closetbiker

Speculation, but this isn't really the helmet debate thread.

I suppose the title of the thread asks a question and everybody's going to have a different answer, but as to a real debate, does this thread want to enter that realm? Maybe it does.

Spinninngrinnin

All of you fearless, indestructable riders...you will learn the "hard" way...the first time you are in an accident w/o a helmet may well be your last...spoken from and encounter with a speed disparity of 40 mph, and a weight bias that definately favored the vehicle that hit me. This was before helmets were worn by any except Tour De France riders. 50 yards in the air before first "bounce" off pavement. I was simply very fortunate that other parts of my body took the blow first. Yes, show your strength of opinion and attitude till your head is opened up. True, it's mostly in a mixed-vehicle type situation where greater degrees of injury occur, but even on a velodrome they wear helmets.

closetbiker

Yes. Nothing is so full of risk as riding a bicycle. My God. How can people even consider doing such a thing?

Leo H.

I hope you ride a recumbent, because seeing your helmet bashing here in this forum, along with the A/S thread you wallow in, leads me to think you just troll this website looking for helmet threads, no matter how related and stick yer puss in it.

I guess some people ride bikes and others while away the hours talking about bikes...or bike topics.

Leo H.
Sun Valley, NV

LWB_guy

". . .Yes, show your strength of opinion and attitude till your head is opened up. . . ."

Touche!

closetbiker

Love you too sweety!

If it wasn't for posts like yours, mine wouldn't look so good.

yakmurph

Recumbent bikes do not need helmets.
Heads, human heads that is, do.

Spinninngrinnin

You may have an incredible cycling skillset...the moron that hits you (be they a vehicle driver or even another cyclist) dumps all your skills in the trash.

Emmitt G

hold a egg wast high....the egg is your head...now drop it.....anything more to say...........the yellow is brain.

closetbiker

vik 

A helmet is as essential on a bent as it is for any other bike...

https://thelazyrandonneur.blogspot.co...-when-you.html

LWB_guy

Yesterday, I fell off my recumbent bicycle for the second time since I started riding it. This accident did not involve a motor vehicle.

For the second time, only my thigh and my hand were injured. Luckily, only my skin. For the second time, a helmet would not have prevented either injury.

Again, I think that if I had had an accident in which I had been struck by a motor vehicle, a helmet would not have made any difference whatsoever. I simply would have been seriously maimed or killed or permanently crippled -- in my opinion. My 'bent bicycle seat is 24 inches above the pavement. After riding my recumbent bicycle for three years, I still do not own a helmet. This is mainly due to the fact that I have not yet found a helmet that fits my head.

I should probably mention that I still am in the habit of turning on my two twenty-yellow-flashing LED battery-powered lights, one facing front, one facing rear, when riding on heavily trafficked roads and that I do not ride my bike after dark. For the record, I also wear a yellow reflective vest while riding. (If I had a bicycle helmet, I would probably adorn it with yellow-flashing LED's too.)

I also don't think it would be wise to speculate on a potential bicycle-motor-vehicle collision based on my falling off a bicycle onto the road, other than to say that I'm glad the motorist saw me fall off and and stopped so as to avoid running me over.

JanMM

Therefore, a helmet is of no value to a recumbent rider**********

Rohan

Closetbiker wrote: "I think many riders realize a bicycle helmet can help with some superficial injuries, but not as many realize they have not as great a record at preventing more serious injuries. It is because of a bicycle helmet relatively fragile design and the impact forces that cause serious injury, which not only far exceeds a bicycle helmets limits, but impact a cyclists body under the helmet, that leads to these injuries."

Deffinition: Efficacy: In a healthcare context, efficacy indicates the capacity for beneficial change (or therapeutic effect) of a given intervention.

Please, if you have any real studies of how much a helmet does not help, please share them. As of yet I can not find any creditable source in which bicycle helmets are shown NOT to reduce risk of head injury when worn.

So, please share your sources(not hearsay and anecdotal stories) showing that bicycle helmets do not reduce the risk of becoming permanently brain damaged.

I would love to see a picture of your recumbent also, as this thread deals directly with recumbent bikes.

closetbiker

If you want to head over to A&S, there's a thread that's been running for several years that provides these sources.

If you are truly interested, these sources don't take much searching to find. A simple look in wikipedia under bicycle helmet can provide all kinds of sources. Google can provide the same.

