I think you're probably right that helmets protect you from head injuries "more". The key question is "How much more?" In my opinion, not much.

FWIW, I base that opinion upon a thorough review of all the studies I have seen. There seem to be plenty of studies backed by one "special interest" or another, and most of those seem to come to pretty extreme conclusions: wearing a helmet will definitely save your life, or wearing a helmet will definitely get you killed. Then there are the "middle ground" studies which show no statistical correlation between helmet use and rates of brain injury and/or death. I consider that all a clue: clearly demonstrable effects should be, well, clearly demonstrable - as they are with seatbelts, or motorcycle helmets. But once you clear away the politics, bicycle helmets just don't appear to be very helpful, except with superficial injuries. Of course, if you're more comfortable wearing one than not, it's simply nobody else's business, so enjoy!

I find it ironic...

a drivers consideration and attitude matter more...

I'm sure I would.

I also live in a somewhat "fantastical" location - Steveston, otherwise know to ABC audiences as "Storybrooke, Maine" part of the new series "Once Upon a Time"

http://insteveston.com/wp-content/up...on-610x420.jpg http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6104/...0c0f9ed1_z.jpg

Ken Kifer has a page that shows risk by time exposures

I think the point is both cycling and walking are relatively risk free. It's not like something can't happen, or won't, it's just that all things considered, worrying about being seriously hurt while riding a bike and not while walking or driving is a bit ridiculous

No doubt there are biases, that's why the information you gather should be properly vetted.

Try http://www.cyclehelmets.org/ - it's been recommended by the UK government as an authority on the issue.

there has been much debate about the value of cycle helmets... This issue is not reviewed here but there are a number of reference sources available 147...

... 147 See, for example www.cyclehelmets.org

The idea that "riding in a safe manner" will prevent an accident where a helmet may provide some protection is a fairy tale. Accidents come unexpected like left hooks etc. Accidents like **** happens. Be prepared wear a helmet.

Why are you still engaging him? You know that if you make reasoned arguments, he won't address them. He doesn't have any idea how debate a subject; he can't logically frame, defend, or refute an argument; and if he's on the up and up and not trolling, then he doesn't know that he doesn't know. Are you seriously going to continue debating with someone who makes statements like this:

This is such a phenomenally stupid statement that I honestly have a hard time believing that anyone could make it in earnest. Frankly, it saddens me to think that someone could. You're arguing with either an imbecile or a troll, and it honestly doesn't matter which as the result is the same. Let it go.

Ya gotta love Alaskans.

yet others make the same point.

Case in point is an article describing Ontario's Cornors upcoming investigation into cycling death in the province (if you ask me, this is a red flag for a third attempt at passing an adult helmet law).

In the article, the Canada Safety Council says it's more important to wear a helmet than pay attention while riding

Paying attention to riding and avoiding distractions from cellphones and music players ranks second...for improving cycling safety — behind wearing a helmet.

Placing paying attention behind wearing a helmet will only ensure more incidents will occur.

If this is an example of safety priorities, it's no wonder injuries haven't fallen with the rise in helmet use.

Why? Because we're fuzzy and cute?

That is ridiculous. I would let it pass without comment if they gave equal weight to the two (even though I believe that paying attention is a heck of a lot more important than wearing protective gear), but prioritizing gear above watching where you're going? That's just blatantly stupid.

yes it is, and I hear people say it all the time. They think it doesn't matter if you crash, the helmet will save you.

closet

Bull---------I dont know who you are listening to, but I have never heard anyone say that. To think that a cyclist would think--------gee im wearing a helmet so I guess I will run red lights is really stupid.

griddle

Please tell me in answer to your question just who am I arguing with imbeciles or trolls??? I try to ride as ultra safe as I can and my friends do too. But to think "safe" riding will prevent all accidents aint gonna happen. Accident happen totally unexpectedly. Thats why I and millions wear a helmet for some protection.

That doesn't follow logically. If I were to say to you that getting enough water was second only to getting enough oxygen for sustaining life, would you infer that I meant you could skip number two and still do OK? Or that I was sending a message that water isn't important? I think they're saying that you should do both - ride safely and attentively AND wear a helmet. At least that's the way I read it. And that's basically what I've been doing.

Except a helmet should be the last thing you worry about with safety. Preventing collisions should be prioritized over wearing a helmet. To even consider something like paying attention as behind wearing a helmet is ridiculous.

You can't live without water and oxygen. You can however, ride a bicycle safely without a helmet.

yup, that's a good explanation. It is very possible to be safer without a helmet on than with a helmet on, and being unaware only invites collisions.

another example is one that a local helmet advocacy group fed to the press for bike to work week a year and a half ago.

In the article that was written that a cyclist who had crashed and had brain injury because of that crash. The article said that the cyclist would have avoided that injury had he worn a helmet because (as every helmet advocate likes to say) helmets can prevent 88% of brain injuries (the basis of this claim is the infamous and discredited TRT study published in the NEJM in '89).

What was not written was that the cyclist in question was drunk and attempting a no-hands trick while making a turn on a corner. This fact was expressed in the same story on the advocates website, so it's omission in the newspaper that has a larger audience is interesting.

The message in the paper is clear, don't ride without a helmet; it was the lack of helmet, and not the cyclists lack of sobriety, or choice to attempt a difficult trick while intoxicated, that caused the injury - it was the absence of a helmet. The clear priority is - helmet first, sobriety second.

