NYT Reports:Helmet Use Up, Brain Injuries Not Down

Brain/head injuries might not be down, but who's to say the injuries wouldn't be worse without a helmet?
 
“The helmet does a very good job at protecting against skull lacerations and skull fractures, but it doesn’t seem to have much effect on concussions or T.B.I.'s,”pretty much
 
The sport has progressed since the time when helmets were uncommon, (both in terms of equipment and level of riding), so it doesn't surprise me that head injuries still occur quite often. That of course doesn't mean wearing a helmet isn't a smart choice though.
 
"The increase in helmet use has had positive results. Experts say helmets have reduced the incidence of less serious head injuries, like scalp lacerations, by 30 percent to 50 percent"

Duhhh, when your hitting 50ft booters at keystone and land on your head, a helmet isnt gona stop the concussion.

 
Only a COMPLETE AND UTTER RETARD would even attempt to argue that helmets do not decrease the risk of severe head injury.

Whether or not the overall instances of head injuries decrease is a non issue, as it ignores several qualifying factors in relation to this exact argument anyways. It is attempting to use mass statistics to downplay the importance on an individual level- which anyone with half a brain knows is bullshit from a mile away.

Shame on you OP.
 
I didn't share the article as a anti-helmet argument. So nice presumption and thanks for the scolding.

What makes this article different interesting is not the argument - although I have my issues with what people call energy drink culture- but the timing and the media outlet.
 
Well sorry if I lumped you in there with the author, but this is a pretty fucking stupid spin to put on a statistic. One really has to wonder what the fuck they' were trying to accomplish with it. Seriously. Their copy editor should walk into their office and beat them about the head and face with an open stapler.
 
That cant be true. What did the study account for? Sample size?

You cant just post some random conclusion and call it solid fact.
 
If you ski trees out east your head is always hitting tree branches. Helmets help a ton with your head getting snagged by a tree branch.
 
A helmet does not make you invincible, I think the warning stickers say it's no good for high speed impacts and such. But I'll personally testify I have hit my head on tons of shit and taken branches to the dome that would have knocked me the fuck out had I not been wearing one.
 
I think most of us thought that you were being sympathetic to those who dont wear helmets because you did not state otherwise and you let the tone if the NYT tweet speak for you.
 
Interestingly, while I was doing some stuff for PSIA, one if the evaluators I worked with was doing research on this. He told me that any impact to the head going over 20 mph (very few crashes are under this) a helmet doesn't deliver any protection. It's basically just a security blanket. That's not to say, don't wear a helmet, but I just thought it was an interesting piece of data.
 
If you hit your head on a rail without a helmet, you've got a cracked skull. If you're wearing a helmet, you've got a mild concussion at most.

I base this off nothing but my gut
 
Lots of what's diagnosed as a head injury today would not be 20 years ago, so the statistics on this are very skewed.

Also the progression of the sport certainly has a lot to do with it as well.
 
This shit was written by a CO native and a skier...just wrote her an email expressing my discontent and lightly telling her how ignorant she is
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top