So Tony, I'm curious if you would wear a helmet if the roads were car-free.

I think that's a rational position.

But, and it's a big but, if you are used to wearing the helmet and it's not inconvenient, then why choose to only wear it for cycling? Surely the other activities in which you might sustain cuts and scrapes to the scalp, or maybe a mildly fractured skull, would justify wearing it for them too?

How about we look at it this way. ANY DAMAGE AND ENERGY absorbed by a helmet is damage and energy NOT absorbed by your head.

This is true. So why not wear a marshmallow on your head?

Obviously it will absorb some impact energy. That 2 joules might make the difference between life and death.

Unlike a bicycle helmet the marshmallow will not significantly influence the weight and radius of your head and cause increased rotational injury.

Why would you not use it?

Yeah, but those areas aren't in America, so we'll just assume that they're wrong. I mean, I know you're in Canada, so you're probably wrong too; but Vancouver is close enough to the border to be able to see the error of your ways.

/sarcastic US-centric commentary

One of the comments that always slays me is the one that says helmets should be worn because this isn't Copenhagen or Amsterdam.

What these commentators don't get is that it's not only safer for cyclists in these places, but for pedestrians and motorists as well.

Isn't this an argument for streets that are less safe?

Back when I did more serious road riding, I was often on empty roads. I did wear a helmet. I have to admit that, until I started participating in this thread, I did it uncritically. I wasn't aware that there was a controversy about the utility of the helmet. My roadie mentor back in the mid '90s, didn't even present it as a choice - he more or less gave me the impression that I would be crazy to ride without one. Everyone I rode with wore one. It became a habit that I never questioned, until now.

I reread my post from last night, and it struck me that I have been guided by the cycling equivalent of Pascal's conundrum, i.e. that the penalty for NOT believing in God if there is a God, is much more severe than the penalty for believing in God if there isn't one, so you might as well believe in God. It's funny that I never let that reasoning sway me spiritually, and I've been perfectly happy to accept the consequences of non-belief and eternal perdition in the unlikely event that I've been wrong, but I'm seemingly unwilling to accept the risk of some road-rash. Maybe that's because, as I said, the inconvenience is so minor.

Still, though I believed the matter to be resolved for me last night, I'm not so sure now. I've never really been a mini-maxer, and would like to think my actions are based on informed choice, not on irrational fear.

But I can do paralysis by analysis really well. I chose my signature "L'asino di Buridano" purposely. It's a story, credited to the 14th century French Philosopher, Jean Buridan, about a jackass who was tethered within reach of two equally desirable bales of hay. He silently debated with himself about which bale was better, couldn't decide, ate neither, and starved to death. I won't do that here - I'm not going to stop riding while I decide :D

So, is that a yes, or a no?

As Closetbiker may recall I forwarded some of Chris Nowinski's comments regarding bike helmets to him in a PM. Since he lectures world wide on the subject of sports injury and concussion I'm sure he wouldn't mind if I share his website.

Of the other two, one is a neurosurgeon who often deals with traumatic injury and recovery and the other is a neurologist and author of best selling books but, admittedly, not on the subject of concussion or sports injury- still I trust her opinion far more on these matters than what I read in these threads- maybe you'd disagree but that's your choice. Since I think neither of them would have the time nor desire to be embroiled in these discussions I won't put their names.

I occasionally post in this thread (please feel free to view my posts to see what percentage of my posting is done in this thread and/or on the subject of helmets). I do post in here when it becomes overwhelmingly apparent that the helmet skeptics have descended on someone, who may, as it appeared Tony_Merlino was doing, was possibly basing their decision as to whether to wear a helmet or not on what they read in this thread.

I bring up the topic of "qualified experts" and personal contact with them because this is an issue of health and safety. If someone posted in BF's that they had a chronic pain in their lower back they would be deluged with "expert opinions" on bike fit and seat height and stem length etc. but nothing compares to a face to face interaction with someone whose expertise is in that area. And lower back pain can be symptomatic of more serious issues not having to do with biking and mentioning it to a qualified physician, even one who does not ride a bike, would be worthwhile.

If you look carefully at my post I am not advocating for Tony to wear a helmet but suggesting he may want to take into account that the prolific, vociferous posts of helmet skeptics in this thread may not be the most accurate interpretation of the facts and data.

Interesting parallel you draw between Creation theory and helmet discussions. However, as Closet biker points- world wide it is helmet use that is actually in the minority. In developing nations that use the bicycle as primary transportation helmet use on bicycles is practically non-existent. Nor do many of those countries practice a myriad of other health and safety measures that we do in North America- however, I don't know if I'd suggest that bolsters the argument that neither should we. Often those practices are due both to economic disparity and lack of education.

If you've ever argued with a creationist they will often site "scientific studies" and "proofs" for their point of view. They will deluge you with information and ad hominem attacks on any sources of information that counter their own claims. They'll refer you to impressive web sites, books and films that support their point of view. I'm sorry but the way I see it the average helmet skeptic has far more in common with the evolution skeptic or the global warming skeptic than I do. I don't mean to offend here but it's just how I see it.

It's a "I have done it that way for many years, but I'm thinking about it now."

Why on earth would I be privy to PRIVATE messages between you and Closetbiker?

More importantly, what specifically did Chris Nowinski say about which specific claims?

I believe that you either just made up the existence of these people, or more likely, that what they actually would say is pretty much what helmet skeptics have said on these threads all along: helmets might stop non-serious injuries, but they will probably do squat for anything other than torn scalps.

It's telling though that you can't find anyone to go on the record. I refer you to your previous posting as to the validity of claims of "anonymous experts". I agree wholeheartedly with it.

Yes, but the question is: why?

