If you fell off EUC and got injured in the last few years, how are you all doing now?

[Pard]

2 hours ago, caelus said:

The safety benefits of helmets are greatly overestimated. In fact, in cycling, skiing, and even motorbiking the provision of helmets has never shown any positive effect in empirical studies.

You may be right.  I wear a helmet not due to the preponderance of empirical evidence from studies, but because I know that if I hit my head on the ground, plastic and thick foam are a better buffer to my head than my hair.

I also know that the skin on my face with be abraded on the asphalt, but my full face helmet will take the hit if I am wearing it.

Gloves are pretty good ideas as well.  Not sure about the studies that justify their usage.

 

Edited September 1, 2017 by Pard

[caelus]

20 minutes ago, Stan Onymous said:

and helmets ...do this. 

No!
There is overwhelming statistical data for cyclist all over the world and all (I am not aware of a single one saying the opposite) result in helmets having no positive effect on head injuries! Surprising. But statistical fact.
The head injuries also have not been reduced in skiing, even though approx. 90% of people now wear helmets (suisse statistics).
As far a I know thats also comprising motorcyclists. The provision of helmets had no positive effect even there. 
Seatbelts is a different story.

[Pard]

2 hours ago, caelus said:

The safety benefits of helmets are greatly overestimated. In fact, in cycling, skiing, and even motorbiking the provision of helmets has never shown any positive effect in empirical studies.

There are some intense pictures found on this site that show serious injuries due to lack of protective gear.  There are no pictures of persons who sustained brain injury from lack of a helmet.  Further evidence that helmets do nothing to prevent injury. Perhaps I have it wrong.  Perhaps we should all stop wearing helmets due to the lack of hard evidence regarding their benefit.

Edited September 1, 2017 by Pard

[Rehab1]

1 hour ago, Stan Onymous said:

The safest thing is to lower your risks, and helmets and other gear do this. 

I totally agree! Follow me around for a day!

Football helmets, like other protective helmets (i.e., baseball, bicycle, hockey, etc)  were originally intended to decrease the incidence of serious intracranial injury and have been effective in this regard. The incidence of football related head injuries resulting in intracranial hemorrhage has decreased significantly.

There is quantifiable, evidence based data that supports the fact that helmets do decrease the peak acceleration of the head (measured intracranially) by about one third when heads are subjected to a significant blunt force.  Even accelerations in the relatively low range of 10 to 20 Gs were decreased more than 50% by using a helmet. 

Given the scientific data it is clearly evident that helmets do decrease the acceleration forces impacting the head and brain during a blunt force trauma.

Edited September 1, 2017 by Rehab1

[caelus]

6 minutes ago, Rehab1 said:

Given the scientific data it is clearly evident that helmets do decrease the acceleration forces impacting the head and brain during a blunt force trauma.

Sure. But they increase torsional forces. And other risk factors as well. Finally, as a matter of statictical evidence, they are not effective in cycling, skiing, and even not in motor cycling. 
 

Edited September 1, 2017 by caelus

[Rehab1]

12 minutes ago, caelus said:

Sure. But they increase torsional forces. And other risk factors as well. Finally, as a matter of statictical evidence, they are not effective in cycling, skiing, and even not in motor cycling. 
 

Like I said, follow me around for a day.

[Rocky Romero]

53 minutes ago, caelus said:

Sure. But they increase torsional forces. And other risk factors as well. Finally, as a matter of statictical evidence, they are not effective in cycling, skiing, and even not in motor cycling. 
 

This seems counterintuitive to me.

As role models, we should encourage protective equipment.

Little kids admire us as we ride by.

➰

[Stan Onymous]

2 hours ago, caelus said:

There is overwhelming statistical data for cyclist all over the world and all (I am not aware of a single one saying the opposite) result in helmets having no positive effect on head injuries!

This is a boldfaced lie. It is hyperbole and if you want to see some youtube crashes of the last 5 tour de france meets you will hear the announcers and the cyclists in interviews saying it was good they were wearing helmets. 