I entered this thread because I was truly interested in what led to Johns collision. John and I have an extensive history of debating on the helmet thread in A&S, and he had previously described his collision, but as I remembered it, it was different than what he described here.

I don't ride a recumbent, but have thought of buying one a few times. I've looked on in this section from time to time, but my real concern was that of Johns collision so a similar collision may be avoided in the future.

Of course this thread invited a helmet debate, the title alone invites it, but I've tried to keep any in depth discussion to a minimum. I asked questions as to why some think the way they do. I guess some people don't like to be asked why they think as they do, but I think we can learn from it.

Emmitt G

WOW..good point....remember...if your paddling 15 mph and the bike stops by hitting something...Your still moving at 15 mph...

Rohan

"No randomized controlled trials have been done on the subject."

So, until somebody puts together a scientific study, it is ALL opinion.

I still say that governments(both state, local and federal) need to stay the hell out of the business of making mandatory laws, and I will still wear one because it is the most convenient and least irritating place to put a mirror on an USS recumbent. I really do not like things hanging off of my glasses.

JanMM

A helmet visor is a great place to mount a mirror.

Sayre Kulp 

I don't wish to debate, simply stating my opinion:

Why would you not wear a helmet? Despite the fact that over a number of wrecks, I have never had a wreck on either my recumbent trike or DF that resulted in a potential head injury, I still wear a helmet, even to go a few blocks to the grocery store. The way I see it, just because I've been fortunate so far, there are no guarantees in life. And regardless of the fact that a head injury is highly unlikely on a bent, I figure "why chance it?" and I afford my noggin all the protection I can. As far as I'm concerned, that's just good policy, seeing as how you can't really live without your brain.

closetbiker

... for the same reasons that you don't wear one when not on a bike.

Sayre Kulp 

OK - not trying to be argumentative, but what are the reasons then? Don't see the need to wear one? Don't care? Don't want helmet hair?

closetbiker

not being argumentative either, so perhaps to help you understand, consider when you don't wear a helmet (say, around the house, going for a walk, driving, etc).

Assuming you don't, why don't you wear a helmet at these times?

Sayre Kulp 

Well, when I'm just walking around the house or even around the neighborhood, I wouldn't wear a helmet because my head isn't in any particular danger of injury. Now when I'm on a motorbike or ATV, I wear a helmet, because there is an increased potential for a head injury. Likewise when I'm welding I wear a mask/goggles or use an oven mitt when handling a tray from the oven. As far as I'm concerned, the equipment is there to protect what's important to you JUST IN CASE something would happen, and it is appropriate to wear when engaging in an activity that has that particular risk associated with it.

It's just like saying "well, the odds of my house catching on fire are slim to none." Yeah, but I still carry home-owner's insurance in case it does. I do so because my home is valuable to me and losing the use of my house would be hard to deal with. (Kinda like how I value my cerebellum for the same reasons.)

closetbiker

and there are people who do not wear helmets because they feel they are running the same risks as when they are just walking around the house or even around the neighborhood.

They don't wear a helmet because because their heads aren't in any particular danger of injury (at least not in any particular elevated danger of injury).

Six jours

I started riding and racing in the days before helmets -- aside from leather hairnets -- existed. It was considered a safe sport, with critical and/or fatal injuries relatively rare.

For some reason the same sport is now considered quite dangerous, even though critical and/or fatal injuries are still relatively rare.

I personally don't wear a helmet much anymore. I did during my racing years that coincided with mandatory-helmet-while-racing years, and for several years after I retired from racing, but when I looked up the statistics for cycling deaths, and factored in that, during decades of riding and racing -- and dozens of crashes -- I'd never actually struck my head or helmet, I realized that my risk of head injury is so low as to not be worth worrying about. And yes, I realize that there is some remote possibility that a helmet could someday save my life. But I realize that possibility exists during nearly every moment of my life. As Closetbiker is attempting to point out, it comes down to risk assessment. Few of us wear helmets while walking, or showering, or sleeping, because we don't perceive any significant risk -- even though people have died from head injuries in all of those scenarios.

As far as I am concerned, if an individual feels his risk warrants the use of protective gear, then he should wear it. And the individual who feels the risk does not warrant that gear? He should be free to forgo it -- and his decisions should be respected as those of a free adult.