I don't wear a helmet, but I'm not that kind of cyclist.
 

I don't wear a helmet...it's a personal choice...but I do have front and rear lights and follow the rules of the road, stopping at red lights, signaling and taking the lane firmly etc.
It annoys me that I see so many other cyclists on my urban commute that faithfully wear their helmets and then proceed to ride so dangerously, going through red lights
and cycling up on the inside of trucks and buses. People seem to equate helmets with personal safety rather than how they ride or whether they have lights at night.

It's funny you mention this. (apropos your bikes) I read and re-read Grant Petersen's "Just Ride" during the past month, and his essay #23 , "Helmets aren't all they're cracked up to be", resonated with me. I grew-up during the later-1950s and 1960s, riding a bicycle in suburban Westchester County (NY) -- no helmet, no sidewalks, no falls or injuries (no "helicopter" parents, either). So, the bicycle cap I'd ordered from Walz arrived in today's mail, and I made my first foray sans helmet this afternoon. It felt wonderful, if not without some trepidation. I was certainly no less aware of myself and my surroundings, as with helmet. Throughout my ride I kept thinking about that essay, and trying to remember the term he used to describe more "reckless" behavior with helmet wearers; couldn't recall it, but a quick look in his book did the trick: risk compensation (interesting discussion about it, in Wikipedia). I also stop where I'm supposed to, signal my intentions, lights, reflectors, etc.

What's important is that you found a way to feel superior to someone. :thumb:

Yes, I did. At least I was thinking of other people's safety rather than the selfish guy in the helmet who blew through the lights. I ride far more safely than 95% of the cyclists I see on the road. I put it down to good habits I learned doing the Uk's cycling proficiency test in the 1970s.

accidents are called accidents because they are accidents.

im not preaching to you about wearing helmets but sometimes unforeseen things happen. I hope your lucky enough to avoid those.

and kudos to you for obeying the rules of the road.

coolness should always trump common sense and safety.:thumb:

:popcorn

The biggest risk in life is simply getting out of bed in the morning. You can dig up all of the stats you want about stuff like this, but in reality, life is a crap-shoot. Period. Some people take the "fearful/paranoid" route and surround themselves in so-called "safety". I myself, understand the risks and take my own chances. To each his own. While my own safety is my concern, I will NEVER compromise the safety of others.

not a very intelligent post. sorry

when driving a car or even being a passenger, do you wear your seatbelt? Its a very easy thing to do increases your chances of surviving a crash. wearing a helmet is the same thing.

Are there people in your life that depend on you such as a spouse or children? By not at least trying to protect yourself you are putting them at risk of having to go through life without their dad.

You are allowed to get angry at me for saying that. It is supposed to get your blood up.

From a safety perspective I agree that wearing a seatbelt and wearing a helmet are similar....they are different legally where I live; there's no bike helmet law, but you have to wear a seat belt by law. I have no dependents and I choose not to wear a helmet because the only person I'm endangering is myself. I choose to strictly follow the rules of the road because I believe its the best way to avoid accidents that would involve others.

Well that's a bit of a double edged sword isn't it? By cycling one is actually doing the good deed for the family by trying to stay healthy and mobile for as long as possible (cycling combined with healthy lifestyle choices does better one's chances for this happening).

Now with the the whole "protect yourself"- concept we need to consider the dangers of cycling. It actually depends a lot on where one lives, but for example in Europe cycling cannot be considered statistically dangerous enough to warrant helmet use. In the US the situation is a bit more complicated, but a recent study shows that about 40% of all deaths by cyclists in the US are because of rear endings. In these accidents a helmet saving one's life is extremely suspect.

Also what needs to be considered is the type of cycling one does. Utility cycling very rarely is dangerous enough to warrant helmet use. This of course depends on the person and riding style, but in general.
Mountain biking without a helmet is just asking for trouble as are certain types of road cycling. So agressive recreational cycling can be considered dangerous enough to warrant helmets or other protection like body armor etc.
Also the helmets you also seem to be advocating for everyday riding are the same ones used in pro road racing. But the risks are on massively different scales. Still the exact same safety equipment. If I were to use a really bad analogy I would say that was like going to a nascar race with the normal street car safety devices like a three point seatbelt and one airbag, no rollcages or anything. We both know that is not a good idea.

So the same safety equipment is used for very low risk activity on the same risk level as walking and lower in fact than doing home maintenance (utility cycling) and
Very high risk cycling with extreme speeds and situations (pro road racing, pro XC racing, Pro triathlons, pro track racing etc)
Does not seem very logical to me.

But I know what you are going to say. A helmet will help if your head strikes the ground or any other object. But would it not help in every other activity where the head is at risk? Like walking, running, climbing trees (if anyone got any funny ideas out of this, NEVER put a helmet on your kid when they are climbing something, that is extremely irresponsible and dangerous) or driving. And wearing a helmet while driving would lessen head trauma radically irrespective of seatbelts and airbags. When considering statistics, cycling is not very special in terms of head trauma when compared to other activities.
I know the the one statistic is coming where cycling is number one in head trauma in SPORTS. We are talking about cycling in general here. Sports is different and in sports it's usually smart to use the safety gear available.
Like it's smart to have a rollcaged car with five point seatbelts etc when driving nascar.
In general utility cycling isn't any more dangerous than any other activity one could participate in. Still cycling is the only one where people are blaming people for not wearing a helmet. Strange really.

