Should Vuelta rider have been allowed to continue after crash that smashed helmet?

The rider will generally get back on the bike.  The thing with hitting your head is that there may be some confusion.  A quick check, followed by a longer one, perhaps next to the doctors car would not be a bad thing.  Protocols that superseed the rider or indeed the teams immediate desires wouldn't be a bad idea.

One of the things with contact sports is the repeated hit to the head, hopefully rarer in cycling, but you are correct when thinking about adverse effects later, and theyy don't tend to go as fast in most other sports.

Yippee! Helmet debate, or in this case rather ill- tempered scrum. 
 
Firstly, the pros and injury, safety etc : I though the whole of the get involved in some awful mash-up then get back on your bike with blood streaming down from your wounds, over the Tourmalet pass at 2 degrees C was all part of the test your physical limits derring-do you pay your ticket money for?  Don't shout at me please, I've tried several times to get interested in pro cycling and it just leaves me cold. Nice scenery some times. 
 
Helmet voice of reason time now: are you all rowing because you're answering different questions? it seems a reasonable proposition to me that, taken in isolation, the man's helmet helped him this time: his injuries would have been worse without. Plus, the race rules require him to wear one, right?

But in the wider scheme, the argument is more complex, isn't it.  Cyclists and drivers are arguably less careful when the cyclist doesn't wear one. Drivers put pressure on cyclists to wear one as a way of shifting safety responsibility from the to cyclists on the sly.

A helmet isn't going to help you that much if you have the misfortune to tangle with a car. We're probably in Bible/ cigarette case in breast pocket stops bullet territory in that respect. 

David9694 wrote:

Cyclists and drivers are arguably less careful when the cyclist doesn't wear one.

It's the other way around; cyclists and drivers both take less care when the cyclists wear helmets.

Well in a control experiment you would need to hit your head off a hard surface both with and without the helmet to see what damage is done. Thank you for volunteering to do this for science. 

Why do you write as though it is clear cut?

hirsute wrote:

Why do you write as though it is clear cut?

Oh, because it is. For heaven's sake, do we really have to argue that hitting your head on something whilst wearing head protection is as bad as hitting your head on something without? Let's not bother, eh?

Rendel Harris wrote:

hirsute wrote:

Why do you write as though it is clear cut?

Oh, because it is. For heaven's sake, do we really have to argue that hitting your head on something whilst wearing head protection is as bad as hitting your head on something without? Let's not bother, eh?

Let's not bother arguing with someone who's mind is made up and no amount of facts, data or evidence will change it.

Cue protestations of innocence, open-mindedness and some irrelevant inaccurate, unreliable "science".

eburtthebike wrote:

 

Let's not bother arguing with someone who's mind is made up and no amount of facts, data or evidence will change it.

Cue protestations of innocence, open-mindedness and some irrelevant inaccurate, unreliable "science".

[/quote]

Stone me eburt, a more accurate description of yourself when it comes to the helmet debate one couldn't imagine.

Rendel Harris wrote:

eburtthebike wrote:

Let's not bother arguing with someone who's mind is made up and no amount of facts, data or evidence will change it.

Cue protestations of innocence, open-mindedness and some irrelevant inaccurate, unreliable "science".

Stone me eburt, a more accurate description of yourself when it comes to the helmet debate one couldn't imagine.

[/quote]Wrong!  I was one of the first people where I live to wear a helmet and believed that they were useful, then someone asked if I'd looked at the evidence.  I did, and I've never worn one since.  If I can be open-minded enough to change my mind, why can't the helmet zealots?  Indeed, not only are they totally obdurate and refuse point blank to change their minds, they won't even look at the evidence because it might conflict with what is a religious belief, based entirely on faith not science.

eburtthebike wrote:

  If I can be open-minded enough to change my mind, why can't the helmet zealots?  Indeed, not only are they totally obdurate and refuse point blank to change their minds, they won't even look at the evidence because it might conflict with what is a religious belief, based entirely on faith not science.

Fuck me, do you actually listen to yourself sometimes? Why on earth are you so obsessed (I've seen you drivelling on so many cycle forums for years) with whether people wear helmets? If you don't want to wear one, don't, there's no law making you do so. I want to wear one and I don't care whether you do or not. What the hell is your problem?

