How can wearing a helmet offer no protection from injury?

[lukesdad]

So lets consider mtb for a moment. Speeds are generally low. Chances of collisions with cars even lower. Most crashes are telegraphed to the rider long before it occurs.
Most of the hazards as far as the head is concerned are branches and sharp objects.

Helmet of benefit or not ?

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

So lets consider mtb for a moment. Speeds are generally low. Chances of collisions with cars even lower. Most crashes are telegraphed to the rider long before it occurs.
Most of the hazards as far as the head is concerned are branches and sharp objects.

Helmet of benefit or not ?

When I had a MTB I wore one then , long after I had given up on the road.

 

[lukesdad]

When I had a MTB I wore one then , long after I had given up on the road.

Not sitting on the fence are we LYB ?

 

[Little yellow Brompton]

Not sitting on the fence are we LYB ?

Not at all, I don't understand the question.

I don't wear a helemt on the road

I don't use a MTB anymore*

When I used a MTB Im used a helmet

I used a helmet on the MTB to stop the occasion bumps and bangs and because I often fell off at low/no speed ( See *) and to store my sunglasses/gloves etc..

 

[lukesdad]

Not at all, I don't understand the question.

I don't wear a helemt on the road

I don't use a MTB anymore*

When I used a MTB Im used a helmet

I used a helmet on the MTB to stop the occasion bumps and bangs and because I often fell off at low/no speed ( See *) and to store my sunglasses/gloves etc..

It was a simple question helmet of benefit or not ? What part do you not understand ?

 

[4F]

.

Helmet of benefit or not ?

Under certain circumstances it may be of benefit, will that do ?

 

[Mad at urage]

Yes but we have allready discovered you are more likely to get a minor injury whilst cycling than a severe one. Nothing is going to offer protection in a severe impact.

Once again you ve missed the point completely. I await your next repost with anticipation.

Once again you have missed the point completely. When you knock your head in a helmet you simply prevent minor cuts and bruising whilst still potentially having long-lasting brain trauma, but you lose the clues that this could be the case.
As you agree, helmets don't protect from serious injury, they do however have a potential to disguise the fact that serious injury may have occurred: This is a Bad Thing to do.

Sure, if you are always falling over and grazing your head to such an extent that preventing those grazes is worth the life-altering possibility of an undiagnosed serious brain injury, the potential protection given by helmets is worthwhile.

For most people, who have a small chance of any head injury whilst cycling, the trade-off (to potentially miss diagnosing a serious injury in order to prevent minor bruising and grazing) is not rational.

 

[Wobblers]

Working on the premise that most helmets comply to the EU standard and as such will much of an muchness in terms of protection it is obvious that the helmet seller will use unique or interesting features of the helmet to sell it.

The CE certification is very much a minimum. So minimum in fact, that it can't guarantee protection even in a stationary fall (impact protection: 50 Joules, gravitational potential energy of your head whilst in the saddle: 75-100 Joules). You'd think that helmet manufacturers would be all over themselves to tell you just how much their products exceed the minimum. The fact that they don't is itself rather revealing as to how effective they believe their own products are... (For starters, they'd actually have have to prove effectiveness.)

 

[blubb]

Unfortunately that is not the case. Most studies of cycling infrastructure conclude that it is more dangerous than cycling on the roads, primarily because of the greater problems at junctions, both side roads and cross roads.

I didn't say that. I said the best protection would be a safe cycling infrastructure and most of the current cycling infrastructure i would not call safe.

This is what i would call safe and id definitly prefer it to the road:
View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVM99OOo86A

 

[Angelfishsolo]

Once again you have missed the point completely. When you knock your head in a helmet you simply prevent minor cuts and bruising whilst still potentially having long-lasting brain trauma, but you lose the clues that this could be the case.
As you agree, helmets don't protect from serious injury, they do however have a potential to disguise the fact that serious injury may have occurred: This is a Bad Thing to do.

Sure, if you are always falling over and grazing your head to such an extent that preventing those grazes is worth the life-altering possibility of an undiagnosed serious brain injury, the potential protection given by helmets is worthwhile.

For most people, who have a small chance of any head injury whilst cycling, the trade-off (to potentially miss diagnosing a serious injury in order to prevent minor bruising and grazing) is not rational.

You mean telltale signs like loss of balance, slured speech, altered pupils, complaints of a headache, nose bleeds. Yep a helmet will mask those.

 

[lukesdad]

Once again you have missed the point completely. When you knock your head in a helmet you simply prevent minor cuts and bruising whilst still potentially having long-lasting brain trauma, but you lose the clues that this could be the case.
As you agree, helmets don't protect from serious injury, they do however have a potential to disguise the fact that serious injury may have occurred: This is a Bad Thing to do.

Sure, if you are always falling over and grazing your head to such an extent that preventing those grazes is worth the life-altering possibility of an undiagnosed serious brain injury, the potential protection given by helmets is worthwhile.

For most people, who have a small chance of any head injury whilst cycling, the trade-off (to potentially miss diagnosing a serious injury in order to prevent minor bruising and grazing) is not rational.

They have the potential to disguise the fact ? So does long hair a wooly hat a buff
and any manner of other things you care to have on your bonce.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

The CE certification is very much a minimum. So minimum in fact, that it can't guarantee protection even in a stationary fall (impact protection: 50 Joules, gravitational potential energy of your head whilst in the saddle: 75-100 Joules). You'd think that helmet manufacturers would be all over themselves to tell you just how much their products exceed the minimum. The fact that they don't is itself rather revealing as to how effective they believe their own products are... (For starters, they'd actually have have to prove effectiveness.)

You miss the point. They are built to a standard. That standard may be crap but still they meet it. What is the point of using that fact in advertising if all competative products do the same. The trick is to find a USP.

 

[Wobblers]

I think you need to rethink your definition of a low impact collision. Have you never been mtbing in a forest or wood with low branches. When a rider falls natural instinct is to protect the head usually done with the hands or arms. Hence most common injuries being shoulder and collar bone. This action will of course reduce the impact to the head or remove it all together.

As you can see or maybe not. these to are low impact collisions.

I don't see the relevance of this. They're different injuries, caused by different mechanisms.

If you're suggesting that a low energy impact can cause major injuries, you need to appreciate the biophysics is rather different in these circumstances. For a head injury in a simple fall, it's the momentum of the head itself that is the major determinant of injury. Protecting yourself in a fall by sticking your arm out means that your body becomes involved - and its momentum is channelled through a few bones. The collar bone has evolved to break at relatively low energies to prevent damage to more important bits of you (no comment as to what you consider to be an "important bit"! ).

 

[lukesdad]

Under certain circumstances it may be of benefit, will that do ?

Its like trying to get blood out of a stone

 

[lukesdad]

I don't see the relevance of this. They're different injuries, caused by different mechanisms.

If you're suggesting that a low energy impact can cause major injuries, you need to appreciate the biophysics is rather different in these circumstances. For a head injury in a simple fall, it's the momentum of the head itself that is the major determinant of injury. Protecting yourself in a fall by sticking your arm out means that your body becomes involved - and its momentum is channelled through a few bones. The collar bone has evolved to break at relatively low energies to prevent damage to more important bits of you (no comment as to what you consider to be an "important bit"! ).

No thats not what I was suggesting. You would need to refer to the post I was commenting on.