FWIW I've voted twice against MHLs for motorcyclists. It's their head, I'll mind my own business. Mountain bike riding or racing, I've always worn a helmet, but touring along a hwy shoulder or beer runs on the grocery getter haven't ever struck me as particularly high risk activities. I think tail lights do more to protect me in both of those cases.

It might affect your insurance though. I don't know if it does but it's a thought.

I think that's a decision every person has to decide for themselves, assuming there are no mandatory helmet laws. When I rode a bikeshare bike in the streets on Copenhagen I had no qualms riding without a helmet. I will almost always ride with one where I live. The exceptions being certain rides, all less than 4 mi.

Ok thanks. Makes sense. I wasn't clear on the semantics of DAI and concussion. But you can't then say that impacts don't cause concussion. That's what had me really confused. Certain impacts (oblique) cause concussion, and helmets don't do well preventing oblique impacts.

No problem. This is a thread for learning. Can't learn if you don't jump in. The problems usually come when posts are disrespectful and narrow minded.

Helmets are made for simple falls with little to no forward momentum, so it is possible that a helmet could have mitigated a minor injury, maybe even "saved his life" but we don't and can't really know for sure. What we do know a drop in fatalities due to helmet use has been extremely difficult to verify but more importantly, the risk of death from a simple fall from a bike isn't any greater than the same risk of death from falling while not on a bicycle. As rare as it is, people do trip, fall, and suffer fatal head injuries, more often off a bike than on it. If people are worried about head injury, why aren't they wearing them all the time?

helmets do serve a purpose, but they're just not as effective as some people seem to think they are. Further there is some credence to the issue of helmets drawing danger. Certainly if we can agree helmet do provide a level of protection, why is this so difficult to see?


After wearing a helmet for 21 years and giving it up, it seems weird to me to wear a helmet. Sort of like an admission riding a bike is dangerous and likely to result in injuring myself.

The seat belt comparison is often used with helmets but they are completely different items that work on a different theory and have much different records of efficacy.

Point taken. The problem is that helmets are made for linear impacts and linear impacts don't cause concussion.

Because of the way the head is positioned on the neck, and the usual movement a cyclist is making, the manner in which most cyclists hit their heads involves a twisting motion that can (but not always does) rotate the brain within the skull

Not wearing a seat belt when you are accustomed to one feels weird because they give the wearer a feeling of restraint... helmets don’t. I think you’d be surprised at how quickly you’d feel normal without one. I alternate with/without and honestly don’t “feel weird” either way.

I could be wrong but my personal opinion is that Greens Fees probably have more to do with my insurance premiums than motorcycle crashes. :)

It would seem voluntary use can be beneficial but mandatory use harmful, however because of the lack of clear evidence of helmet use in reducing head injuries, it would seem any evidence of benefit from use is elusive.

One harmful point is in the prioritization of helmet use over safe riding and driving behavior, another is wearing a helmet is signaling cycling as dangerous and risky, something it is not.

I don't understand this. How do they "draw danger"?



I understand what you're saying. I'm not making any sort of statement with my bike. I will admit to being a little amused by the looks that I get when people see this old, short, fat Italian guy with 40 lbs of groceries loaded on his bike. :D But I'm not a cycling advocate - I really don't care what other people do, other than it would be nice if there were fewer cars on the road around here. (A futile dream...) Yeah - the efficacy thing is really what I'm trying to assess. Also - are you saying that the likelihood of getting a head injury of the kind that a helmet would mitigate is the same for walking as for riding a bike? Or just that there is some non-zero probability that you will?

That's interesting. Can you point me to any references, i.e. studies that have found no evidence of benefit? Or is it more a matter of that the existing studies haven't looked at the right things?I speak only for myself in saying that policy is irrelevant to me. I will ride the way that I ride, helmet or not. I don't believe that I've ever taken any additional chances because the helmet made me feel safer. Similarly, I agree that learning to ride and drive safely are extremely important.

For the latter, as I said previously, I'm not riding to send signals of one kind or another. I'm just enjoying myself. This isn't a political or philosophical activity for me. Just (hopefully healthy) fun.

Risk compensation. Not only does it apply to cyclists, it applies to the behavior of motorists driving near cyclists

even if you're not a cycling advocate, your environment can change based on whether others think cycling is dangerous because it's been shown that more cyclists on the streets means the streets are safer for cyclists. If people thik cycling is dangerous, they're less prone to cycle.

I'm saying the likelyhood of a head injury while riding runs equal to that of receiving one while walking and the standards to which helmets are made mean helmets can offer the same (or even better) protection to pedestrians

It's the idea that wearing a helmet can cause people to take risks they wouldn't otherwise, due to an ill-placed faith in their helmet's ability to prevent injury. People seem to note that drivers tend to pass a helmeted cyclist closer than a bare-headed one.

That's basically it. Riding a bicycle on the road in a safe and predictable manner is not an inherently dangerous activity. Injuries from simple falls, which could be mitigated by the use of a helmet, are just as likely if not more so when walking on uneven footpaths, climbing a ladder, wandering home drunk, or simply being old and frail. Yet no one ever considers the use of a walking helmet, ladder helmet, drinking helmet or old-age helmet. It's entirely unlike the use of seatbelts in cars, which are proven to reduce injuries. For cycling helmets, when helmet use goes up, there isn't a clear reduction in head injuries.