Like I said, facts are stubborn things and if you want to fight them you've got job security. See the study below from norwegan ski slopes...

http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/data/journals/jama/5013/joc60015.pdf

 

Edited September 2, 2017 by Stan Onymous

[litewave]

5 hours ago, caelus said:

The safety benefits of helmets are greatly overestimated. In fact, in cycling, skiing, and even motorbiking the provision of helmets has never shown any positive effect in empirical studies.

Do you have citations for those "empirical studies" that have "never shown any positive effect"? You are making some pretty broad claims, yet the preponderance of evidence is quite clearly the opposite of what you state. Here are some recent examples:

2013, NSW, Australia:
Accident Analysis Prevention
The effectiveness of helmets in bicycle collisions with motor vehicles: a case-control study.
The authors examioned data from 2001-2009, and reported:
"There were 6745 cyclist collisions with motor vehicles where helmet use was known. Helmet use was associated with reduced risk of head injury in bicycle collisions with motor vehicles of up to 74%, and the more severe the injury considered, the greater the reduction. This was also found to be true for particular head injuries such as skull fractures, intracranial injury and open head wounds."

2015, Minnesota, USA:
Injury Epidemiology
Pediatric bicycle-related head injuries: a population-based study in a county without a helmet law.

"Head injuries are the leading cause of death among cyclists, 85 % of which can be prevented by wearing a bicycle helmet."

"Patients with a head injury who were documented as not wearing a helmet were significantly more likely to undergo imaging of the head (32.1 percent vs. 11.5 %; p < 0.001) and to experience a brain injury (28.1 vs. 13.8 %; p = 0.008)."

2017, Taiwan:
BMC Public Health
The protective effect of helmet use in motorcycle and bicycle accidents: a propensity score–matched study based on a trauma registry system

"Results: The mortality rate for motorcyclists with helmet use (1.1%) was significantly lower than for motorcyclists without helmet use (4.2%; odds ratio [OR] 0.2; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.17–0.37; p < 0.001). Among bicyclists, there was no significant difference in mortality rates between the patients with helmet use (5.3%) and those without helmet use (3.7%; OR 1.4; 95% CI: 0.49–4.27; p = 0.524)."

Although the study found no link between bicycle helmet use and mortality in Taiwan, they admitted "the protective effect of bicycle helmets has been reported in the literature." They also recognised limitations and problems specifically with their own bicycle data and methodology, and how that data was reported.

2017, Seattle, USA; Victoria and NSW, Australia; The Netherlands:
Traffic Injury Prevention
Bicycle helmet effectiveness is not overstated.
This study specifically looked at case-control methodologies, and concluded:
"Despite potential weaknesses with case-control study designs, the best available evidence suggests that helmet use is an effective measure of reducing cycling head injury."

Edited September 2, 2017 by litewave

[caelus]

2 hours ago, litewave said:

Do you have citations for those "empirical studies" that have "never shown any positive effect"? You are making some pretty broad claims, yet the preponderance of evidence is quite clearly the opposite of what you state. Here are some recent examples:

There's tons of data for cycling and (head) injuries, before and after mandatory helmet legislation (time series research). I am not aware of any case, where the increased usage of helmets could show benefits regarding head injuries. Astonishingly, there's not a single such case worldwide! If you are interested in such studies, a good place to start is: http://www.cyclehelmets.org or the ECF helmet factsheet.

The above links you are mentioning are all case control studies, which are known to have severe statistical problems, see explained here. Some of which are outright pure nonsense ("...85 % of which can be prevented by wearing a bicycle helmet."), explained here.

Edited September 2, 2017 by caelus

[Scatcat]

9 hours ago, caelus said:

Sure. But they increase torsional forces. And other risk factors as well. Finally, as a matter of statictical evidence, they are not effective in cycling, skiing, and even not in motor cycling. 
 

You're using a very wide brush here...

In motorcycling the speeds where people fall are often great enough a helmet makes very little difference if the head takes the brunt of the force. Especially if not supported by a neck-brace that takes some of the weight in an asymmetric fall. In bicycling you may fall on the side of your head, where a lot of bicycle helmets have little to no protection. You may also fall so that the often elongated shape forces your head to twist harder.

