 33: A bicycle helmet weighs very little. It's not like wearing a heavy motorcycle helmet. There has never been any evidence of increased rotational injuries caused by a bicycle helmet.

The argument is not so much that the weight can increase the severity of rotational injuries, it's that:
1. The helmet increases the size of your head. So there is a bigger chance of hitting the road with your (helmeted) head in such a way that your head rotates quickly.
2. Cycling helmets tend to grip the road, increasing rotational forces (see this study: http://www.bhsi.org/chinstrp.pdf ). Your skull is covered by fairly flexible skin (you can move it over your skull with your hand). This means that you are more likely to slide your unhelmeted head, rather than have it grab the road, while the rest of your body turns around it. There is a motorcycle helmet manufacturer trying to combat this by making helmets with a skin-like layer on it: http://www.phillipshelmets.com/

Quote:

From the website link I posted earlier

Because your website chooses to argue a straw man, rather than argue in good faith, it's not a good source of information.

Aapje wrote:

Wesselwookie wrote:

Myth 33: The weight of bicycle helmet can increase the severity of rotational injuries in a crash.

Fact 33: A bicycle helmet weighs very little. It's not like wearing a heavy motorcycle helmet. There has never been any evidence of increased rotational injuries caused by a bicycle helmet.

The argument is not so much that the weight can increase the severity of rotational injuries, it's that:
1. The helmet increases the size of your head. So there is a bigger chance of hitting the road with your (helmeted) head in such a way that your head rotates quickly.
2. Cycling helmets tend to grip the road, increasing rotational forces (see this study: http://www.bhsi.org/chinstrp.pdf ). Your skull is covered by fairly flexible skin (you can move it over your skull with your hand). This means that you are more likely to slide your unhelmeted head, rather than have it grab the road, while the rest of your body turns around it. There is a motorcycle helmet manufacturer trying to combat this by making helmets with a skin-like layer on it: http://www.phillipshelmets.com/

Quote:

From the website link I posted earlier

Because your website chooses to argue a straw man, rather than argue in good faith, it's not a good source of information.

Then I would suggest you contact the website and ague with him. Most of the arguments against the use of cycle helmets also fall into the straw man category. And if rotational forces are a factor then this would show itself in the pro peloton. I am not aware of a single incidence of this within cycle racing however I am willing to be proved wrong.

Wesselwookie wrote:

Then I would suggest you contact the website and argue with him.

You need to man up and own the stuff you post. Posting stuff and then saying that you don't stand behind it is trolling-like behavior.

Quote:

Most of the arguments against the use of cycle helmets also fall into the straw man category.

I'm not against the use of helmets, but rather against the silly arguments used by helmet-advocates. In my opinion/experience, the people who really believe in helmets (despite the lack of convincing evidence) tend to be the most illogical. Saying that people are against the use of helmets when they also want to look at the downsides of helmets is a good example.

Quote:

And if rotational forces are a factor then this would show itself in the pro peloton. I am not aware of a single incidence of this within cycle racing however I am willing to be proved wrong.

The reporting of cycling accidents doesn't go into that level of detail. Or can you tell me which injuries of Weylandt were translational and which were rotational? Regardless, the number of fatal racing accidents is pretty low, not high enough for statistics. Especially since we are really talking about edge cases, where a helmet has a chance to save a life.

fukawitribe wrote:

chokofingrz wrote:

Well even if the impact energy is not absorbed, surely the styrofoam distributes the force over a greater area of skull compared to bashing your head directly on concrete.

Yes its can spread the force, dependent on design, and the argument about not absorbing the impact is not strictly correct - there is energy absorbed my the compression prior to the split, and the split itself takes energy out of the system. The degree to which energy is taken from the impact will be effected by a number of factors, including the split, but to say it's the same as not having the foam in the way is nonsense (even ignoring lacerations). The helmet may have contributed to potential rotational injuries however, another something which is not part of the statistics i've seen so far.

I hear rotational injuries cited frequently, but have never read about an instance of one. Surely if they are so prevalent, professional cyclists would be getting them all the time? Mark Cavendish seems to hit the deck regularly, but never seems to be suffering a 'rotational injury' afterwards.

JeevesBath wrote:

I hear rotational injuries cited frequently, but have never read about an instance of one. Surely if they are so prevalent, professional cyclists would be getting them all the time? Mark Cavendish seems to hit the deck regularly, but never seems to be suffering a 'rotational injury' afterwards.

'Stiff neck' might get some more hits. It's one of those things i've heard discussed and which, on the surface, make sense - e.g. the helmet is wider than your head, so if something slows it down relative to the direction of travel of your head then it would exert more force than the same slowing down at the surface of your skull; helmets have loops and holes which can catch things and cause twisting and so on.

What i've not seen yet, but i'm still looking for, is any good data about whether this actually happen.. so i'm not fully swayed one way or another even though it might make 'sense' on the surface. If anyone *does* have any links, i'd be very interested in seeing them tah.

MartinH wrote:

OK, how about we have a little straw poll? I reckon you can divide opinions down into four positions here. Just post which one you fall into:

1 - Pro compulsion: helmet use should be a legal requirement, you shouldn't be allowed on a bike without one.

2 - Pro choice, pro helmet: helmet use should remain a personal choice as it is now, and I usually or always choose to wear a helmet.

3 - Pro choice, anti helmet: helmet use should remain a personal choice as it is now, and I usually or always choose not to wear a helmet.

4 - Pro helmet ban: helmet use should banned. No one should be allowed to wear a helmet when riding a bike.

My guess is that category 2 will be bigger than category 3, but I'm not sure by how much. I'm also willing to bet that practically nobody will fall into category 4. But what I'm intrigued about is how many people, here on a cycling website, would class themselves as category 1.

I'm 2 - Pro choice, pro helmet.

2.5 - pro choice, wear a helmet if I'm on a club run or technical offroad

MartinH wrote:

OK, how about we have a little straw poll? I reckon you can divide opinions down into four positions here. Just post which one you fall into:

1 - Pro compulsion: helmet use should be a legal requirement, you shouldn't be allowed on a bike without one.

2 - Pro choice, pro helmet: helmet use should remain a personal choice as it is now, and I usually or always choose to wear a helmet.

3 - Pro choice, anti helmet: helmet use should remain a personal choice as it is now, and I usually or always choose not to wear a helmet.

4 - Pro helmet ban: helmet use should banned. No one should be allowed to wear a helmet when riding a bike.

My guess is that category 2 will be bigger than category 3, but I'm not sure by how much. I'm also willing to bet that practically nobody will fall into category 4. But what I'm intrigued about is how many people, here on a cycling website, would class themselves as category 1.

I'm 2 - Pro choice, pro helmet.

2.5 pro choice, anti helmet but mostly wear one anyway out of superstition and a desire to minimise nagging/victim-blaming. This might constitute hypocrisy, not sure.

MartinH wrote:

OK, how about we have a little straw poll?

2. Pro-choice, usually helmet.

MartinH wrote:

OK, how about we have a little straw poll? I reckon you can divide opinions down into four positions here. Just post which one you fall into:

1 - Pro compulsion: helmet use should be a legal requirement, you shouldn't be allowed on a bike without one.

2 - Pro choice, pro helmet: helmet use should remain a personal choice as it is now, and I usually or always choose to wear a helmet.

3 - Pro choice, anti helmet: helmet use should remain a personal choice as it is now, and I usually or always choose not to wear a helmet.

4 - Pro helmet ban: helmet use should banned. No one should be allowed to wear a helmet when riding a bike.

My guess is that category 2 will be bigger than category 3, but I'm not sure by how much. I'm also willing to bet that practically nobody will fall into category 4. But what I'm intrigued about is how many people, here on a cycling website, would class themselves as category 1.

I'm 2 - Pro choice, pro helmet.

2 and a half - I wear a helmet when I'm racing or training, but very rarely for commuting

MartinH wrote:

OK, how about we have a little straw poll? I reckon you can divide opinions down into four positions here. Just post which one you fall into:

1 - Pro compulsion: helmet use should be a legal requirement, you shouldn't be allowed on a bike without one.

2 - Pro choice, pro helmet: helmet use should remain a personal choice as it is now, and I usually or always choose to wear a helmet.

3 - Pro choice, anti helmet: helmet use should remain a personal choice as it is now, and I usually or always choose not to wear a helmet.

4 - Pro helmet ban: helmet use should banned. No one should be allowed to wear a helmet when riding a bike.

My guess is that category 2 will be bigger than category 3, but I'm not sure by how much. I'm also willing to bet that practically nobody will fall into category 4. But what I'm intrigued about is how many people, here on a cycling website, would class themselves as category 1.

I'm 2 - Pro choice, pro helmet.

Well, thanks for taking part I know it's hardly a scientific sample, but it's interesting that everyone who answered said they were a 2-2.5 (if we're going to decimal places, then I guess I'm about a 2.3). Which makes me feel a little better - maybe the cycling community isn't as bitterly divided over this it sometimes appears. But doesn't it make you wonder how we manage to disagree so violently over something that, on the face of it, we largely agree on...