Rendel Harris wrote:

eburtthebike wrote:

  If I can be open-minded enough to change my mind, why can't the helmet zealots?  Indeed, not only are they totally obdurate and refuse point blank to change their minds, they won't even look at the evidence because it might conflict with what is a religious belief, based entirely on faith not science.

Fuck me, do you actually listen to yourself sometimes? Why on earth are you so obsessed (I've seen you drivelling on so many cycle forums for years) with whether people wear helmets? If you don't want to wear one, don't, there's no law making you do so. I want to wear one and I don't care whether you do or not. What the hell is your problem?

Rendel (is that from LOTR?) do you actually listen to yourself?  Who started this thread with a cretinous post about a theoretical argument that no-one has even postulated the possiblity of making?  There have been multiple attempts to pass a helmet law in the UK, despite the evidence from 25 years of helmet laws in Oz and NZ which have proven beyond doubt that they are not effective, and idiots like you still post drivel.

Maybe if you and all your helmet zealot friends stop posting your drivel, I'll stop posting facts.

[/quote]Rendel (is that from LOTR?) do you actually listen to yourself?  Who started this thread with a cretinous post about a theoretical argument that no-one has even postulated the possiblity of making?  There have been multiple attempts to pass a helmet law in the UK, despite the evidence from 25 years of helmet laws in Oz and NZ which have proven beyond doubt that they are not effective, and idiots like you still post drivel.

Maybe if you and all your helmet zealot friends stop posting your drivel, I'll stop posting facts.

[/quote]

No, it's my name - unlike you I don't feel the need to hide behind internet anonymity. It's hilarious to be called a zealot by someone who has posted literally hundreds of anti-helmet comments on this website - as soon as I see any article on helmets, even if it's just a review of a new product, I know burt the bore will be in the comments - as well as elsewhere. There's a common thread running through anti-vaxxers, climate change deniers, anti-maskers, anti-helmet zealots, 9-11 truthers etc that has nothing to do with the actual cause: take something on which the vast majority, both lay people and accredited experts, agree and set yourself up in opposition to it, hey presto, you must be superior to the vast majority! Start calling other people sheep, insist that they are being manipulated by some shadowy but ill-defined powers that be and you can preen yourself on being so much cleverer than the majority. It's really very sad and utterly pathetic.

Rendel Harris wrote:

Rendel (is that from LOTR?) do you actually listen to yourself?  Who started this thread with a cretinous post about a theoretical argument that no-one has even postulated the possiblity of making?  There have been multiple attempts to pass a helmet law in the UK, despite the evidence from 25 years of helmet laws in Oz and NZ which have proven beyond doubt that they are not effective, and idiots like you still post drivel.

Maybe if you and all your helmet zealot friends stop posting your drivel, I'll stop posting facts.

[/quote]

No, it's my name - unlike you I don't feel the need to hide behind internet anonymity. It's hilarious to be called a zealot by someone who has posted literally hundreds of anti-helmet comments on this website - as soon as I see any article on helmets, even if it's just a review of a new product, I know burt the bore will be in the comments - as well as elsewhere. There's a common thread running through anti-vaxxers, climate change deniers, anti-maskers, anti-helmet zealots, 9-11 truthers etc that has nothing to do with the actual cause: take something on which the vast majority, both lay people and accredited experts, agree and set yourself up in opposition to it, hey presto, you must be superior to the vast majority! Start calling other people sheep, insist that they are being manipulated by some shadowy but ill-defined powers that be and you can preen yourself on being so much cleverer than the majority. It's really very sad and utterly pathetic.

[/quote]So, still not a single fact, just risible assertions and silly smears. 

FYI, there are many accredited experts who are not convinced that helmets are effective e.g. Professor John Adams, Senior Fellow Emeritus Mayer Hillman, Senior statistician DL Robinson, David Spiegelhalter, Winton professor for the public understanding of risk, Ben Goldacre, Wellcome research fellow in epidemiology, Chris Boardman; the list is endless.

All the large scale, long term, scientific, reliable research shows that cycle helmets are not effective in improving the safety of cyclists.  Maybe do a little research of your own and stop criticising people who have.  Start here cyclehelmets.org

eburtthebike wrote:

FYI, there are many accredited experts who are not convinced that helmets are effective e.g. Professor John Adams, Senior Fellow Emeritus Mayer Hillman, Senior statistician DL Robinson, David Spiegelhalter, Winton professor for the public understanding of risk, Ben Goldacre, Wellcome research fellow in epidemiology, Chris Boardman; the list is endless.