I can understand the argument that legal requirements to use helmets on a bike are over the top. But I would never, ever drive a motorcycle with a bare head, and I would feel rather naked without my helmet on a EUC.

As someone said in another thread, it is not always what looks spectacular that is the greatest danger. I am just as afraid of being bumped sideways by a cyclist or car at a red light, falling to the side and hitting the curb. It would look like a stupid fall, but without a helmet my skull would mimic a bloody egg.

This is also what we risk with cut-out face-plants, when the fall geometry and speed are such that tuck and roll is not going to happen. One second you're in control, a fraction of a second later you're hitting the ground. If you're damn lucky you have just enough time to get your arms in front of you - and if you've been smart enough to have both elbow pads and good wrist protection, you may even avoid complicated hand, wrist, or elbow fractures. You may still break an arm, but hopefully in a way that a normal cast will take care of in a few weeks. Chances are pretty high though, that the forward force will also mean your face and forehead says hello to mother earth.

You go ahead and test the strength of your skull against that. Personally I prefer to have some strong plastic and foam between me and that experience.

Edited September 2, 2017 by Scatcat

[Scatcat]

I just wanted to add, as someone that has been ice-skating without a helmet a time or three. I have fallen in ways that luckily didn't cause a concussion, but where still hard enough to rattle my brain. Even a light tap on the head is a non-trivial experience. I have made harder falls on skates with a helmet, and that just say bang but doesn't hurt much at all.

Some things are just f-ing self-evident.

[Stan Onymous]

3 hours ago, caelus said:

The above links you are mentioning are all case control studies, which are known to have severe statistical problems, see explained here. Some of which are outright pure nonsense ("...85 % of which can be prevented by wearing a bicycle helmet."), explained here.

The above link are correct and subjected to peer review in the JAMA article. Infact if you were any good at reading these stats you would know that they are 95% correct for a cross section of the population. No flaws in the OR or the methodology. Also in your links you reference Theo Zeeger who is a particle theorist. Theo Zeegers says Bicycle helmets dont provide protection above 30kph. Thats not news! This is also written in the disclaimer that comes with every bicycle helmet. Motorcycle and motocross helmets are made to higher specifications, which Mr Zeeger admits to in his study. Your evidence totally contradicts your arguments. Do you have no reading comprehension?

you are a liar unwittingly or not, and really need to just stop man.

 

[Stan Onymous]

3 hours ago, caelus said:

There's tons of data for cycling and (head) injuries, before and after mandatory helmet legislation (time series research). I am not aware of any case, where the increased usage of helmets could show benefits regarding head injuries. Astonishingly, there's not a single such case worldwide! If you are interested in such studies, a good place to start is: http://www.cyclehelmets.org or the ECF helmet factsheet.

This is all anti helmet propaganda from groups of cyclists in the EU who are pissed off about mandatory helmet laws.

the real helmet organization can be found at helmets.org and bhsi.org 

the websites from Callous are phony Helmet websites which actually fight these laws with junk science and half truth speculations

[US69]

2 hours ago, Scatcat said:

This is also what we risk with cut-out face-plants, when the fall geometry and speed are such that tuck and roll is not going to happen. One second you're in control, a fraction of a second later you're hitting the ground. If you're damn lucky you have just enough time to get your arms in front of you - and if you've been smart enough to have both elbow pads and good wrist protection, you may even avoid complicated hand, wrist, or elbow fractures. You may still break an arm, but hopefully in a way that a normal cast will take care of in a few weeks. Chances are pretty high though, that the forward force will also mean your face and forehead says hello to mother earth.

Plus one on that....

Some here might have a long experience in skatboard falls and run-offs and bicycle/motorbike accidents and what not. No doubt about that!

Otherwise the experience of EUC cut-out related falls seams to be missing! I even would not call cut-outs over a certain speed a "fall" anymore...much better is "slam"! Cause thats what will Happen....

