During a few decades spent racing and watching bicycle races I saw many occasions where a falling rider's head came within an inch or two of the pavement. (A half-hour looking at old footage on YouTube should illustrate the point.) The thickness of a modern helmet can make the difference between "hitting your head" or not, and while I have no proof of it, I suspect it happens relatively often. I also suspect that has something to do with the ridiculous number of people who claim to have had their lives saved by their helmets: the extra weight and thickness of a helmet makes striking your head in a fall more likely, and when combined with the modern idea that any damage to a helmet at all equals a life saved...

It really doesn't matter, despite what rydabent claims, he demands that you wear a helmet, to wit:

"I do not demand that everyone wear a helmet. I only contend that smart people do."

previous post:

"Ride safe and wear a helmet."

This is not a contention that smart people wear helmets, it is demand, or a command, a directive.

Thus, rydabent lies. There can be no rational discussion with a liar. end or story. bye bye.

Yes no doubt there are close calls... But, if you hit hard enough to crack the helmet you "probably" would have hit your head without a helmet on so... Even if it ONLY saved a scrape, a bump, a gash, it would be worth it for me. And sometimes, I am sure it can help mitigate some of the more serious damages to the head, depending on how things go down... JMO This playing the numbers game with ones head is not the same as playing the numbers game at the roulette table, the outcome is more personal... ;)

You're much more likely to win at roulette or develop a gambling problem, than you are to either sustain a head injury or have one mitigated by a helmet while riding your bike.

Certainly true... BUT, loosing $ at the roulette table is also less serious than loosing brain cells/memory/getting a concussion/getting a big cut on the old noggin... It can change your life... :twitchy: Thus my risk factor includes wearing a helmet to mitigate some damage. Will it stop all damage? I hope so, but probably not... :eek:

And as always, it's worth pointing out that you most likely don't wear a helmet to mitigate the tiny-yet-still-real possibility that you will suffer head injury doing all the things that fill up your life when you are not cycling. And also that you likely do not do anything to mitigate the risk of damage to all the areas of your body not protected by your helmet while cycling.

None of which should be taken to mean that you should not wear a helmet while cycling, if that's your choice. It's just to point out that your choice isn't really all that rational, and therefore shouldn't be presented as the only choice available to rational people.

But I do mitigate other risks too... No I don't wear a helmet in the shower but when I decide that the risk of falling and banging the old noggin gets high enough in the shower I will install a grab bar, look twice before crossing the street and so on with other things... Wearing a helmet is like wearing goggles when grinding, walking through a chemical plant, and so on...

Maybe some of the anti helmet people can tell us where their being against helmets comes from. Is it an off shoot of the hairy chested I am invincible fully kitted I am a road racer sub culture? How did you become anti helmet?

First of all, you start with an unwarranted assumption that folks are anti-helmet. I don't speak for anyone but myself, but I'm not anti-anything. And I sincerely doubt that the vast majority of folks who don't chose to wear a helmet are anti anything either. It's simply a choice.

As for why I don't chose to wear a helmet, the answer is simple. Based on personal experience spanning almost 50 years, and that of folks I know who ride safely, I don't consider the risk of head injury on a bicycle to be that high. Yes, there's a risk, as there is to riding a bicycle in the first place, but it's well within the bounds of acceptability. Could a helmet lower that somewhat, probably, but not enough for me to consider it the necessity that so many others do.

That's of course a strictly personal decision based o how and where I ride. I don't suggest that others follow me or do as I do. So we come to the core difference between myself and the helmet proselytizers. It isn't that some wear helmets and some don't, it's that helmet proselytizers like yourself don't respect us or the decision we make, and claim that you'll never understand why anyone would be so foolhardy to ride without a helmet.

It's that professed non-understanding, and the total lack or respect, that has me (for one) strongly doubt your honesty when you claim to be against MHLs. Not that I'm calling you a liar, but suggesting that I can't rely on you at my back in opposition to those laws.

BTW- If you wonder about folks being anti-helmet, maybe one reason some might be is that we're tired of having to explain ourselves to folks like you. You aren't asked to justify wearing a helmet, I don't wan to be asked to justify not wearing one.

JUst who, among posyters here, is anti helmet? Me, I am ambivalent, wear one some don't wear one some.

On the other hand, I am strongly anti-liar

The anti helmet people are in the same category as the Eternal B'crats, rhetorical phantoms used as an electronic Villains Punching Bag on this Forum. Reality never is an issue in this nightmarish fantasy world.

Most regulars here know better than to actually post anything about their helmet ever striking anything. The folks who tend to get labeled as "anti-helmet" are those who vilify any noob who wanders into this forum and shares their story of a helmet mitigating damage of any sort, (yes, it's usually "my helmet saved my life," but the regulars understand that these claims are usually exaggerated). By descending upon and berating a new comer, do you really think you're going to convince them to have a reasonable expectation of their equipment?

