Giro helmets - huge appreciation

[tigger]

So in my example you don't think it may have saved my head from injury?

Out of interest, is there any evidence that motorbike, ski, paraglider helmets etc save lives or prevent injuries? Is it helmets per se or just cycling helmets that are unproven?

I have a had a couple of 'accidents' where - had I been wearing a helmet I might have said that the helmet saved my life - these were proper heavy duty collisions with vehicles, one where I went backwards head first through a windscreen and one where I face-planted at about thirty mph into a junction.

I am still alive - evidently - and I haven't lost my ability to walk, shag, eat and breathe.

You smashed your helmet. It may or may not have reduced your injuries.

Sellotape an egg onto your head and walk gently in to a wall. The egg has smashed has it not? In doing so did it protect you? We cannot know because there have been no comparative tests.

But you have concluded that your helmet saved your life. Unless you do the crash again without a helmet - and die - you cannot say that it saved your life any more than the aforementioned egg did.

There is no evidence that helmets either save lives or protect from injury. In spite of what seems like common sense.

There is no evidence.

 

[Ravenbait]

I can see that Dan, the trouble is it just gets pointless and people are so fixed in their views that they argue black is white. I can understand that there times when helmets won't help, I can understand there specific times when they may be a hinderance. In balance it is my view they are a benefit overall.

Lets focus on experiences. Case by case basis. Now look genuinely at my individual case. There is absolutely no question in my mind that in my specific accident the helmet did a great job. I've given very good evidence to demonstrate this and yet people still refuse to see it. I have no agenda other than sharing a nasty experience and asking people to stay safe. Now if I am wrong, then balance it with other real experience. Lets not hide behind limit science, blind faith and questionable numbers.

We all need to ask more questions

I suffered a severe rotational injury caused by my helmet catching on the road surface. I slipped a disc in my neck and required physio for 2 years. This was a low speed incident of the very sort for which helmets are supposed to provide best protection.

However, as I said, I do not use my one experience to browbeat others into taking their helmets off. It's an anecdote, not proper data.

If you feel the helmet did a great job, fine. In your specific case, great. Glad to hear it. This thread, however, has devolved -- as they always do -- into the pro-helmet people insisting that helmets are universally beneficial and telling those of us who feel differently that we should wear one, while those of us who don't want to wear one ask for decent evidence as to why we should. And you started it.

I don't give a monkey's todger what other people choose to wear on their heads, or not. I strongly object to the notion that anyone has the right to inform me what risks I should or shouldn't take.

Sam

 

[Dan B]

I can see that Dan, the trouble is it just gets pointless and people are so fixed in their views that they argue black is white. I can understand that there times when helmets won't help, I can understand there specific times when they may be a hinderance. In balance it is my view they are a benefit overall.

Lets focus on experiences. Case by case basis. Now look genuinely at my individual case. There is absolutely no question in my mind that in my specific accident the helmet did a great job. I've given very good evidence to demonstrate this and yet people still refuse to see it. I have no agenda other than sharing a nasty experience and asking people to stay safe. Now if I am wrong, then balance it with other real experience. Lets not hide behind limit science, blind faith and questionable numbers.

We all need to ask more questions

My experience: I've hit my head twice on the road as an adult with a helmet and twice without. The helmeted falls were in races. One of them was to the back of the head - there are pictures in this thread or a related one showing that the helmet material was crushed, so presumably it "did its job". One to the side of the head when I overcooked a wet bend and cracked the polystyrene, where the chances are it wouldn't even have contacted the ground if the helmet hadn't been making my head bigger, but I had to throw the helmet away and buy another anyway. The two bare-headed collisions, in broadly comparable scenarios : in one of them I suffered minor scalp wounds (lots of blood, as usual for scalps, but no brain trauma, and it healed of its own accord while I was waiting in A&E), dislocated a clavicle from my sternum - an injury I didn't even know was possible until I managed it - and suffered various road rash in other places: in the other a bit of a bump and a headache.


