And that was exactly my point. Anything and everything can be up to scrutiny, even cycling. If a large enough group of people and politicians decide that cycling on public streets is a hazard to themselves and others around them then lets take that right from the cyclists and ban them to just bike paths. Nonsense you scream? Well that's what smokers thought when they heard 28 years ago that there might come a time when they can't smoke in public buildings in California.

And whoever thought just 3 years ago we wouldn't be able to buy a large soft drink anymore?

It is hard to figure-out where to draw the line. But "complete freedom" doesn't seem reasonable if other people are forced to bear the costs of them for you (because their "freedom" is being taken away). Note that I'm not arguing that people should be forced to wear helmets (no one in this here is arguing for mandatory helmet laws).

But the "my right to freedom" argument is dopey if there is a (non-trivial) cost to others. People need to make another argument.

I have no idea why you think smoker's rights are more valuable than no-smoker's rights. It's bizarre that public smoking was ever socially acceptable because it's fundamentally rude and immediately impinges on the rights of others.

I'd largely agree with you. The problem is whether we can measure how much cost is being born by each party. In the case of bicycle helmets it's anything but clear that they reduce the costs to society of medical care:

1. Bicycle helmets are explicitly not designed to reduce traumatic brain inury: this is where the heavy, long-term costs exist.
2. The problem of TBI in bicycling, as in walking is negligeable compared to that incurred through automobile over-use in N.America
3. Widespread helmet use appears to correlate with public perceptions of cycling as risky, which then might be argued to link to a decrease in cycling levels and a reduction of healthy exercise: thus causing an even greater public cost

In short, bicycle induced head injury is not a big cost to society and even if it were there is no reasonably demonstrated solution to the problem. Certainly not through current helmet designs.

Agreed, and I'll take it one step further. It's been found that mandatory helmet laws actually increase societal health costs.

I do take some slight issue with this:

3. I don't know that widespread, voluntary helmet use outside MHL territories drives down ridership. NYC is in the USA where there is that unreasonably fear-driven notion that you need a helmet to be riding a bike safely. Yet they've seen increases in ridership. Cycling in general is increasing in spite of USA fear culture. And while fear-culture might keep people off bikes, helmets are not the only or main cause of that -- contributory, certainly, maybe even significantly, but far from the biggest reason.

If it was found that current attitudes regarding helmets are keeping many away from cycling, that would be a bigger cost -- as you say, cycling is generally safe, head injury due to cycling crashes are not a huge cost. But regular cycling even at current meager participation provides arguably more financial benefit in the form of a general health dividend than payouts for crashes. Not to mention, energy savings, cleaner air, etc.

I've asked for this before and not got an answer: does voluntary but heavily encouraged helmet use have any measurable effect on ridership?

We have studies regarding places where MHLs are in effect and because ridership drops off when a MHL is introduced, I staunchly oppose them. But that has very little to do with voluntary helmet use/ridership statistics, especially since most MHL studies take place in other countries, other cultures.

I think you misunderstood me. I was comparing smoking in public places over 28 years ago was acceptable and that smokers would have never thought they wouldn't be able to do that as some point in the future. The same thing could, though doubtful but that's what the smokers thought too, but as an example, cyclists could be banned from streets due to safety issues to us and the general public. And the majority of people in America I know would stand behind such a ban on cyclists mostly because they have a negative opinion about us due to our behavior while riding on the streets. In real life that probably won't happen due to all the green preaching, but it could. Anyway just making a point even if it is absurd, so you can see it from a different prospective.

I agree smoking should be banned from some public places, but not all public places like bars where only adults are allowed, and thus as an adult you have the right not to go into an establishment that allows that, and places of living like condo's, apartments, or houses whether owned or rented. Now if the owner of a rental puts a non-smoking clause in a lease agreement or else will be charged the security deposit to fix the damage caused by smoking then that's fine, that's a contract between one private party to another to which it has to be agreed upon, but for any form of government to step in an do that is not right. The only way the government can force that right on us is to make smoking and buying tobacco products of any kind illegal altogether...which I wouldn't be surprise if it got to that, which I'm sure would lead us to prohibition type of behavior we had back when they tried that with alcohol.

And I don't think smokers rights are more valuable then non-smokers, however we both have rights, and since we both have rights then there should be enough freedom for a smoker to go into a bar or restaurant that only caters to adults but allows smoking to have that right to do just that, and our rights are that we don't have to go into that bar or restaurant that caters to smokers. That's plain and simple. It's the same reason I don't think we should be forced to wear bicycle helmets unless your under 18, it should be left as a choice for an adult to make an adult decision, but I feel the same way with seat belts. I don't feel this way because I don't wear helmets or a seat belt because I do both, but as an adult that is my decision to make not the government's.

I hope you understand, but indications from your post are that you don't. And that's ok, it's your opinion just as all the above is my opinion.

