Originally Posted by
Old Town
I'm new to this forum but not new to cycling. Have raced bikes (long ago) and used them as transport all of my life - still do. (I'm 52) As a young person I was a serious road and track runner. Once ran a 4:06 mile and could stay well under 5 minutes a mile for distances under 10 miles. Best 5K time of 13:37. That equates to a speed of 12 to 15 mph. During the 70s I ran with the BAA in Boston, Mass. and competed with guys faster than me. Would anyone really suggest an elite runner wear a helmet because he travels at average bike speeds? I didn't think so. I have never worn a helmet cycling and never will. And I can't run 15 mph anymore but I can roll that fast. Funny world we live in.
Old Town
There is a big difference between the mechanics of a bicyle fall and with that of a runner. Think of the simple, oops I can't get my feet out of th clips fall to the side....this results in a sidesways fall at about 11-13 mph impact at the head. another example is the over the handle bars fall (hit a curb, get your fender caught in the front wheel (me), etc)
You don't see runners falling in the same manner as cyclists, so helmet usage comparison is an apples/oranges thing.
In the same arena of apples/oranges comparison is runner/walker fatalities in car crashes vs cyclist fatalities. It is too simplistic to state walkers/runners have a higher fatality rate in car crashes than cyclists, and make any conclusion like that means walkers/runners should wear helmets.
there simply is not enough information. To make any conclusion you would need to look at the differences in the injury pattern for cars hitting walkers/runners vs cyclists, and other factors like average age/health of a pedestrian, circumstances of the accident (night, day, jaywalking.etc)
This is part of the overall problem with trying to come to any definitive conclusions about the helmet subject....there are lies, damn lies and statistics and because of that the discussion will continue for a long time