Help me win a helmet debate!

[ZooTech]

Momentum rules.

Granted, Minty, but just don't offer up each and every instance of helmet damage as proof of head injury prevention. You simply cannot account for all the examples of helmet contact caused by the weight of the helmet itself. It only proves to artificially and unfairly bolster the argument against helmetless riding. It's a leap of logic.

[Mintbread]

The weight of the helmet was not the basis of my argument. I am sure there are riders out there lacking strength, and in the instance of a crash their helmeted head would touch down needlessly.
However, I would make the same argument for wearing gloves whilst riding. I know that I am able to keep my hands off the ground if I were to fall over but in the chaos of an accident anything can and usually does happen.

[DJGroove]

I didn't mean to copy another topic, I just noticed I basically did that.

Regardless of whether or not the helmet "drags" your head to the ground, her argument is that there is not ample protection to guard against brain damage. Specifically, she doesn't think the helmet's protective lining with stop the impact of the brain to the skull enough to make a difference at anything but the slowest speeds.

On top of that, even if the helmet offered ample protection, the thoracic impact would do you in anyway, rendering the helmet useless.

There are good points on both sides. Sorry if I look like I am trying to instigate a flame war.

[Ninja Geoff]

My MSF instructor was in a head on collision at highway speeds. some dumb "O Ring" donkey crossed the median spinning out of control (he was DRAG RACING... on the HIGHWAY) and the MSF instructor had no chance to react. He went flying foward, feet pointed up, head down, back facing front. he hit his head on the ground, back slammed down and he slid to a stop. Full face helmet, full leathers. The helmet showed almost no signs of visual impact (though the hard padding on the inside was cracked nicely) he had it in the class. He still wears the leather pants he wore then cause they were a little scuffed. His jacket was a loss because the EMT's cut it off him. Sure, he was in the hospital for 4 weeks, but considering he hid head first at 80 mph and slid quite a distance he wasn't that bad off. No helmet, his head would of cracked when it hit.

[flynrider]

I agree that in certain instances you are capable of keeping your head off the ground (even with a helmet on) but when faced with a fast, hard impact, you are merely along for the ride. Momentum rules.

That last statement says it all. I've been in bike, car and plane crashes. Once the G forces start acting on your body, you're at the mercy of the laws of physics. Unrestrained, you have no control over whether you will land butter side up, or butter side down. Might as well flip a coin.

[Meanie]

Anyone who believes a helmet is useless or believes in the damaged neck/spine theory must be a member of Abate and a fool or just a foolish idiot all together.

First of all, show me stats where riders who crashed with a helmet had spine or neck injuries sustained from that crash.

Second of all, put a helmet on your head and have someone swing a bat at your head. Now, take the helmet off and have that person swing the bat again. You won't live to tell us about it, but we'll know. It's that simple.

How can anyone is their right mind (though that question is answered right away) believe that landing on your head in the same manner with or without a helmet would make any difference on the neck? Even if you landed directly on top of your head, do you really believe you will sustain less injury without a helmet? Any straight forward direct impact to the head like that will damage the spinal column and perhaps shatter some discs or vertebreas. The difference is, with a helmet, you may still be alive. Without a helmet, death is certain.

I have more respect for riders who would just come out and say "I know the consequences, but i chose not to wear a helmet" or "helmet laws are bullshit cause it should be the riders choice". But to use a debate of it causing more harm than good is idiocy. I lose all respect for those fools and just realize their IQ level is very low.

[ZooTech]

A bunch of junk because he has no reading comprehension

No one here is suggesting that helmets do more harm than good. All I have been saying is that people who show helmet damage as PROOF that their helmet saved their face or head are making a leap of logic. You are safer with a helmet than without, and I do know this and accept the risks, but there are times when a damaged helmet is proof of nothing more than the fact that helmets are heavy and the human neck is not strong enough to hold it back when it's falling towards the road at speed. THEREFORE, you cannot conveniently add every case where a helmet sustained damage as evidence that helmets protect the head. In addition, you cannot conveniently lump all the motorcycle fatalities involving a helmetless rider into the category of "helmets save lives", either. What if the helmetless rider rear-ended a farm implement and was impaled through the chest? Can we just throw that into the evidence pile for the "helmets save lives" argument? No, you can't.