All the large scale, long term, scientific, reliable research shows that cycle helmets are not effective in improving the safety of cyclists.  Maybe do a little research of your own and stop criticising people who have.  Start here cyclehelmets.org

Bailing after this because I'm very bored with you, but before I go it's worth noting that you're reduced to lying now. Chris Boardman has never expressed doubts about helmets being effective. His own company makes a range of helmets. What he has said is there should be less focus on them and more on creating conditions where they're not necessary. That's completely different to saying they're not effective. You know this, but you still choose to misrepresent his sensible and well-reasoned views as comparable to your own drivel. Don't. Ben Goldacre questioned the methodology of some helmet studies and stated that due to the nature of the problem it was more or less impossible to conclude definitively for either side. He never said that helmets are not effective. Again, lies. No large scale research showing cycle helmets make cyclists safer? Further lies.

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/sep/22/bicycle-helmets-red...

Honestly, you really do make a fool of yourself with your religious mania to try to stop people exercising their right to protect themselves, you're worse than the worst pro-helmet advocate by a country mile.

Rendel Harris wrote:

eburtthebike wrote:

FYI, there are many accredited experts who are not convinced that helmets are effective e.g. Professor John Adams, Senior Fellow Emeritus Mayer Hillman, Senior statistician DL Robinson, David Spiegelhalter, Winton professor for the public understanding of risk, Ben Goldacre, Wellcome research fellow in epidemiology, Chris Boardman; the list is endless.

All the large scale, long term, scientific, reliable research shows that cycle helmets are not effective in improving the safety of cyclists.  Maybe do a little research of your own and stop criticising people who have.  Start here cyclehelmets.org

Bailing after this because I'm very bored with you, but before I go it's worth noting that you're reduced to lying now. Chris Boardman has never expressed doubts about helmets being effective. His own company makes a range of helmets. What he has said is there should be less focus on them and more on creating conditions where they're not necessary. That's completely different to saying they're not effective. You know this, but you still choose to misrepresent his sensible and well-reasoned views as comparable to your own drivel. Don't. Ben Goldacre questioned the methodology of some helmet studies and stated that due to the nature of the problem it was more or less impossible to conclude definitively for either side. He never said that helmets are not effective. Again, lies. No large scale research showing cycle helmets make cyclists safer? Further lies.

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/sep/22/bicycle-helmets-red...

Honestly, you really do make a fool of yourself with your religious mania to try to stop people exercising their right to protect themselves, you're worse than the worst pro-helmet advocate by a country mile.

As Goebells said "Accuse your enemy of that which you are guilty."  Nothing I said was a lie, no matter how you twist reality.

Thanks for bailing.

eburtthebike wrote:

All the large scale, long term, scientific, reliable research shows that cycle helmets are not effective in improving the safety of cyclists.

This is a lie Burt.

You know this is a lie.

You continue to post it.

Every regular user of this website knows that you are pathologically dishonest so you're really not gaining anything by continuing to post your falsehoods.

Please stop.

Rendel Harris wrote:

hirsute wrote:

Why do you write as though it is clear cut?

Oh, because it is. For heaven's sake, do we really have to argue that hitting your head on something whilst wearing head protection is as bad as hitting your head on something without? Let's not bother, eh?

The NFL despite the use of helmets saw huge instances of athletes suffering long term issues of head trauma. They now have processes in place to access the athletes condition after a severe collision. They are yet to put in place guidance on tackling as it is a sport that 'thrives' on the big hits encouraged by all the protective gear. 

Rendel Harris wrote:

Waiting for the first person to present their scientifically justified and expert argument as to how if he hadn't been wearing the helmet his injuries would have been just as bad or perhaps worse...

That's pretty presumptuous of you to expect anti helmet legislation advocates would leap in to make this claim.  

The issue is that the UCI does not have a robust process in place to deal with head injuries and concussion  in the event of crashes and collisions  regardless of the use of helmets being in place.

How many times have we seen dazed cyclists resume racing without being checked out.  All contact sports have measures in place.  Be it the team medic, independent medic or umpire.  I have yet to witness a cyclist undergo a cursory GLASGOW  test after a crash.  More often than not the cyclist appears to make their own call on the matter to resume racing and push through sensations of nausea, disorientation etc rather than wait for medical attention.  When you take a severe knock to the head regardless of protection or not you need assessment.

The UCI need some process in place especially if a cyclist with head trauma resumes racing even if it means pulling the cyclist in further along the road to make an assessment if not at the site of the crash.

Yes, as in rugby. Head injury temporary substitute allowed whilst there is an assessment.

Judge dreadful wrote:

The helmet was subjected to stresses above its design limits, because it fell apart. Up until it did so, it was doing its job. However if it has failed like that I'd have given the rider a neuro check at least.

As one collision investigator pointed out, he'd never seen a helmet which worked as it was supposed to, by deformation, they always catastrophically failed before any significant deformation occurred.  Since helmets don't prevent concussion, then yes, a neuro check is called for.

eburtthebike wrote:

As one collision investigator pointed out, he'd never seen a helmet which worked as it was supposed to, by deformation, they always catastrophically failed before any significant deformation occurred.  

"As one collision investigator pointed out..." says the man who accuses others of using "some irrelevant inaccurate, unreliable "science"." What next, "as a bloke down the pub told me once..."? You're hilarious. 

Rendel Harris wrote:

eburtthebike wrote:

As one collision investigator pointed out, he'd never seen a helmet which worked as it was supposed to, by deformation, they always catastrophically failed before any significant deformation occurred.  

"As one collision investigator pointed out..." says the man who accuses others of using "some irrelevant inaccurate, unreliable "science"." What next, "as a bloke down the pub told me once..."? You're hilarious. 

If you knew anything about helmets, you'd probably recognise that scenario and know that it wasn't made up, unlike most of the pro-helmet stuff, but I can't be arsed to look up the reference for you.  I've spent forty years reading and researching about cycle helmets, including my MSc dissertation; what credentials do you have?

If you really want to learn about helmets, start here cyclehelmets.org and when you've read and understood what it says, come back to us.

eburtthebike wrote:

If you really want to learn about helmets, start here cyclehelmets.org and when you've read and understood what it says, come back to us.

Oh right, you've read some nonsense on a stupid biased unscientific website and that gives you "credentials"? You know what, I'm absolutely happy with you not wearing a helmet as I doubt there's anything in your noggin that's worth protecting. I have a decent brain so I choose to protect mine. Not sure why you're so obsessed wth my personal choice.

As a neutral observer, flicking through the site burt linked, I see supported evidence and links to citations, whereas all I'm seeing from you is personal attacks and rage over a discussion which you yourself appear to have twice baited.

I wear a helmet, but I think the point about catastrophic failure leading to no energy dissipation and no mitigation of the effect of deceleration on the brain (i.e. concussion) is compelling, and it's cited as well. The same article on this "biased" site also notes that a helmet may still provide some degree of protection against abrasions and skull damage, although high speed impacts will of course have energy proportional to square of speed as well as to mass of participants, and the amount of energy required to break a helmet (and which is thus considered dissipated by a helmet) is likely to be a trivial fraction of the whole.

If you're interested in the research around helmet use it's worth checking out the studies looking at hospital data.

Essentially, non helmeted cyclists suffer more severe head injuries than their helmeted equivalents.

As with any research into this topic it is not perfect but it's something to consider when presented with the argument that helmets provide little benefit in terms of serious injury.

Example:
https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/9/9/e027845

Last time I checked, admittedly several months ago, this research and other similar research was not mentioned on cyclehelmets.org.

It may have been added in the interim but at the time I thought that was a good example of bias by ommision.

You are claiming @eburtthebike is obsessed, where you yourself are the first poster on this article, provocating those who have a different view from you about helmet usage. That's a bit hypocritical, isn't it?

Back on topic.
For me it's simple. Helmets should not be used for normal, everyday riding. The net effect of mandatory helmet usage is that more people get hurt, and suffer from obisitas etc. For 'sports use', so mountainbiking, road riding, bmx, cyclocross etc., I would advise to wear a helmet, as i do myself, just because there a little buffer between your head and whatever your head hits (gravel, dirt, road, tree, whatever), so it helps keep your skin intact. I have no believe at all though that my helmet will protect my from serious impact. It's just to flimsy for that.

The protection helmets give is comparable to cycling gloves. When you fall, they protect your skin from abrasions and dirt, but they will not protect you against breaking some bones.