Rx Rider

so the Dutch who enjoy bicycling the most, use helmets the least and see fewer deaths than any other country. the Australians who enjoy mandatory helmet laws, a downturn in cycling and have had an increase in cycling related deaths.
again IMSO it ain't the helmets saving lives, it's better motorist habits and better cycling skills that don't even put helmets to use in the first place that's saving lives. but I'm not anti-anything here, I'm just sick of snooty, snotty, condescending attitudes using bad data and supposition to deride, degrade and taunt those that differ from the standard shtick.
we do not live in a black and white world. the helmet thread shouldn't be a black and white absolute. of coarse it's hilarious that they sell $200+ helmets that offer no better protection than a $30 helmet.

CB HI

In one aspect the $200 helmet is safer than the $30 helmet in that it does not completely cook your head on a century ride.

Rx Rider

and makes you look faster.

sudo bike

Actually, probably less safe. The extra vents may increase rotational injury... it's those super freakin' hot skate-helmets that conform to the shape of the skull so well and that have few vents to "catch" on surface area that seem to be somewhat more effective. Yet, for people so concerned about safety and seemingly willing to do anything "even if there is a 1% chance it will help", we don't see those around more. Funny, that.

CB HI

I took tumbling in grade school. When I have gone down, I tuck my chin into my chest and my head does not hit the ground. That seems to work well.

rydabent

I also notice that the anti helmet clik is very prone to name calling anyone that doesnt agree with them.

meanwhile

Again, this is profoundly foolish. Because you CAN look at accidents and say stuff like

- "The chance of your dying in a car-less spill is about 10,000,000 to 1"

- "From the description of your helmet, the shell failed and so liner compression didn't occur, so it failed to have an beneficial effect."

- "You were hit by an SUV and took a concussion; no, the helmet didn't even POSSIBLY mitigate that down from death - when helmets overload the shell fails first, so no liner compression, so benefit."

Just because you're not smart enough to understand the very basic science doesn't mean that other people aren't. You might not like it or understand how it is done, but knowledge of the basic science and statistics involved does indeed let one make reasonably authoritative ststatements about reality - indeed, this is what science is for!

meanwhile

And the name I'm calling you right now is Mr Hypocrite.

meanwhile

They also make shell failure more likely. It's worth remembering that a very high proportion of helmets when tested randomly fail to meet even the basic cert level they are supposed - cert testing is done with helmets that are cherrypicked by helmet makers.

meanwhile

The science is THIS simple:

- Cycling helmets are designed to absorb a tiny amount of energy - a minute fraction of the amount of energy needed to create even a concussion, let alone a serious brain injury

- When they overload, the shell fails before liner compression and there is no benefit (because the liner will now split before compressing)

- They were originally designed to solve a specific problem for very young children whose skulls are relatively flexible and are likely to fall off bikes without cars being involved; they were never designed to be a safety solution for the dangers that adults face.

mconlonx

Not profoundly foolish at all. You can also look at accidents and say stuff like:

- "Your chance of dying in a car-less spill is the same whether you are wearing a helmet or not."

- "From the description of your helmet, the shell failed after compression of the liner, so it may have provided some protection."

- "You were hit by an SUV and took a concussion -- did you really expect a helmet to perform better than they are supposed to? Although there is compression of the liner, so it may have provided some kind of protection before forces involved in the accident exceeded the safety spec of the helmet."

I got no problem with science; my problem is idiots like you dissembling on topics like this, using science like it's a black and white kind of thing, no shades of grey, where in fact, there's plenty of study that still needs to go down before anyone can claim anything definitively either way.

Six jours

I note the "85% safer!" crowd has ignored this entirely.

kjmillig

Comparing helmet use in the Netherlands to the USA is like comparing apples to tomatoes. As far as I'm aware there is no other country that has the level of bicycle infrastructure nor the changed attitudes of drivers towards bicycle riders that the Netherlands has. America's car-centric attitudes make the roads more dangerous for riders, thus causing a higher rate of death and injury to cyclists.
I wear a helmet, gloves, shirt, shorts/pants, and shoes all for the protection they can afford me while on my bike. I use a headlight, taillight and reflectors for the same reason. I have no belief that a helmet will save my life in all instances, but it can help sometimes and I don't mind wearing it.
If you don't want to wear one, don't. But arguing about it here and lambasting others isn't going to change people's views about bicycling being dangerous, or the laws that have already been passed for mandatory usage. Instead, write letters stating any facts or research to those that can effect change. Let's get that infrastructure started. Let's get more cars off the roads. Let's begin to restructure so that folks in the USA can feel as safe and have things in more convenient range like folks in the Netherlands.

MVclyde

Here's my helmet after I crashed on the way to work last week. My bike slid out from under me...I went down hard. Landed on my shoulder and head. I walked away with a sprained wrist and some road rash (and a slight headache ). Nothing major.... My helmet took the brunt of the blow. Glad I was wearing it.

mikeybikes

There is a huge thread in A&S for your helmet fear mongering.

RGNY

buy a lottery ticket.

i wear a helmet as an agreement with my wife, but i realize it's only useful in certain types of crashes in certain circumstances.

glad you survived.

Sixty Fiver

The helmet appeared to have been useful here.

bragi

Personally, I'm a little doubtful about the usefulness of helmets, but I wear one just the same, because in the final analysis they're safer than nothing, and your photo and story bear out the wisdom of this choice. Most people will never actually need their helmet, and a tragic few will not be helped by one, but you never can tell, and it's better to be safe and dorky than confined to a wheelchair or an urn on the mantle.

RGNY

absolutely, and thankfully. i just believe that a helmet's "window of usefulness" is very limited.

alexaschwanden

Better to be safe than sorry.

Six jours

Seems to me that the loud ones in the U.S. - the "letter writers" - are the "vehicular cyclists" who are clamoring to get rid of infrastructure. Apparently having separate facilities for cyclists is "dangerous".

Of course, those folks are being largely ignored, as is the grand tradition for letter-writers in these great United States.

Meanwhile, reality on the ground is that there are numerous places with lots of helmets and high fatality rates, and numerous places with few helmets and low fatality rates. Simply shouting "Infrastructure!" every time that is mentioned is a fairly obvious attempt to distract everyone from the elephant in the room.

pkulak

Yeah, fear mongering. Well, have some more:

https://www.******.com/r/bicycling/co..._car_injuries/

The fact is, we can fully recover if any body part slams into concrete at 15 mph from 6 feet up, except one.

kalliergo 

Could you cite some specific cases where vehicular cyclists are "clamoring to get rid of infrastructure," please? I suspect that you will find, upon investigation (I'm sure some of us will be happy to help), that the clamoring is to get rid of dangerous or substandard infrastructure, or to upgrade it appropriately, or to not build it in the first place if it can't be done properly. I don't know any vehicular cyclists, including Forester, who would object to properly-designed and implemented cycling-specific facilities, as long as they are not part of a process that threatens our rights to the roads.

The devil is in the details, of course.

The vast majority of of separate facilities for cyclists, in America are, indeed, dangerous, either because of flaws in design, placement, implementation and/or maintenance, and/or because they are elements of programs which serve to restrict the rights of cyclists to use the roads safely.

It is certainly possible to design and build cycling facilities that are safe and convenient, and which don't have as their primary purpose getting cyclists out of the way of motorists. But it doesn't happen very often.

pkulak

Like when your head strikes the ground? That tends to happen in the worse crashes.

ben4345

I think it was your cat, he sabotaged your bicycle!