I'll continue to wear one, or not wear one depending on the conditions and the type of riding I'm going to do.

I started wearing a helmet this year (still figuring out why) I do not ride any different with or without a helmet. I believe those seen running lights, cycling up the inside of trucks or buses would do the same helmet or not. I believe the comment is way off track.

In before the move to the "Helmet Thread"

From Helmets

If helmets provide so much protection, why is that? Statistically the same in NL & US. Shouldn't the US rate be much lower?

In Amsterdam, arguably the bicycling capital of the world, the wearing of helmets is almost non existent.

Not necessarily. What those figures doesn't show is the type of cycling that went on before the crash. In the US, apart from Freds, it seems only superserious cyclists and mountainbikers wear helmets, whereas in the Netherlands, (and much more in Denmark), a wider array of cyclists wear them. I think the US is up there with Netherlands because the people wearing helmets in the US drive much more aggressively (mountainbiking, road cycling (i.e. training on "road bikes") etc.). In other words, it is not an argument against wearing helmets, as you can't tell from those figures what kind of cycling took place before the crash/accident.

[Edit: And you would need to compare the severity of head injury between the same sort of cycling, grouped in people with vs without helmets /end edit]

Slightly off-topic, perhaps:

I can't remember if it was in this thread, but someone said that a helmet doesn't protect you if you are rear ended. That is a weird claim, considering the back of your head is really, really likely to hit something if you are rear-ended. The latest I have seen was that video posted here, where a motorcyclist rear ends a cyclist. In the slow motion portion of the video, follow the cyclist's head, and see it smash down on the asphalt. Now, imagine that without a helmet. He would have been seriously injured had he not worn a helmet. The same goes with a car rear-ending you, only you will propably hit your head on the car and not on the asphalt.

My thought exactly. I will never understand the need, that some adults have, to publicly justify one's personal choices--especially when doing so involves putting other people down.

IMO there are really very few accidents. It is mainly inattention and being situationally unaware that results in "accidents". A driver that runs into the back of a cyclist while texting is NOT and accident.

Also a wider range of cyclists wear helmets in denmark and netherlands? Well if you mean by that that a huge majority of cyclists don't wear helmets then yes, I guess that can be claimed when looking at the percentages of actual helmet wearing. But all of that is pretty much irrelevant since no one does wear one.
And as I pointed out earlier, the need for a helmet is largely dependent on the type of cycling. The type commonly done in netherlands, denmark, finland, and rest of europe does not require a helmet while niche hobby cycling is of course a very different topic.
Also a reason why helmets should never be mandated since only a minority of cyclists actually need them. A law which would address this would be overly casuistic and impossible to enforce since it would be the responsibility of the state to actually prove the cyclist is a hobbyist doing hobby stuff and not just going from A to B

I'm sure a helmet will prove very lifesaving when you enter a car through the windshield and sustain catastrophic mass trauma. In the cases I pointed out a cyclist is likely to die be it from the head injury or a number of other massive injuries. But funnily enough I remember reading somewhere that if a cyclist dies of catastrophic injuries the head trauma is still labeled as the cause of death.
That motorcycle was a one off, since mostly rear endings are performed by actual cars or larger vehicles. It is a very lucky cyclist who just flies over the rear ending car.

Wow... just wow @ people arguing against helmets as some sort of death prevention device.

It's the same pathetic strawman argument that insists helmets are unnecessary because they're not mystical artifacts that guarantees protection against paralysis, death, etc. People wear helmets because the VAST MAJORITY of head-related accidents are not fatal but can lead to various complications if serious enough. A good helmet provides some insurance against that possibility.

Fall on your helmeted head in the park? Dust yourself off and keep riding. Fall on your unprotected head in the park? Go back home, clean the wound, and nurse a raging headache a few hours later.

Yes it is a choice, but somehow a few of the anti-helmet people have some sick need to spread their 'knowledge' to everyone else. The TC's humble attitude says it all. I'm sure you'd make a great Jehovah's Witness.

.

Yesterday while out on a normal 20 mile loop that in part takes me through a residential area I saw a yard sale with a bicycle. I stopped just to take a peak. As I walked down the driveway towards the garage there was a pop-up shelter that had been erected for shade. As I walked under the pop-up.... at the very second a lady shouted "watch out for your head".... my bicycle helmet hit the sharp edge she was warning me about.

Because there was children present... I tried to use my superhero-voice when I replied to the lady that shouted the warning: "Don't worry... I am wearing a helmet".

Just sayin... you never know when you're going to need your helmet.... you know just to be sure. I am wearing mine now here in the living room because I have both the TV and laptop on which I am sure causes a distraction.

Sounds like a recommendation that careless dumbasses, a$$holes, and doofuses (cyclist or not) should wear a helmet at all times.

Just to be safe! I'd include people who have already experienced head trauma injuries.... who now have reduced verbal skills and can't select polite nouns.