Oh, and the others falling into the "anti-helmet" camp are those who somehow think it productive to engage with ryd. (Apologies for calling you out, ryd, but you tend to do more polarizing than persuading.)

Reading pro-helmet nonsense in this thread.

That sounds perfectly rational. I can't imagine anyone shouting insults at you for making such a decision. If only folks would treat bicycling and bicycle helmets the same way...

Why the apologies?

I like

Im only holding up my end of the debate. The thing Im against with the anti helmet crowd is the fact that new riders may use their rants as an excuse not to wear a helmet. That of course might end up getting them hurt. The bottom line here is if they dont want to wear a helmet, fine. But they are doing a diservice trying to talk others less informed into not wearing a helmet.

Not quite true.

Any time somebody dies in a collision/accident while wearing a helmet, we can be sure that the helmet did not prevent the injury that killed them. Same goes for an injury -- if you incurred the injury while wearing the helmet, you can be quite sure that the injury was not prevented because you did in fact incur it.

But yes, while you can be sure that a helmet did not prevent an injury (because the injury was in fact incurred in spite of the helmet), you cannot be sure that a helmet is what prevented an injury that was not incurred, and you cannot be sure that a helmet reduced an injury that was incurred.

+1 That's basically the reason I'm still here, some of the things that are being said about helmets are true... some aren't...

1; If a person doesn't want to wear a helmet because they think the odds are they won't need it... Probably True
2; If a person doesn't wear a helmet because they think they will never need it........................... Probably false

3 ;If a person doesn't wear a helmet because they say it won't save them from everything............ Probably True
4; If a person doesn't wear a helmet because others say it's totally useless and proven to be so..... Probably false

5; There are more dangerous things you do that you don't wear a helmet for, like taking a shower. Probably true
6; There are other things you can do in a shower like grab bars so how do helmets come into this.. Probably true (strawman?)

7; You may/will ride more recklessly wearing a helmet and increase the chance of a crash................... Probably true (some people will)
8; You may ride more safely decreasing the chance of a crash, or if crashing, the helmet just might help. Probably true (some people will

9; Wearing a helmet may actually increase the chance of injury because of some rotational forces... Probably true
10; Not wearing a helmet in exactly the same circumstances may also cause other major problems. Probably true

11; Been riding for 40 years and never hit my head and probably never will, I don't need no stinking helmet. Probably true
12; Doesn't mean your next ride will be the same, could be the one where your head bounces off the pavement, could be true

13; Riding safely, following the rules, improving skill, picking your routes is way more important than a helmet. Probably true
14; Doing all these things is certainly important but when head hit's pavement a helmet is still better than no helmet. Probably true

15; If a person wears a helmet thinking it will save his life.............................. Probably False
16; If a person wears a helmet thinking it's better than nothing....................... Probably true.

My risk assessment "paper" on how I see things... :p

The false assumption that people will ride less safe when they wear a helmet, is just that, false. I dont.

The phenomena of risk compensation and moral hazard are well researched and generally accepted as fact. Of course, not everybody is the same, but one's judgement of risk and the level of risk they'll accept are affected by their perceptions of consequences.

In it's simplest form, we have people who would not ride a bicycle except with a helmet. In this, it's the perception of the added safety margin, or mitigation of consequences which allows them to move bicycling from the unacceptably risky, to the acceptably risky column. It's a logical extension to what are acceptable road conditions, speeds, weather. So it's not that helmets cause people to ride more recklessly, but that they change the perception of risk, and allow riding in more dangerous conditions.

This isn't a rational, conscious thought process where one says, "since I'm wearing a helmet I can ride faster" it's just a subtle moving of the bar of what's OK and what isn't.

I know non or poor swimmers who would never get into a canoe, but a good positive floatation vest worn full time, makes them feel it's safe enough.

Risk compensation is real, whether one sees it or not.

That may actually be right, :twitchy:

Then we agree witheach other.

Hi-5!

Risk compensation regarding cycling and helmets has been studied and is at best inconclusive. It is certainly not a given.

Those who usually wear helmets ride more safe without them, those who ride without them don't ride less safe with them.

You're giving too much away to the helmeteers in spite of research they cite.

The thing I'm against with the pro-helmet crowd is that they will convince people to wear helmets for the wrong reasons. That riders wil trust their helmets to provide safety outsize their actual protective parameters. This of course might end up getting them hurt. The bottom line is that if they want to wear helmets for the right reasons, fine, but too often pro-helmeteers misrepresent the protective qualities of helmets especially where general riding safety is concerned.

Your personal experience does not represent an aggregate or median.

Just sayin'... :innocent: