Originally Posted by
merider1
I don't look down on those who don't wear them.
I'm glad to see you've softened somewhat since you wrote this a couple of weeks ago: "I do, again IMO, think not wearing one is dumb. Sorry...it's like smoking. I see someone smoking and I think, "dumbass.""
As has been posted over and over in here, common sense should prevail and this thread should have ended pages ago. But there are some (who may be trolls or not) who are trying, unsuccessfully IMO, to go against common sense and persuade others to do the same.
Simple: Head hits pavement (regardless of how or why, by car or pothole, clipped in or not...) sans helmet and the head will be injured more than if a helmet was on at the time of impact and there to protect the skull - which is the only thing the helmet is for (God knows it isn't for fashion).
Shall we make a list of all the ways in which "common sense" has been invalidated throughout history?
I think everyone agrees that a helmet will protect our heads in some circumstances. This is completely intuitive and is also true. If you have a crash where your head resembles a dead weight striking an anvil, then I'm absolutely certain you would be better off with the helmet.
When I started cycling I believed that it was dangerous and that wearing a helmet made it much safer... riders who did not wear helmets were "dumbasses"... and I wouldn't be caught dead without one. The only reason I've changed my mind is because the evidence does not support the belief that helmets make us safer. I still wear a helmet most of the time, but also enjoy riding without one... especially if I'm just cruising around town doing errands, etc. And I don't think people who ride without ones are idiots.
The issue here is that the *percieved* effectiveness of helmets is much greater than their actual effectiveness at keeping us from getting killed. The reason that I focus on fatalities is because lesser injuries are not tracked, so there aren't any statistics for them. Based on population studies that compare fatality rates both before and after MHLs, there doesn't seem to be any benefit at all... just as many deaths as before. Even though I'm sure helmets help prevent deaths from certain types of impacts, either these instances are rare, or helmets have some negative effect that counterbalances their positive ones... most likely it is a combination of the two.
But cycling isn't as dangerous anyway as much of the perceptions would lead us to believe. Even in the US which has a relatively high fatality rate, it is estimated at only about 5 per 1 million kilometers (62 million miles), or 1 per 12 million miles. At the healthy rate of 5,000 miles per year, your risk of getting killed in any given year is 1 in 2,400. If you are an experienced cyclist, and don't take unnecessary risks then your odds should be considerably better than this.