My take-home from this is that the only incontestable conclusion we can draw is that I'm not dead and haven't suffered brain damage. There's actually very little data here to say whether life-threatening head injuries are likely or not - I'd have to engage in far more accidents than this to get a reasonable number and really I'd rather not find out if I'm not going to be alive to benefit from the research, but it does show that helmet-destroying but non-life-threatening injuries are entirely possible. And if you want to wear a helmet to protect against skin loss then that's your choice, but my choice is not to - just as it is my choice not to wear kevlar shorts to protect agsinst skin loss from my thighs. And if you - or anybody - tell me my choice to do one of these things is wrong and horribly misguided, I have to ask why you're not recommending the other as well

... now awaiting the cheap "oh, so you've hit your head, no wonder you don't see the need for helmets" jibes from the peanut gallery

 

[tigger]

How do you know the helmet caused the rotational injury? I mean, if you think that then I'm glad to hear it, but how do you know?

I suffered a severe rotational injury caused by my helmet catching on the road surface. I slipped a disc in my neck and required physio for 2 years. This was a low speed incident of the very sort for which helmets are supposed to provide best protection.

However, as I said, I do not use my one experience to browbeat others into taking their helmets off. It's an anecdote, not proper data.

If you feel the helmet did a great job, fine. In your specific case, great. Glad to hear it. This thread, however, has devolved -- as they always do -- into the pro-helmet people insisting that helmets are universally beneficial and telling those of us who feel differently that we should wear one, while those of us who don't want to wear one ask for decent evidence as to why we should. And you started it.

I don't give a monkey's todger what other people choose to wear on their heads, or not. I strongly object to the notion that anyone has the right to inform me what risks I should or shouldn't take.

Sam

 

[Angelfishsolo]

My experience: I've hit my head twice on the road as an adult with a helmet and twice without. The helmeted falls were in races. One of them was to the back of the head - there are pictures in this thread or a related one showing that the helmet material was crushed, so presumably it "did its job". One to the side of the head when I overcooked a wet bend and cracked the polystyrene, where the chances are it wouldn't even have contacted the ground if the helmet hadn't been making my head bigger, but I had to throw the helmet away and buy another anyway. The two bare-headed collisions, in broadly comparable scenarios : in one of them I suffered minor scalp wounds (lots of blood, as usual for scalps, but no brain trauma, and it healed of its own accord while I was waiting in A&E), dislocated a clavicle from my sternum - an injury I didn't even know was possible until I managed it - and suffered various road rash in other places: in the other a bit of a bump and a headache.


My take-home from this is that the only incontestable conclusion we can draw is that I'm not dead and haven't suffered brain damage. There's actually very little data here to say whether life-threatening head injuries are likely or not - I'd have to engage in far more accidents than this to get a reasonable number and really I'd rather not find out if I'm not going to be alive to benefit from the research, but it does show that helmet-destroying but non-life-threatening injuries are entirely possible. And if you want to wear a helmet to protect against skin loss then that's your choice, but my choice is not to - just as it is my choice not to wear kevlar shorts to protect agsinst skin loss from my thighs. And if you - or anybody - tell me my choice to do one of these things is wrong and horribly misguided, I have to ask why you're not recommending the other as well

... now awaiting the cheap "oh, so you've hit your head, no wonder you don't see the need for helmets" jibes from the peanut gallery

That is a well reasoned response. I chose to wear a helmet as from a MTB point of view even if I am only protected from sharp stones it is a bonus. Also it feels odd not to wear one (as it does if I do not wear gloves). I am not pro compulsion but would recommend anyone who rides with me to wear one. When it comes to younger children I am pro compulsion as it is widely accepted they are not able to make informed decisions for themselves. If there comes a time where the evidence that helmets are dangerous is irrefutable I would change my opinion.