Point being, while helmets do save lives, riding without one is not soooooooooo much more unsafe as to be considered foolhearty or suicidal. I spoke to a paramedic who told me, "For the most part a helmet just means the difference between open casket and closed casket." And knowing the reality behind the statistics and how they're unfairly stacked, I can ride without a helmet without being as worried as some people would seem to be.

[Meanie]

A bunch of junk because he has no reading comprehension

No one here is suggesting that helmets do more harm than good. All I have been saying is that people who show helmet damage as PROOF that their helmet saved their face or head are making a leap of logic. You are safer with a helmet than without, and I do know this and accept the risks, but there are times when a damaged helmet is proof of nothing more than the fact that helmets are heavy and the human neck is not strong enough to hold it back when it's falling towards the road at speed. THEREFORE, you cannot conveniently add every case where a helmet sustained damage as evidence that helmets protect the head. In addition, you cannot conveniently lump all the motorcycle fatalities involving a helmetless rider into the category of "helmets save lives", either. What if the helmetless rider rear-ended a farm implement and was impaled through the chest? Can we just throw that into the evidence pile for the "helmets save lives" argument? No, you can't.

Point being, while helmets do save lives, riding without one is not soooooooooo much more unsafe as to be considered foolhearty or suicidal. I spoke to a paramedic who told me, "For the most part a helmet just means the difference between open casket and closed casket." And knowing the reality behind the statistics and how they're unfairly stacked, I can ride without a helmet without being as worried as some people would seem to be.

You should recheck the original quote to what you're replying to...I can promise you it wasn't I.

[Mintbread]

but there are times when a damaged helmet is proof of nothing more than the fact that helmets are heavy and the human neck is not strong enough to hold it back when it's falling towards the road at speed. THEREFORE, you cannot conveniently add every case where a helmet sustained damage as evidence that helmets protect the head.

The neck is not strong enough to stop the head, let alone the helmet, from hitting the road during a fall at speed. I watched a documentary on volunteer paramedics in Singapore as they scraped unhelmeted people off the road. The startling similarities were they all sustained very few bodily injuries other than their brains leaking out. These were people riding scooters at reasonably slow speeds, but the fall from the bike to the road surface was enough to smash open their skulls.

Point being, while helmets do save lives, riding without one is not soooooooooo much more unsafe as to be considered foolhearty or suicidal. I spoke to a paramedic who told me, "For the most part a helmet just means the difference between open casket and closed casket." And knowing the reality behind the statistics and how they're unfairly stacked, I can ride without a helmet without being as worried as some people would seem to be.

Have you ever crashed a roadbike at speed?

[ZooTech]

Have you ever crashed a roadbike at speed?

Well, considering I don't wear a helmet most of the time and since you're convinced that I will die as a result of even a 5mph crash, I implore you to guess what the answer to that question is.

I have, however, flipped/rolled/collided/fallen with an ATV countless times and have never sustained anything other than abdomenal injuries as a result.

Look, I'm pretty much through with this debate. People are trying to make it seem as though I'm suggesting that riding sans helmet is safer than riding with one, and that's clearly not the case. All I know is, showing me a helmet with some cracks or scatches on it tells me absolutely nothing about the protection it provided during that particular crash. It's much easier to keep your head off the pavement than it is to keep a heavy, bulky helmet off the pavement. In addition, I never feel more vulnerable while riding than I do while wearing my full-face thanks to the lovely blind-spots it causes, as well as the inability to turn my head to the side to check for anything my mirrors may have missed. Because of this, I feel more likely to get in an accident in the first place while wearing a helmet.

To each his own, do whatcha gotta do, your results may vary.