The difference with cycling is that injuries are far more likely to occur during an accident involving a motor vehicle or a high-speed crash. The forces involved here simply overwhelm a bicycle helmet. In competetive road cycling, mountain biking or riding in snow for example, simple falls and/or crashes involving another cyclist are far more likely, so a helmet is a wise choice here.

No one is going to tell you not to wear a cycling helmet if you want to- it's your choice. However, the bare-headed sector of this forum generally dislikes being told to wear a helmet of dubious practical benefit based on an anecdote ('it saved my life' etc- you just can't tell one way or the other) nor being told they're stupid for making an informed decision not to.

No clear evidence from countries that have enforced the wearing of helmets

even if you don't feel you change your behavior when wearing a helmet (risk compensation) Dr. Walker's research showed the drivers with whom they share the road certainly change theirs

That's really interesting. I live/ride in "Sopranos Country" (I don't know if you got the TV show in BC, so you may not get the reference. It was a show about a Mafia family that operated around my town, and gave a unique but not totally inaccurate portrayal of life around here.) I just figured the nasty driver attitude was part of their habitual approach to life - I didn't realize I was inviting it by wearing my helmet. :D

But are you really saying that the likelihood of running into a situation where my helmet would help me avoid injury on my bike is the same as that of running into it just walking around on the sidewalk? Are there references? If so, I will give up the helmet.

Because it flew off when i HIT my head on the ground. If i didn't have it on...i would have hit my head directly on the ground/rocks.

I could very well be one of those 50%ers...I still think wearing it does protect me from head injuries more so if i we not wearing any protection at all. I'd rather be safe than sorry. I have to admit, i have not read all 23 pages of this thread, that and being new to this scene, it really doesn't interest me why people are getting upset but..people are entitled to their own thoughts and opinions. Take it easy everyone.

I'm a big Soprano's fan (I even liked the finale) and I think nasty drivers are present everywhere (it's a human quirk being nasty - there even are nasty cyclists)

From the UK
Six times as many pedestrians as cyclists are killed by motor traffic, yet travel surveys show annual mileage walked is only five times that cycled

(in my Canadian province pedestrians have a fatality rate 5 times greater than cyclists per collision with motor vehicle)

from the US
1.On a per-mile basis, the odds of being killed or sustaining a serious head injury while riding a bicycle are about the same as the odds of being killed or injured while out for a walk.

2. On a per-capita basis, the odds of being killed while riding a bicycle are nearly the same as the odds of being killed by a bolt of lightning

but I think if you use a helmet for minor injuries, it will not disappoint. If it's intended for serious injury or death prevention, it's bound to disappoint

I can't help wondering: If one tends - for one reason or the other - to have more accidents when wearing a helmet than when not, then the fact that fatalities seem to be constant with/without would point to helmets having at more beneficial than harmfull effect. All things being equal, that is... :P

Not if the accidents involve impacts beyond a helmets abilities, or involve injuries other than ones to the head.

It's also most preferable to avoid accidents/falls/collisions on the first place. If wearing a helmet means an accident is more likely to happen, it's the less safe option to peruse.

A large number of people here including myself have posted the fact that a helmet has saved them from at least injury. Of course the anti helmet trolls immediately attack them as ignorant. But they are still here and able to post.

On the other hand damned few helmetless dead people have posted their right to ride without a helmet. But then of course we could maybe hear from a dead democrat from Chicago.

You'd love it here. I live a short walk from where Uncle Junior's house was, and a short bike ride to Holsten's the ice cream parlor where the final scene took place. Also a short bike ride to where Satriale's Pork Store was supposed to be. (It's an empty lot now.) The scary part of that show was how realistic it was. I think a per mile comparison is not valid - you generally go many more miles in the same amount of time on a bicycle. A fairer comparison would be in terms of total time on the road. Impressive. How does that compare with the per-capita statistics for pedestrians, I wonder. Though that's really not the issue. Most of us don't go around worried about being struck by lightning. Prevention of any sort of injury is a good thing. I don't want to be obsessive about it,though.

I've done a little googling this afternoon, and I'm amazed at the lack of objective presentation on either side of this. That's the problem when an issue that shouldn't be emotional, becomes driven by passion and ideology.

No one is suggesting that helmets are completely useless. They are effective at reducing or preventing minor head injuries. If you are worried about these sort of injuries and want to wear one based on that, I can't argue and good for you. If you want the maximum possible protection when cycling, a helmet should be part of that. What they're not designed for is to prevent major injuries or death. All the 'anti helmet trolls' are suggesting is that they are not as important to safe cycling as they're often presumed to be, and that other equipment and simply riding in a safe manner are far more effective.

Few helmeted dead cyclists have posted either to say how their helmet didn't help them- what's your point.

You haven't read all 22 pages?!? Nor the hundreds of pages from previous threads of this nature?!? Blasphemer! How can you hope to have even close to an intelligent conversation regarding helmet use without knowing the background...

Dr. Walker also said that driver's give cyclists more room if they have long hair. I have long hair and wear a helmet -- do those cancel each other out...?

If safety is your priority regarding how close cars pass, a wig would be better protection than a helmet...

Thread link summary:




I'm going to try to keep this updated and posted every five pages or so. Previous posts will not reflect current changes.

Oh sure, but I find it paradoxical, somehow :)