Is it that they're saying that many accidents are unavoidable, and that no reasonable amount of vigilance on the part of the cyclist would have prevented them? I bolded the word reasonable because it would always be possible to construct a riding regime that would avoid all accidents (like never leaving your house, for example).

But I have had exactly one bicycle accident, and that accident occurred when I was going straight into an intersection, I had the green light, and some guy decided to turn left into me from the opposing traffic lane. I'm a vigilant rider, always have been, don't salmon, don't run lights or stop signs, basically ride extremely defensively. But my number came up anyway. I don't think there's anything I could reasonably have done differently to avoid that. A lot of the time, accidents are, well, ... accidents.

But it sounds like this issue has become so emotional that folks are reacting based on ideology and passion, not rationality. I'd be perfectly happy if they switched the ordering of recommendations, but I'm ok the way it is, too. I'll definitely continue to ride defensively, (and would have regardless of what some organization recommends), and probably keep wearing my helmet. Why is this such a big deal?

Sure, some collisions are unavoidable, but many collisions are avoidable.

The wording in the article implies that helmets are more important than taking reasonable precautions (such as paying attention) to avoid collisions in the first place. It is entirely backwards thinking.

What they're saying is, a cyclist is safer if a helmet is worn and that is shown to be incorrect. In fact, the safest places for people riding bicycles have hardly anyone wearing helmets.

Some environments can be safer than others, but life is not without risk. Risk cannot be eliminated entirely.

To me it's a matter of relative risk. Is my risk of a head injury any greater on a bike, or off a bike? Certainly I can fall off a bike, but I can do the same thing out of my bed, in the bathroom, on my stairs, in my driveway or on a curb. I can also be hit in my car or in a bar after some impassioned speech about which team was the best in history.

We're all human and make mistakes. Does one make them more often on a bike for some reason? I don't think so.

The big deal is placing helmet promotion out of priority and for situations in which they can offer no protection makes cycling less safe, the opposite of what (I'm sure) many intend.

I've heard this sentiment expressed a number of times in this thread. Is there any evidence that supports the claim that helmet promotion has made cycling less safe? Do helmet wearers make up the majority of cyclists involved in accidents? The NYC statistics seem to indicate the opposite, but I don't believe they tracked all accidents, just ones resulting in injury. In those, a large majority involved cyclists who were not wearing helmets. (Helmet use among those bicyclists with serious injuries was low (13%), but it was even lower among bicyclists killed (3%). source: http://www.bhsi.org/stats.htm)

In the vast amount of time I've been researching this (less than a day now :D ), I've had a lot of trouble locating good data - most of it is presented with very careful wording, intending to support a particular position. I almost get the idea that nobody (on either side) really wants the truth known.

I do know that I ride a bicycle, not a philosophical/political statement.

Very sloppy of you! The CSC says no such thing!

This is a quote from the author of the the article.

It's apparently, the second item in a list.

We have no idea whether the order in the list actually represents the Canada Safety Council opinion about the relative importance of the listed items.

Don't be misled by closetbiker's polemics.

Closetbiker is putting words/opinions into the mouths of the Canada Safety Council.

The number next to items in the list are not necessarily an expression of their relative importance.

http://canadasafetycouncil.org/news/cycle-safely-summer

Yes. Much research can be found on the last post I supplied yesterday, cyclehelmets.org

first of all, while there is much good information on bhsi.org, you must keep in mind it is written by an individual who believes riding a bicycle is fraught with danger and who's goal is to pass mandatory helmet laws for everyone. He also doesn't have the expertise that a site like cyclehelmets.org does.

So do helmet wearers make up the majority of cyclists involved in accidents? In areas that have a majority wearing helmets, of course they do! In areas where few wear helmets, the majority of injuries happen to cyclists who do not wear helmets. Of note is research that shows when an entire population switches to helmet use, head injuries do not decline.

If you do ride a bicycle, you are better off. The health gains far exceed the health risks and regular riders can expect to live longer lives whether they are wearing a helmet or not.

Yes we do. All that has to be done is simply look at the CSC website and see they say,

What's the single most important precaution for children on wheels? The Canada Safety Council insists on the value of wearing a bicycle helmet

I sometimes wonder why I put some posters on ignore, and then I remember. They waste time. Time is too precious to waste.

This was the big one for me. That's just really hard to get around or explain away. Regardless of the physics behind how a helmet works, that's not the result we should see when mandatory laws are passed if helmets are at all effective at reducing fatalities. And yet, here we are. That's pretty firm evidence, IMO.

I had a similar awakening when our law passed here.

At the time, I wore a helmet and believed they saved lives. I wasn't in favor of a law, but I wasn't opposed to it either, and thought the results of everyone switching to helmet use would be interesting.

It was, and I started my research in ernest after I learned head injuries didn't go down, trips by bicycle decreased and deaths increased (the opposite intention of the law).

closet

And if you believe those "research" projects, I have some ocean front property here in Nebraska I would like to sell you. At least 90% of research projects are entered into with a preconcieved outcome. As I stated before anyone can find a reseach project that agrees with their position.

I hople all the anti helmet riders remember their research and hope it will protect them as they are falling in an accident they didnt see comming, even tho they "ride safe".