MartinH wrote:

MartinH wrote:

OK, how about we have a little straw poll? I reckon you can divide opinions down into four positions here. Just post which one you fall into:

1 - Pro compulsion: helmet use should be a legal requirement, you shouldn't be allowed on a bike without one.

2 - Pro choice, pro helmet: helmet use should remain a personal choice as it is now, and I usually or always choose to wear a helmet.

3 - Pro choice, anti helmet: helmet use should remain a personal choice as it is now, and I usually or always choose not to wear a helmet.

4 - Pro helmet ban: helmet use should banned. No one should be allowed to wear a helmet when riding a bike.

My guess is that category 2 will be bigger than category 3, but I'm not sure by how much. I'm also willing to bet that practically nobody will fall into category 4. But what I'm intrigued about is how many people, here on a cycling website, would class themselves as category 1.

I'm 2 - Pro choice, pro helmet.

Well, thanks for taking part I know it's hardly a scientific sample, but it's interesting that everyone who answered said they were a 2-2.5 (if we're going to decimal places, then I guess I'm about a 2.3). Which makes me feel a little better - maybe the cycling community isn't as bitterly divided over this it sometimes appears. But doesn't it make you wonder how we manage to disagree so violently over something that, on the face of it, we largely agree on...

A lot of people said they were helmets for racing, myself included. That's where the danger lies because racing inherently takes the bicycle to the limits of adhesion and sometimes beyond, resulting in an off. Riding on the road is a lot less dangerous and all the crash data available points to this. Bear in mind also that the full face MX lid I wear for racing (it's a road legal motorcycle helmet) is rather more protective than any standard bicycle helmet. I've also got a skate lid I wear when I'm riding my BMX at the skatepark and again, it's a lot more protective than any shell helmet.

I strongly oppose compulsion for helmet use for normal road cycling because all the statistics say this won't help tackle safety for cyclists and that the real improvement will come from addressing motor vehicle driver behaviour.

Ordinary Cycling Girl wrote:

I feel quite strongly about this subject after witnessing a friend of mine have a fall from her road bike on a corner, which didn't involve a car. She knocked herself unconscious and cracked her helmet in the process - the crack in her helmet would have been a crack in her skull had she not been wearing it. I just don't get why people are so arrogant to think it won't happen to them. It's just not worth it. You are not invincible. (I wrote a post on this over on my blog and was surprised to hear via twitter how many people are so against helmets...mainly mountain bikers, I might add). I value my brain and think it's worth protecting.

Well said. Completely agree - the same happened to me, my life was saved by the presence of a helmet and since I've been a firm advocate!!

I'd say for adults to choose not to, fine, risky prerogative, but I'm of the opinion that regardless of those choices, young people should all be taught to wear them. I'm not sure I like the fact that role models come out with statements against their use.

mooleur wrote:

Ordinary Cycling Girl wrote:

I feel quite strongly about this subject after witnessing a friend of mine have a fall from her road bike on a corner, which didn't involve a car. She knocked herself unconscious and cracked her helmet in the process - the crack in her helmet would have been a crack in her skull had she not been wearing it. I just don't get why people are so arrogant to think it won't happen to them. It's just not worth it. You are not invincible. (I wrote a post on this over on my blog and was surprised to hear via twitter how many people are so against helmets...mainly mountain bikers, I might add). I value my brain and think it's worth protecting.

Well said. Completely agree - the same happened to me, my life was saved by the presence of a helmet and since I've been a firm advocate!!

I'd say for adults to choose not to, fine, risky prerogative, but I'm of the opinion that regardless of those choices, young people should all be taught to wear them. I'm not sure I like the fact that role models come out with statements against their use.

But would you agree that young people should also be taught not to use cars unless absolutely unavoidable?

The choice to drive a car creates far, far more danger of adverse health consequences than the choice to cycle without a helmet (for the former, 5,000 premature deaths a year due to pollution alone).

I have a feeling you might "shoot my fox" by the clever trick of just agreeing - but why the greater emphasis on the helmets rather than the cars?

I don't understand, in general, why some adverse health effects are mostly ignored while people bang on about others.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

mooleur wrote:

Ordinary Cycling Girl wrote:

I feel quite strongly about this subject after witnessing a friend of mine have a fall from her road bike on a corner, which didn't involve a car. She knocked herself unconscious and cracked her helmet in the process - the crack in her helmet would have been a crack in her skull had she not been wearing it. I just don't get why people are so arrogant to think it won't happen to them. It's just not worth it. You are not invincible. (I wrote a post on this over on my blog and was surprised to hear via twitter how many people are so against helmets...mainly mountain bikers, I might add). I value my brain and think it's worth protecting.