That's funny because my helmet has saved me from bumping into things like that a few times on foot but never in a bike crash. I almost always buy helmets with visors so my range of visibility upwards is compromised. But a baseball cap would have the same effect but without the extra protection.

It could be related to the differences in infrastructure, and that their cycling speeds are so much lower along with shorter distances traveled.

In the USA a large portion of the serious head injuries suffered by cyclists are due to auto-bike collisions. Perhaps that is less likely in NL.

That reasoning makes less sense with the higher injury rate in Minnesota however.

Mind if I join you? :popcorn

But the real question is whether I should use WD40 to lubricate my helmet, or use a helmet specific brand?

I wear a helmet for snowboarding and inline skating but not for cross country skiing.........used to be a volly firefighter/EMT and seen a few caved in skulls; some of them might have been preventable if she had worn her shoulder belt before rolling, if he hadn't been thrown through the back window when he went into the river, etc. I never thought too much of the people that I was cleaning up, except silently giving them respect and wondering who was waiting for them.

Wearing my helmet might look a little goofy, but I wear it because of the possibility of moments that are out of my control.

Yeaaahh... I actually would not wear a helmet in a park...

Or did you mean with a bicycle? Because the risk for head injury is about the same... But I guess you are one of the few people who wear a helmet while you are in the park regardless whether you have a bike with you or not. Now that is commitment.

You just pulled that strawman thing out of your backside didn't you? I have not noticed such strawmen in this thread. I'll adress it nonetheless.
If it does not prevent death there is no reason for helmet fanatics to require it for everybody. Or at least not any more than requiring knee pads for everyone. If it does there would be reason for it to be worn, IF cycling was inherently dangerous. It isn't though. And even though helmets do help with minor injuries they don't seem to be very effective against high velocity impacts and offer no protection against rotational injuries (which cause the most serious brain injuries).

And umm... The sick need is more on the side of the people who yell at you on the street that you should put a helmet on. Or the people who blame a cyclist in an accident if he/she didn't have a helmet on.

That not many Dutch people wear helmets does not equal zero helmet wearers. And you'll find that a lot of people in Denmark wear helmets, and that the majority of kids wear one.
But you're missing the point: My point is that the helmet wearers in the US seem to be mostly the high-risk cyclists, whereas in the Netherlands and, where there is a lot more helmet wearers: Denmark, the type of rider wearing a helmet is not solely people engaging in high-risk cycling (mountain biking etc.).


You seem to have the misperception that everyone in Denmark (and the Netherlands) only drive uprights and solely a few, easy strolling kilometers on an empty bicycle lane.


That will obviously vary according to state and country. Nothing like sweeping generalisations and strawmanning to make a dumb point. If you look at that video of the motorcyclist hitting the two cyclists, where the aft cyclist gets hit the most and slams his head wearing a helmet down on the asphalt, there is NOT any "catastrophic mass trauma", unless you count road rash and a few bruises as such. Yet, if he hadn't worn a helmet he would either have had a serious head injury if not died from it.

I am personally not worried about going through a windscreen. I am worried about hitting my head on some of the metal, or even worse: On some of the trusses surrounding the windshield and at the aft end of the bonnet.

As for riding in a city with many, many people riding bicycles, there is a lot of hard stuff you can hit your head on, besides the asphalt. Metal signs, trash cans, bicycle holders, and other cyclists.

Again with the strawman. I am not saying that the motorcycle accident is how every damn accident happens. I am saying that in that instance, he would have seriously been hurt without a helmet, and that with a car, you will propably not fly over it, but rather hit the back of the head on the car, unless you know some trick to turn around midair and use your arms as bumpers. The point I was making was that the notion that a helmet is useless when getting rear ended, was very wrong. Take a look at what his body and head does, and you will notice that his head would be one of the first thing to hit a car after the bonnet pushes the bike forward.

I DO wear a helmet, AND I'm not the a$$hole cyclist.

I DO wear a helmet...it's a personal choice...AND I have front and rear lights and follow the rules of the road, stopping at red lights, signaling and taking the lane firmly etc.
It annoys me that I see so many other cyclists on my urban commute that faithfully wear their helmets and then proceed to ride so dangerously, going through red lights
and cycling up on the inside of trucks and buses. People seem to equate helmets with personal safety rather than how they ride or whether they have lights at night.

See what I did? I changed two words and it still sounds sanctimonious. Mark my words: "It's not reasoning that will mute your anti-helmet argument, it's a closed-head injury that will have the last word."

...Ooo, there's that bright, warm sense of self-righteousness I was shooting for! Aahhh...

I'm not getting your point. According to one accident where someone hit his head we should all use helmets? (now that was a strawman! look it up man)

No but on the actually good point where a city is full of hard stuff.
So what? The world is full of hard stuff but we don't use helmets for everything. Why should cycling be an exception? And I mean you are at risk as a pedestrian for getting hit by a bicycle or a car or worse. Or you might just slip and hit your head that way. Same risks for TBA as cycling but none of the helmet fanaticism.

Drunk people should be mandated to use helmets. That would crash the TBA numbers.