This theoretic of a nice roll out all might make sense on a normal accident (drivers fault, overleaning etc), when you have a bit of reaction time left. On a cutout you can be called lucky if you get your head in way, that your face doesnt slam into the ground like your body will do.  And this describtion is not exaggerated.....

 

[Scatcat]

2 hours ago, KingSong69 said:

Plus one on that....

Some here might have a long experience in skatboard falls and run-offs and bicycle/motorbike accidents and what not. No doubt about that!

Otherwise the experience of EUC cut-out related falls seams to be missing! I even would not call cut-outs over a certain speed a "fall" anymore...much better is "slam"! Cause thats what will Happen....

This theoretic of a nice roll out all might make sense on a normal accident (drivers fault, overleaning etc), when you have a bit of reaction time left. On a cutout you can be called lucky if you get your head in way, that your face doesnt slam into the ground like your body will do.  And this describtion is not exaggerated.....

 

I have had falls from skateboards and bicycles where I got off scot free because of tuck and roll. While there have been a few years since the last one, I suspect the muscle memory is still there, if maybe a bit rusty. The span between the last tuck and roll fall and the one before that was years, but still I instinctively drew in my head and rolled out of it.

But the trick with those falls are that you start the fall from an upright position. The falls from a skateboard usually happened because of stones or holes in the road, the skateboard stopping while I didn't. Falling forward from a bicycle has happened because of a sudden stop in the front wheel. Big stones, cracks or in one case because of a slippery glove gliding of the handlebar. In all cases I went over the handlebar and started tucking and rolling even before I actually hit the ground.

Falling in a cut out is more like the only real bad fall I've had, I still have the scars from that one. I was running for a ferry in icy conditions. The ferry stopped at a large pontoon bridge with a wooden deck. There was gravel on the bridge and there was a metal gangway with sharp spurs leading from land to the bridge.

Like a maniac to catch the ferry I ran over the gangway, and met a couple of girls that talked with each other and was oblivious to all else. I swerved, but my shoes got caught in the spurs of the gangway. In my hand I had a messenger bag with a laptop. This was in the 90's when laptops were pretty expensive and unusual, so like a moron I tried to avoid slamming the bag into the bridge. The result being me stopping the fall with my knuckles and chin. 

The laptop got off unscathed, I didn't. Four stitches in my chin and deep cuts in four knuckles, the latter filled with gravel that had to be picked out with tweezers... I did that myself, since I was totally numb from adrenaline and preferred to do it. Then half a litre of saline solution to rinse them and lots of tape. My chin-muscles were almost locked for a week, and the blunt force cuts were ragged enough that I couldn't avoid scarring.

But my point is that the kind of fall I experienced have a lot in common with a cut-out fall. I had no idea I was falling before I was almost on the ground, pretty much horizontal in the air. I wouldn't have had a chance to tuck and roll even if I had not played the role of Darwin Award Nominee. If I had not had the laptop, I may have broken an arm, but I would probably have saved my chin. Luckily my beard's thick enough that the small naked patch 1/4x1/2" is pretty well covered...

[caelus]

3 hours ago, Stan Onymous said:

Do you have no reading comprehension?

you are a liar unwittingly or not, and really need to just stop man.

 

The end of arguments...

[Rocky Romero]

2 hours ago, caelus said:

The end of arguments...

Yes, I admire your position.

This is not the end of good sense and living for the next day.

➰

[Mono]

14 hours ago, caelus said:

No!
There is overwhelming statistical data for cyclist all over the world and all (I am not aware of a single one saying the opposite) result in helmets having no positive effect on head injuries! Surprising. But statistical fact.

There is a (subtle but relevant) distinction to be made between an overall positive effect of helmet use and a positive effect of helmet use when the rider is involved in an accident. This leads to quite some confusion, because often one person refers to the former and another to the latter. For the former, I believe what you are saying is correct (though I would be interested for the sources you are using). For the latter I don't believe so, see e.g. this meta analysis: https://academic.oup.com/ije/article-abstract/46/1/278/2617198/Bicycle-injuries-and-helmet-use-a-systematic.