Well said. Completely agree - the same happened to me, my life was saved by the presence of a helmet and since I've been a firm advocate!!

I'd say for adults to choose not to, fine, risky prerogative, but I'm of the opinion that regardless of those choices, young people should all be taught to wear them. I'm not sure I like the fact that role models come out with statements against their use.

But would you agree that young people should also be taught not to use cars unless absolutely unavoidable?

The choice to drive a car creates far, far more danger of adverse health consequences than the choice to cycle without a helmet (for the former, 5,000 premature deaths a year due to pollution alone).

I have a feeling you might "shoot my fox" by the clever trick of just agreeing - but why the greater emphasis on the helmets rather than the cars?

I don't understand, in general, why some adverse health effects are mostly ignored while people bang on about others.

I'm sure you understand really. We have constructed a society in which people believe that they MUST drive a car, and so are compelled to downplay the risks associated with this potentially lethal act in order to the pain that would result from recognising the truth.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

But would you agree that young people should also be taught not to use cars unless absolutely unavoidable?

The choice to drive a car creates far, far more danger of adverse health consequences than the choice to cycle without a helmet (for the former, 5,000 premature deaths a year due to pollution alone).

I have a feeling you might "shoot my fox" by the clever trick of just agreeing - but why the greater emphasis on the helmets rather than the cars?

I don't understand, in general, why some adverse health effects are mostly ignored while people bang on about others.

I absolutely think young people should be taught the dangers of cars, and motorbikes, just as they should be about the use of any other vehicle. But my point is 8 year olds aren't given licenses to motor vehicles, they're given their cycling proficiency - at this age why shouldn't we begin teaching young people about the dangers (overall) of the road? Encouraging helmet use at this point in their lives gives them a firm glimpse into road safety of all aspects.

This is a conversation about helmets so that's where my emphasis stems from here - my opinions on cars and young people (if you know anyone from the Isle of Man, they'll probably have similar opinions to me...) are for a whole other conversation/day/year ;P

For the record I don't drive. I've been hit by too many cars to be arsed about using one for getting around. I do, however, enjoy motorsports - so I'm not going to bang on about anything hypocritical on being anti emissions etc etc etc. People breathe in fumes, people get hit by cars, people ride their bikes into walls....some people drive their cars into walls, the list goes on - educating new cyclists/drivers/racers on the dangers and risks available to them is key, the choices they then make as adults is absolutely their own decision - if they choose to wear a helmet, great, if they choose to drive safely, even better.

I'm not a vehement "EVERYONE WHO ISN'T WEARING A HELMET IS SATAN" type, I'm also not fussed about other people's choices, I do firmly believe setting a safe example to young cyclists is a good idea, though.

mooleur wrote:

Well said. Completely agree - the same happened to me, my life was saved by the presence of a helmet and since I've been a firm advocate!!

Prove the helmet saved your life? It MAY have done, it may have reduced the injury, it may have saved you getting a graze.

You can't know that in your crash your helmet was effective.

there is also the pro helmet question of which standard, why are helmets being sold today LESS effective than those being sold 20years ago. When I started mtbing, everything was buy Snell, it was the best standard, today, apart from Specialized?, you won't find a snell helmet and the current EN-BS standard is far less demanding.

mrmo wrote:

mooleur wrote:

Well said. Completely agree - the same happened to me, my life was saved by the presence of a helmet and since I've been a firm advocate!!

Prove the helmet saved your life? It MAY have done, it may have reduced the injury, it may have saved you getting a graze.

You can't know that in your crash your helmet was effective.

there is also the pro helmet question of which standard, why are helmets being sold today LESS effective than those being sold 20years ago. When I started mtbing, everything was buy Snell, it was the best standard, today, apart from Specialized?, you won't find a snell helmet and the current EN-BS standard is far less demanding.

The paramedics stated the impact on the helmet saved me from life threatening injuries which would have a strong likelihood of either ending or dramatically changing my life. TBF I took that as gospel, I ain't no Dr but that squishy bit at the back of my head that the helmet just about protected is pretty much the most vulnerable bit, I'm damn glad I was wearing one and this isn't a "pro helmet argument" here this is simply me stating the fact that I would never have liked to have known the outcome, be it negative or not, of that crash had I not been wearing one.