 

[tigger]

OK. I kind of get your experiences have shown you that with or without helmets you haven't lost your life. But if I understand correctly, both times with a helmet = no head injury, both times without a helmet = some head injury. See to me, I think it shows the helmet had some safety benefit so I'd want to carry on using them. I suppose we're all different

My experience: I've hit my head twice on the road as an adult with a helmet and twice without. The helmeted falls were in races. One of them was to the back of the head - there are pictures in this thread or a related one showing that the helmet material was crushed, so presumably it "did its job". One to the side of the head when I overcooked a wet bend and cracked the polystyrene, where the chances are it wouldn't even have contacted the ground if the helmet hadn't been making my head bigger, but I had to throw the helmet away and buy another anyway. The two bare-headed collisions, in broadly comparable scenarios : in one of them I suffered minor scalp wounds (lots of blood, as usual for scalps, but no brain trauma, and it healed of its own accord while I was waiting in A&E), dislocated a clavicle from my sternum - an injury I didn't even know was possible until I managed it - and suffered various road rash in other places: in the other a bit of a bump and a headache.


My take-home from this is that the only incontestable conclusion we can draw is that I'm not dead and haven't suffered brain damage. There's actually very little data here to say whether life-threatening head injuries are likely or not - I'd have to engage in far more accidents than this to get a reasonable number and really I'd rather not find out if I'm not going to be alive to benefit from the research, but it does show that helmet-destroying but non-life-threatening injuries are entirely possible. And if you want to wear a helmet to protect against skin loss then that's your choice, but my choice is not to - just as it is my choice not to wear kevlar shorts to protect agsinst skin loss from my thighs. And if you - or anybody - tell me my choice to do one of these things is wrong and horribly misguided, I have to ask why you're not recommending the other as well

... now awaiting the cheap "oh, so you've hit your head, no wonder you don't see the need for helmets" jibes from the peanut gallery

 

[mickle]

So in my example you don't think it may have saved my head from injury?

Out of interest, is there any evidence that motorbike, ski, paraglider helmets etc save lives or prevent injuries? Is it helmets per se or just cycling helmets that are unproven?

Following the introduction of compulsory motorcycle helmets in the UK the rate of death remained the same - they sped up. Their skulls were nice and safe but they started breaking their necks.

Hardshell helmets of the kind originall developed for plumbobs (which became the bowler hat) evolved into the hard hat seen on every building site serve a useful purpose because they spread the impact of a collision with a beam or a falling hammer and disperse it over a greater area. Again, the impact load is often safely tranferred away from the skull and breaks the wearers neck.

Hardshell skate and BMX helmets combine the load spreading and abrasion protection of a building site hard hat with the sacrificial collapsible foam shock-absorber qualities of a regular cycling helmet. But then those boys do tend to fall off all the time. And I assume few of them replace their lid after each decking.

I've always wondered how useful paraglider's helmets are in a fall....

 

[david k]

"load is often safely tranferred away from the skull and breaks the wearers neck."


Often?

 

[Red Light]

Trouble is mate you don't have piles of statistical data to back up your argument simply experience. I know one thing I would rather be taught to flight by a trained instructor with years of experience than a statistician who has studied probable outcome of fights.

The bookies nearly always win over the trainers.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

The bookies nearly always win over the trainers.

Would you rather be taught to fly by someone who has analysed pilot behaviour or by a flight instructor?

 

[Ravenbait]

How do you know the helmet caused the rotational injury? I mean, if you think that then I'm glad to hear it, but how do you know?

That was the opinion of the medical professionals who treated me. I happen to agree, having been there at the time.

Sam

 

[mickle]

"load is often safely tranferred away from the skull and breaks the wearers neck."

Often?

How often do things fall off buildings? Not very. My point is that the ability of the helmet to save a persons skull is often in excess of the strength of a persons neck. Drop a bucket of bricks from a few feet and see how a helmet fares.

 

[Ravenbait]

Would you rather be taught to fly by someone who has analysed pilot behaviour or by a flight instructor?

I'd prefer to be taught by someone who has practical experience as well as theoretical knowledge.

Sam

 

[Angelfishsolo]

How often do things fall off buildings? Not very. My point is that the ability of the helmet to save a persons skull is often exceeded by the strength of a persons neck. Drop a bucket of bricks from a few feet and see how a helmet fares.

So is there any point in any kind of helmet at all?

 

[Angelfishsolo]

I'd prefer to be taught by someone who has practical experience as well as theoretical knowledge.

Sam

Ditto, How many statisticians have both I wonder?