Look around at the people who are riding without helmets in the USA. Who are they? Majority are working poor, unemployed poor, DUI riders, etc. I.e. Those without a lot of experience on bikes, those who can't afford or can't justify the expense of a helmet, perhaps those unfamiliar with US traffic law. I'd bet a good percentage of those who die or are seriously head injured are wrong-way cyclists.

The bare-headers in this thread are very much an outlier minority in the US--experienced riders who consciously choose to not wear a helmet.

To that end, inexperienced cyclists probably make up the bulk of those who die or suffer serious head injury. They happen to be a subset of cyclists with disproportionately lower incidence of helmet use.

So figures indicating whatever-times the death and serious injury rate compared to helmeted riders is perhaps less about the protective capabilities of helmets and more about rider inexperience and social issues.

Well I can't disagree with what kind of riders get into most accidents, but I'm not talking the chances of getting into an accident, yes a more experienced rider can certainly reduce the chance of getting into an accident but those numbers represent the actual numbers of people getting killed because of head injuries, while riding, not the chance of getting into the accident... The only thing it says about chance is that it's at least 4.5/1 more non helmet users were killed in an accident because off head injuries... That is what I get out of those statistics... Now what is the margin of error? who knows, but a 4.5/1 ratio is huge, so IF you do get in an accident involving head injuries you will have a 4.5/1 bigger chance of dieing irregardless of skill if you don't wear a helmet...:twitchy:

Ah. You have the same kind of reading comprehension issues many of the bare-headers suffer from. Got it. Good luck with that...

Sorry, but you haven't understood either the statistics, or my argument. I am not trying to provide an analysis of how many helmeted vs unhelmeted cyclists get killed or injured. The data is too poor for such an analysis to be reliable, imo. What I am saying is that if helmets saved lives or prevented serious injury, then as the proportion of the cycling population who wear helmets increases, the incidence of death or serious injury within the cycling population should decrease. But that does not appear to have happened. So at the very least, one has to be sceptical about claims that helmets are making much difference.

First, the argument about pedestrians. The risk for pedestrians and head injuries is highly tied to auto accidents too:

http://crosleylawfirm.com/2012/06/ag...-brain-injury/

Falls do cause head injuries for pedestrians, but usually for the elderly on uneven surfaces such as stairs. So it isn't "all pedestrians" that are at risk, but a distinct sub-population of older or those involved with auto accidents.

Bicyclists, on the other hand have a higher risk of head injury from both motor vehicle accidents and from anything happening to the bike itself (slip on railroad surface, flat tire, hit bump or rut, etc.). Many urban bicyclists use drop handlebars and a stooped-over posture too, so anything happening puts them down immediately on their head. Concerning a collision with a car, usually that is not a direct hit, but a bump, a hit putting the person into the windshield, or a clip that throws a person off to the side. In these cases, the helmet will most likely meet the demands of the fall, in that it will be a simple fall to the surface (car's or ground). In the rare case where a bicyclist is hit at 45+ mph, all bets on the helmet are off. But most of the cases (and all three of mine, incidentally) involving the head are contact with the ground or with parts of the car at relatively low speed.

John

I also think walking is not a fair comparison to cycling. More like jogging, I think, on a per-mile basis. However, even trail-runners (the jogging equivalent to MTB) almost never wear helmets, I've yet to see a single one with a lid.

The most common type of single vehicle bicycle crash for me is laying it down. Doesn't matter if I'm on drop bars or flat bars. I'm gonna contact @ knee/hip/elbow. Increased head slam likelihood on drop bars is difficult for me to fathom and I ride a lot of miles on drop bars, flat bars, townie bars and cruiser bars.

The elderly are at greater risk in all sorts of circumstances - on the bike, on foot, walking down stairs - but the "distinct sub-population" of pedestrians (or cyclists) who are involved in auto accidents can be identified only after the fact. So everyone is at some varying degree of risk, not just that distinct sub-population.

Please. Riding with dropped handlebars does not mean that in the event of a fall one inevitably hits one's head. I almost always ride with dropped handlebars. If I come off, which is rare, hitting my head is even rarer.


Well, I broadly agree but my conclusions are different. On two occasions I have hit or been hit by a vehicle. On the first occasion my unhelmeted head hit the side of a van at about 15 mph. On the seond, more recent occasion, my still-unhelmeted head struck the ground a glancing blow at similar speed. On neither occasion did I suffer serious injury. No doubt a helmet would have "met the demands of the fall", but so did my skull.

I remain of the opinion that a helmet is most likely to mitigate minor injuries to scalp or skull, but unlikely to save one from death or serious injury. And the failure of increasing helmet use to make the expected impact on the casualty statistics seems to me to support that judgment.