Quote

The head injuries also have not been reduced in skiing, even though approx. 90% of people now wear helmets (suisse statistics).
As far a I know thats also comprising motorcyclists. The provision of helmets had no positive effect even there. 

I don't think that this is true even overall, see e.g. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4779790/

Quote

Seatbelts is a different story.

I agree.

Edited September 2, 2017 by Mono

[Marty Backe]

4 hours ago, Scatcat said:

I have had falls from skateboards and bicycles where I got off scot free because of tuck and roll. While there have been a few years since the last one, I suspect the muscle memory is still there, if maybe a bit rusty. The span between the last tuck and roll fall and the one before that was years, but still I instinctively drew in my head and rolled out of it.

But the trick with those falls are that you start the fall from an upright position. The falls from a skateboard usually happened because of stones or holes in the road, the skateboard stopping while I didn't. Falling forward from a bicycle has happened because of a sudden stop in the front wheel. Big stones, cracks or in one case because of a slippery glove gliding of the handlebar. In all cases I went over the handlebar and started tucking and rolling even before I actually hit the ground.

Falling in a cut out is more like the only real bad fall I've had, I still have the scars from that one. I was running for a ferry in icy conditions. The ferry stopped at a large pontoon bridge with a wooden deck. There was gravel on the bridge and there was a metal gangway with sharp spurs leading from land to the bridge.

Like a maniac to catch the ferry I ran over the gangway, and met a couple of girls that talked with each other and was oblivious to all else. I swerved, but my shoes got caught in the spurs of the gangway. In my hand I had a messenger bag with a laptop. This was in the 90's when laptops were pretty expensive and unusual, so like a moron I tried to avoid slamming the bag into the bridge. The result being me stopping the fall with my knuckles and chin. 

The laptop got off unscathed, I didn't. Four stitches in my chin and deep cuts in four knuckles, the latter filled with gravel that had to be picked out with tweezers... I did that myself, since I was totally numb from adrenaline and preferred to do it. Then half a litre of saline solution to rinse them and lots of tape. My chin-muscles were almost locked for a week, and the blunt force cuts were ragged enough that I couldn't avoid scarring.

But my point is that the kind of fall I experienced have a lot in common with a cut-out fall. I had no idea I was falling before I was almost on the ground, pretty much horizontal in the air. I wouldn't have had a chance to tuck and roll even if I had not played the role of Darwin Award Nominee. If I had not had the laptop, I may have broken an arm, but I would probably have saved my chin. Luckily my beard's thick enough that the small naked patch 1/4x1/2" is pretty well covered...

And forever after you've worn a beard 

Your defense of the helmet has been admirable 

[Rocky Romero]

54 minutes ago, Marty Backe said:

And forever after you've worn a beard 

Your defense of the helmet has been admirable 

After all this, I forgot my helmet today for riding.

➰

[caelus]

1 hour ago, Mono said:

I don't think that this is true even overall, see e.g. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4779790/

Again a case control study. What can it tell us? 

Time series studies do not show any benefit of helmets!

[caelus]

1 hour ago, Mono said:

There is a (subtle but relevant) distinction to be made between an overall positive effect of helmet use and a positive effect of helmet use when the rider is involved in an accident.

Yes.
More precisely, those statistics from hospitalisation require, that you where not only involved in an accident, but also got so severely injured, that you needed a hospital.

I think it is pretty much obvious that studies based on hospitalisation can't tell us much about the effectiveness of helmets, as the people wearing helmet and those who do not are just completely different people (different age, differend ride patterns, different risk taking, etc.). These studies tell more about the structures that finance such research. Most of which are backed by car respectively insurance industry. Guess why.
If any of the deemed helmet effectiveness were true, it would show up in time series studies. But it didn't. Not in a single one in tons of data, duzends of countries. 

[Stan Onymous]

Really wish we could believe you, but a cursory search on google has disproven everything you have said. Even your own evidence suggests the benefits of helmets. Stop your awful decision making or just keep it to yourself. You are making yourself look bad.

[caelus]

Just now, Stan Onymous said:

 but a cursory search on google has disproven everything you have said. 

Surely not!