You're right. I can't prove it and it hasn't been demonstrated. I didn't mean to state that bike helmets are the ONLY cause of misplaced fearfulness about cycling. I do suspect they're a very important part of it though. Cause of/response to/reflexive amplification of fear? Who knows. But ask yourself this, if walking helmets suddenly started being promoted to the same levels as cycling helmets, what would be the likely effect?

More people driving without helmets...?

Walking is fundamentally different than bicycles. Human machine is designed to walk, sometimes even run. No mechanical device to increase speed; low enough speeds to usually avoid crashes.

I get where you're coming from, but just like studies about motorcycle helmets or skateboard helmets don't have equivalent relevance when compared to bicycle helmets; I'm not going to buy an argument based on "walking helmets." (...I think they're more popularly called "hats".)

Except that bicycle helmets are designed to provide their optimal protection from a falling height similar to what would be experienced if you toppled off your bicycle sideways onto a kerb stone. Bicycle helmets, instead of providing protection from the new type of accident made available by the "mechanical device to increase speed" a.k.a. bicycle, are actually nearly ideal for walkers. Possibly less use for runners.

If you want a device to protect the head at speed it does exist: it's a motorcycle helmet.

I foresee a vivid new future, of walking stores, selling walking helmets, gloves, shoes, hydration packs.

Don't forget the Spandex, don't forget the Spandex; and shaved legs!

Bicycle helmets are tested and certified based on the drop test you mention; they are designed to pass that test. They may very well provide protection outside some very limited test -- the study abstract Skye linked to previously indicated that skate helmets, tested very much the same way, actually mitigate angular forces as well. Not to mention companies like POC with their MIPS system, designed specifically to deal with rotational forces.

Cycling is basically a safe sport, why should helmet mfgs design helmets for the nth percentile of worst bike crashes, where TBI becomes relevant?

There's also no figures out there regarding the efficacy of helmets in mitigating damage where less than serious injury is concerned. Which make up the bulk of bike crashes.

Motorcycle helmet is overkill; bike helmets are fine for bicycle riding.

You've seen those new walking balance sticks, yes? Marketed as "trekking poles"? While there's no walking helmets just yet, there are indeed walking shoes, and I bet there's some walking website out there that could direct you to decent walking gloves and hydration packs... It actually surprises me there's no walking helmet being marketed yet, especially for that "Extreme Walking" niche...

Not all that different. Bicycling on city streets and walking on the adjoining sidewalks/crosswalks are both very safe activities when done in the absence of motor vehicles. Sure, there are some exceptions, but the dominant cause of fatalities and serious injuries for both activities is that sometimes the rider or pedestrian has a collision with a vehicle. In that case the impact speeds and forces are pretty similar and would call for similar types of protective gear, if any.

Trekking poles are marketed as improving efficiency rather than primarily for safety. But apparently some schools in Japan require students walking to school to wear helmets, so I presume there are appropriate walking helmets marketed there:
http://www.vehicularcyclist.com/jpeds.html
A Danish insurance group is promoting walking helmets: http://www.trendhunter.com/trends/sc...alking-helmets
and there are crawling/walking helmets for toddlers: http://www.trendhunter.com/trends/fa...udguard-helmet

Erm... because you don't have a right to go into someone else's house and tell them not to smoke, so why should you to their business? I'm OK with actual public smoking bans, but in reality we see not public smoking bans, but bans on smoking in private establishments. My house, my rules. You don't like it? Door is that way.

The indirect, fairly trivial "cost" is far outweighed by a person's right to free choice. You don't have an inherent right to cheap services. People do have an inherent right to free choice. That's a big difference. Unless their choice is pretty directly harming you or infringing on your rights, you don't get a say. This is a pseudo-conundrum only really created out of playing fast and loose with the word "right".

Again, you're talking serious injury. In such cases a helmet is effectively useless, or it won't be only TBI which causes a fatality. It's not that pedestrians should be wearing bicycle helmets in such cases as much as cyclists might as well not be wearing one.

But such situations are exceedingly rare.

It's the 85% of cycling crashes which don't involve a vehicle, don't involve serious injury, where helmets might be making a difference. But maybe not. We don't really know. Those who wear helmets think they do... so do those who don't.

In less than serious injuries which don't involve a vehicle, I'd wager your average pedestrian suffers less damage than your average cyclist. Also that the rates of light to moderate injury are far more for bicycle crashes when compared to pedestrian... crashes? mishaps? unfortunate events?

Any recommendation on what helmet I should get? I want to get a helmet that meets all or most or the hardest certification to obtain. I prefer my Safety while commuting to work. Also, I'm planning to have a helmet light on it.

Don't want to break the bank.

Thanks!

I can sit out on the bay trail here and watch one commuter come by with helmet, lights, fenders, bell, callin out "On your left", and then see a guy in tight jeans on a fixed gear, hair blowing, earpods and a cigarette hanging from his mouth... I didn't see anyones freedoms being surpressed.