But the numbers of head injury deaths ARE decreasing... Look at the total number for each year a steady drop probably because more and more people are using helmets, 1,003 in '75, 796 in '94 and 616 in'10... http://www.helmets.org/stats.htm

EDIT; This is just an assumption but around my area it seems the bicycle riders have doubled in the last 10+ years, if that's true in all of N America, then it's even more impressive that these head injury deaths have been dropping... JMO

I can't believe I'm reading and responding to this thread. I can't imagine any of us saying anything new. Anyway, my approach:

I always wear a helmet. It may not be rational, but it's what I choose.

When someone rides without a helmet, I do not try to convince them. It's what they choose, and I can't claim to know what's right for them. They've probably thought it out already anyway.

Go read beezaur's posts again. In his own words: "You've been badly misled."

yes, if I die they aren't going to do me any good, so maby they can save someone else, I dont drink or smoke or any of that junk, so I hope I can help someone continue to live after I die, the way people drive today, I need to start wearing a helmet crossing the street on foot, I was nearly mowed down twice in 15 minutes, crossing on a walk signal people flying around the corner making right turns, whats a "yield to pedestrian?"

In case you didn't notice, I'm essentially agreeing with you. Don't let that stop you, though -- it certainly hasn't in the past.

Bottom line: I don't think he or his doctor is right; I don't think he would have suffered a serious head injury if he wasn't wearing a helmet. I think he would have received a light to moderate head injury if he wasn't wearing his helmet, but the helmet worked as intended and mitigated that lesser level of injury.

Bwaa, But I was essentially agreeing with you... People with more experience can avoid many "accidents"... What I went on to saying was that "IF" they don't and they get into an accident then they too, can suffer the same statistics as the average bicyclist, witch seems to be about 4.5/1 at best, against the non-helmet wearer... ;)

If a person is serious about protecting his head while cycling, this is the only sensible approach. Of course, the typical helmeteer won't be interested, because a full-face helmet would cramp his style.

I think this is very close to the truth. And also goes a long way toward explaining why helmetless riders often get pretty uptight about being lectured: if you've been doing this for 40 years, you don't appreciate some low-mile A-hole telling you how to do it.

40+years... Tic, tock, tic, tock...

No I don't appreciate anyone telling me my personal choice is any one's but my decision. My take on helmets is that they great and probably do reduce the severity of some injuries, the actual number of those is pretty unknown. At the same time, a helmut will not help much in a car/bike incident, or any accident at speed. Bike helmets are designed for low speed impact protection. Knowing this, I am way more diligent when I am going to be on a MUP then when I am out riding on rural roads, figuring id some butt wipe is gonna take me out at 60, I am gone anyway.

If crashing and landing on your head hard enough to cause brain damage is an inevitability for you, then you need to find an activity at which you don't suck so much - and leave the rest of us the hell alone.

Never said it was an inevitability, just that the chance of it IS ALWYS there... No matter how good you think you are... Or others aren't... Trying to reduce the odds of bad things happening is what wearing a helmet is all about... JMO calling people A holes just because they think different than you, doesn't really change things in reality...

If you truly believed that you'd wear a helmet 24/7.

I don't call them A-holes because they think differently. I call them A-holes because they're A-holes.

Oh no, are we back to wearing a helmet in the shower? wearing a helmet while walking?
Well there's always two sides to any story... So.. Mayhaps the A-hole part can also represent you... :p

You seriously don't get how more people crashing without helmets (due to inexperience or stupidity) would skew the helmet/non-helmet wearing ratio you're quoting?

No, because that's not the point, It doesn't matter what "caused the accident", (inexperience or stupidity) the point is what happens when you have an accident with or without a helmet, the death rate is 4.5 times higher without a helmet when you have an accident than with a helmet. There were 616 deaths attributed to head injuries and 429 didn't wear helmets, 94 wore helmets, 93 unknown... to me it says that unhelmeted bicyclists died 4.5 times more than helmeted bicyclist's, the unknown don't count... As to what caused the accidents who cares, I thought the discussion here was whether helmets saved lives or actually caused more damage when in an accident, not what the "chances" are in getting into an accident if you are a fantastic rider or a beginner...

For those of you who don't want to wear a helmet, and don't want to mess up your hair, there is now an alternative.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1784264.html

I was googling "Swedish bicycle helmet" when I found out about this. Now, if people in Sweden did not think there was a problem with bicycle head injuries, why in the world would they finance developing an "invisible helmet." So now when you look at those videos of people in Sweden bicycling bare-headed, look closely to see whether they are wearing something around their neck.

John

Got it. In that case, please refer to the quote which shows up beneath all your posts.

If accidents skew toward those who don't wear helmets because of their inexperience, of course reportage will indicate such.

In order for that statistic to be true, helmeted riders would have to crash at the same rate as unhelmeted riders. Do you know that this is the case? Because if you don't, that statistic does not mean what you think it does...