Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Bicycle helmets do almost nothing to prevent concussions

gearfinder.bicycling.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 100 posts

Re: Bicycle helmets do almost nothing to prevent concussions

#71

Post by frabbit »

freshflowers wrote: post #35

Helmets are a red herring in the whole cycling discussion. Unless you're racing or mountain biking, you shouldn't need a helmet for regular cycling anymore than you should need a helmet for crossing the street on foot. There's nothing inherently particularly unsafe about cycling (at least no more unsafe than many everyday activities), even while sharing the road with cars. The only thing that makes cycling unsafe in…

Agreed. When cyclists come into contact with vehicles there are a bunch of other major traumas besides the head. Rapidly rotated bodies can have their aortas ripped apart. Spleens are burts. Spines are snapped.

And yet, the actual level of cycling deaths is comparable to pedestrians. It's quite low.

The way to solve these problems is to reduce the abuse of motorised transport.

Re: Bicycle helmets do almost nothing to prevent concussions

#72

Post by Tomte »

pessimizer wrote: post #64
Tomte wrote: post #28

Even if those societal effects were true (there are studies for both sides, and especially the helmet opponents are usually very outspoken and even rude, to the point that they lose credibility), the important thing for me as an individual is not whether helmets lead other people ("the society") to cycle less, but what the effect is on me. Personally I feel some chilling effect (sometimes I cycle without helmet, so s…

>especially the helmet opponents are usually very outspoken and even rude, to the point that they lose credibility They have to be, because they don't have budgets and per diems. The pro-helmet side makes a fortune from selling helmets. The anti-helmet side runs on passion - whether that passion is for the truth as they see it (or as experiment and study have shown), or simply 'government out of my cornflakes' libert…

The "pro helmet side" in Internet forums does not have "budgets".

Re: Bicycle helmets do almost nothing to prevent concussions

#74

Post by Shorel »

robg wrote: post #51

Consider that your brain is an egg yolk floating in a shell. A concussion is the rapid loss of velocity slamming the yolk into the inside of the shell, scrambling it up if you will. A helmet can't do much there except minimize the velocity a tad bit. The benefit of the helmet is prevent a crack in the shell, your skull, so your brains don't spill out onto the pavement in a crash. It's not perfect, but given your are…

Last night I fell. I use a motorcycle helmet. I think I was sliding on the ground for about 4 or 5 meters.

The helmet did not touch the ground, but if it had, it would have prevent countless scrapes in my face or scalp. Not deadly fractures, but something painful and probably disfiguring.

My point is: a proper helmet (think BMX) prevents a lot more than fractures.

The gloves surely had a lot of work to do as well, and saved my left hand from any scratches.

Re: Bicycle helmets do almost nothing to prevent concussions

#75

Post by [deleted] »

sklogic wrote: post #45
jmartinpetersen wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure I understand. Exactly what part of the world does your helmet block you from seeing? I can't see mine at all when it's on properly. Considering that a lot of people use in-ear headphones or casually check their texts while biking in Copenhagen, the added distractions of a helmet still seems like a net win.

Helmet reduces the side vision to something that feels like 20% less then normal. And yes, I cannot also tolerate any hats, hoods and such. As for the potential Darwin prize winners with earplugs - this is something that should be a matter of legislation first, not the stupid useless helmets.

[deleted]

Re: Bicycle helmets do almost nothing to prevent concussions

#77

Post by Coding_Cat »

awjr wrote: post #31

As a space for cycling campaigner ( http://www.cyclebath.org.uk ) helmet articles are an interesting problem that tend to identify cycling as a dangerous activity without extolling the health benefits of cycling itself. In places like New York, where their Citi Bike scheme has had huge success without helmets (23 million miles of riding, no deaths), utility cycling (commuting) has been made safe through a huge invest…

And aside from the health benefits, it's also better for both the environment and your wallet (and it's fun).

Re: Bicycle helmets do almost nothing to prevent concussions

#78

Post by sklogic »

learnstats2 wrote: post #47
jmartinpetersen wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure I understand. Exactly what part of the world does your helmet block you from seeing? I can't see mine at all when it's on properly. Considering that a lot of people use in-ear headphones or casually check their texts while biking in Copenhagen, the added distractions of a helmet still seems like a net win.

I perceive that I am much less likely to turn my head (to check the traffic behind me) when I'm wearing a helmet. It's perceptibly less comfortable to do that. I will turn my head if I absolutely need to, but I don't make it a habit. Without a helmet, on the other hand, turning my head to check the road behind me is absolutely habitual. On this basis and on other points, I believe the helmet causes me far more danger…

Yes, you're probably right - it's less comfortable to turn head often in a helmet. And I also suspect that this effect may be due to a helmet suppressing or distorting sound transmitted via skull bones, making it harder to locate precisely the sources of sound from behind. Hence this "blindfolded" feeling, although I admit that the helmet itself is barely visible.

Re: Bicycle helmets do almost nothing to prevent concussions

#79

Post by jchrisa »

TheAnimus wrote: post #60
Tomte wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The point is, helmets and cycling create flame wars The point is, you are very much involved in creating flame wars by labelling the pro side as people who only have their superstitial, anecdotal fairy tales, while saying the contra side has all the cold, hard scientific facts. Let's just leave it at that.

There is also another benefit of a helmet, it changes how people treat you. They apparently respect cyclists more when they wear a helmet. I was in a collision a two months ago. The driver hit me on purpose, because I had call him a wanker, he became self defining in this, by swiping me with the rear of his car, thankfully the relative speed difference would have been at most 10mph, so I only had minor injury (three…

There are studies suggesting that drivers give wider berth to the un-helmeted: http://www.helmets.org/walkerstudy.htm

Re: Bicycle helmets do almost nothing to prevent concussions

#80

Post by skierscott »

abalone wrote: post #49

Sounds like many of the commenters here did not actually read the article. It's not about "should you wear a helmet or shouldn't you." It is very strongly pro-helmet. NOWHERE in the article does it suggest you should not wear a helmet. It's about how to make helmets work better, specifically against concussions. Summary: pay more to get a helmet equipped with something called MIPS. "The new rotation-­dampening system…

The takeaway message seems to be that there's another safe helmet technology that exists. Regular helmets help but MIPS[1] helmets maintain protection against brute-force impacts and improve protection against concussions and brain injuries.

This MIPS style helmet is a large step forward in helmets. The standard helmet test is a just a straight drop from 6 feet with the helmet perfectly vertical. This is not how crashes happen.

Crashes happen while moving. There's some rotational stuff going on there, and that's what MIPS tries to focus on. Their tests[2] focus on this. An aspect of brain injury is diffuse axonal injury or when your brain undergoes unreasonable acceleration. The MIPS helmet has two shells so the outer one moves while your brain doesn't.

> President Barack Obama said that if he had a son, he might not let him play football; even some former NFL athletes agree.

This was refreshing to hear. Malcolm Gladwell compares football to dogfighting because football players can experience remarkable head trauma[3]. For me, a severe traumatic brain injury survivor, it's hard to see someone willingly put themselves through a brain injury and even harder to see the public glorifying a sport I see as dogfighting.

[1]:http://www.mipshelmet.com/home/

[2]:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8W5X0s2AhU @ 0:29

[3]:http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/10/19/offensive-play

Post reply on HN