If there were agreement on that ('helmets are effectively useless' in preventing serious injury) then we wouldn't be having this extended discussion and no one would be proclaiming that one must wear a helmet on every bike ride. If we were only concerned with non-serious cuts and scrapes then knee and elbow pads would be more effective safety measures. Presumably the reason that people tout the need for helmets rather than protection for other, more often injured, parts of the body is because serious injuries of the head can be so life-altering (or ending).

I realize that you are not (or at least no longer) making such claims about the need for helmets. But those who do think that helmets should be worn by cyclists on all rides as protection against serious head injuries should also want the same protection for pedestrians since the risks are similar.

Sure, they should want the same protection as pedestrians that they wear as a cyclist... but it's just silly to think of wearing a helmet while walking. And I know that's exactly how it's phrased here: well, if it's silly to wear a helmet for a safe thing like walking, it's silly to wear one on a bike for the same reason.

Which is all well and good, but ya'll making the argument know full well that the type of accidents where it's silly to to think a helmet will protect on a bike also wouldn't protect a pedestrian. It's not a good faith comparison

However (my assumption/belief...): since the majority of crashes which involve head injury are not serious, since rate of non-serious head injury and degree of injury in the result of some mishap is lower with pedestrians than cyclists, the pedestrian/bike comparison is just not valid. Cyclists are more apt than pedestrians to be in a position where a helmet might mitigate less than serious injury. <-- no data to back this up, just assumptions and hunch; prove me wrong with actual figures, please.

You know perfectly well that such figures aren't available, because there is little data on trivial injuries and anyway, most won't have been recorded because of their triviality. If you want to justify your assumptions, it's your job to find the information that would do so.

When I was hit by a car a few months ago (previously reported in here - still grieving for the vintage Raleigh) one of my more trivial injuries was a bump on the head. Would a helmet have mitigated that? Maybe, but really, it didn't matter. The fact that I wasn't wearing one made no difference to the outcome. Shoulder pads would have been much more useful. And no, I don't plan on buying any of those, either.

Other's may point out how lazy I am with research -- I'm genuinely interested if there's data out there to challenge my perhaps incorrect beliefs and would welcome someone telling me I'm wrong. Give me a reason to readjust my worldview; it's happened before, right in this very thread.

The whole reason I put such a disclaimer out there, at the beginning and end, is to let people know that it's only my personal view, nothing backed up with hard figures. Most people posting here don't do that, they present their beliefs as facts; they are way too loose with language when it comes to their own position, while busting on the same thing regarding statements of those who disagree with them.

Maybe there's not studies out there with hard figures, OK, fine, I can accept that -- then challenge my statement. Is there anyone out there who thinks that pedestrians who suffer some mishap while walking will be injured at a higher (or even, or insignificantly less) rate or severity, compared with a rider who crashes their bike? Why?

Your second paragraph is useless, anecdotal, and therefore dismiss-able. You're probably lucky you weren't wearing a helmet -- might have led to DAI, or if the rotational force transmitted and aggravated by helmet use was enough, could very well have snapped your neck right on the spot!

Glad you're OK; sorry to hear about your Raleigh.

You are missing the bottom line about the rationale behind the "ardent helmet people's" promotion/proselytization for the use of bicycle helmets for all cycling activity. For these "helmet people", data about head injuries and the risk involved with cycling and/or data about the actual effect of helmet use is seldom, if ever cited as a reason. They believe there is a significant risk, that might be reduced by helmet use, and THAT belief is enough. Bicycling risk data is irrelevant in this argument, reduction of risk is irrelevant, comparison with risk data from other activities (such as walking or showering or roofing or anything else) is also irrelevant.

The "helmet people" have focused on bicycling activities; data and/or results are irrelevant, belief in "doing the right thing" trumps both data and rationale thought in this process.

All I'm saying is that when talking to people like that, those who pose the pedestrian helmet scenario are engaging in faulty argument. Happens a lot here the moment you get some newb helmeteer posting for the first time. They don't have an answer, but they don't need one because the comparison is whack to begin with.

Belief that cycling is dangerous is not limited to the helmet issue. But if people believe that a helmet will provide some kind of magic protection, and that gets them on a bike where otherwise they'd still be too scared, where's the downside regarding helmets...?

IMO, nobody is emboldened to begin/continue cycling or "get on a bike" by the opportunity to wear a helmet. I don't doubt there are adult cyclists who wouldn't dream of riding without, anymore than they would cycle without the proper shoes, gloves or without a cell phone. Just can't be done properly without. It is what is done to be (bicycling) politically correct.

Many organized rides and tours or government organizations gratuitously prohibit participation or cycling activity unless the cyclists are wearing helmets. This is due to social pressure (and not mysterious "insurance requirement" that can never be documented) and discourage participation from those not in the helmet choir; the effects of helmet promotion are all downside.

You may be correct that the pedestrian helmet scenario is a faulty argument. My point is that truth, facts, data or a non-faulty argument make no difference and are irrelevant to a true believer. You might as well bring up truth, facts, data or a non-faulty argument in a discussion of religion with a true believer in the faith.