I post in here because I have lived in, and travel to, places during the introduction of mandatory helmet laws. I cannot exercise my judgement (which I consider to be far superior to yours, or anyone else who wears a helmet). It's obvious what my motivation is. What is yours? Saving Tony?
I agree. So please publish an on-the-record opinion from an actual expert on the specific points (which you claimed you had discussed with them). Ideally you could provide something "on oath" (as in the court testimony). But an on-the-record quote which, if obviously foolish or false, would have negative consequences for their professional reputations would be interesting.


I actually don't care what Tony does, or doesn't do. I'm only interested in what Helmet Cultists in the Church of Health and Safety force on me.

Now, some published references for these many points please?

I've posted several sources of research that shows helmets don't prevent concussion and Nowinskis research shows the same.

Why there's a concern on cyclists wearing helmets to prevent concussion is beyond me, particularly when it hasn't been shown cyclists receive concussions to any greater degree than the general public

I haven't seen a single post by helmet wearers that suggested that helmet use should be mandatory. What Helmet Cultists in the Church of Health and Safety have been posting on this thread? I haven't found any (Admittedly, I haven't read all ... what is it now? ... 28 pages...) - the helmet wearers only state that think it's a good idea to wear one.

On the anti-helmet side, I see a lot of topic jumping, from "Does it do more good than harm to wear one?", to "We shouldn't have mandatory helmet laws", and "every cyclist who wears a helmet is a traitor to cycling advocacy because it sends a message that cycling is more dangerous than staying in bed", and pop-psych gobbledegook about how drivers will be more inclined to try to kill you if you're wearing a helmet ... And then there's the other silly notion that helmet wearers feel that they don't need to learn to ride safely because they're made invulnerable by their helmets, and that if someone (like me) does a little introspection to see if that rings even a little true for himself, we're told that the effect is so mysterious, we can't know if it's operating within our own minds or not.

Not to say there aren't interesting points being made on the anti-helmet side. The notion that a helmet may increase the likelihood of rotational injuries is interesting, but doesn't seem to be backed up even by the statistics posted to support the anti-helmet view that helmet use has NO correlation to cycling injuries. If there were some connection, we'd see an increase in the number of serious head injuries in helmet wearers - and nobody is saying that any study has shown that.

Honestly, Tony doesn't care what anyone else does, either. This thread seems to have reached the point of strident repetition, and no more light is being generated, only heat. I wonder if it's possible to separate the topics of safety and advocacy. People like me are just looking to share opinions, experiences and hard data about good riding practices (possibly including wearing a helmet), i.e. pragmatic solutions to the real-world problems of riding on streets that are dominated by cars and drivers who are mostly hostile to sometimes invisible, slow-moving vehicles getting in their way.

I see. It's good to see you giving it some thought.

It might be worth considering that if someone is in favor of helmet choice, and can see some problems that have come along with helmet promotion and use, that doesn't make that person as being against helmets. It could just mean that they have reason to be skeptical of some claims.

The number of posts arguing explicitly that helmets should be mandatory has dropped off. It's been replaced by a snide, underhand barrage that used to claim that anyone not wearing a helmet would become a quadriplegic (and impose a healthcare burden) or die. In any case I was referring to the fact that there already are MHLs in existence in several large areas, some of which I visit, and one of which I lived in. If you want to see a Helmet Cultist, then scroll your browser up a few posts to view one "Shifty". Meanwhile, "Buzzman" is doing a Jehova's Witness doorstepping on this thread.


Apparent topic jumping occurs because it's not a simple subject. There are lots of interlinked reasons to wear or not-to-wear. Dismissing Walker's _observation_ that helmeted cyclists are passed closer as pop-psychology is hardly fair.

Risk compensation is a widely documented phenomenon.

It's hard to say. Some analyses actually show serious head injuries going up after MHLs were enacted. Whether or not it's actually the case, the point is that it's not detectable that helmets caused a reduction.

Agreed. There is no plausible data to suggest that helmets make a clear difference, positive or negative to cycling populations other than to decrease the number of people cycling. That last is very clear.

I'd suggest there are other places in A&S to search for riding tips. Little to nothing is known about helmets, so your probably better off making your own decision and not soliciting advice on what *you* should do, unless you have a very thick skin and are interested in opinions rather than probable truths.

I don't think I'd generally agree with your characterization of cycling in urban environments though -- it sounds miserable and doesn't match up with my experience.

I guess one of the issues is that the pro-helmet-choice folks have made "choice" their focus, while the pro-helmet folks don't seem to be anti-helmet-choice, but only believe that wearing a helmet does (or could do) more good than harm ... for them. People are arguing at cross-purposes. I don't think anyone has said that each rider shouldn't be able to make his own choice about wearing a helmet.

So Mandatory Helmet Laws are a figment of someone's imagination then?

On the positive side, several areas which previously had MHLs have now repealed them because they discovered that the number of cyclists diminished.

I grew up in NYC, and cycled everywhere until around 1970 or so. Cycling there required you to pay attention, but was nowhere near as crazy as where I live now.

What I noticed about New Jersey drivers when I moved here twenty-some-odd years ago, is that they have all the aggressiveness and attitude of NYC drivers, with only a small fraction of the skill. And that they exercise that lack of skill at as high as speed as they possibly can.

I've mentioned that I used to do road riding. The strategy then was to either get out of here as quickly as I could (the conditions change completely about 7 miles West of here), and then take a nice ride, or throw the bike onto the car and drive someplace nice to ride. Those experiences were, almost without exception, positive.

Now that almost all my riding is local, my experience is different. It's partially a matter of finding better routes/times to do things, which is happening as I learn more about the lay of the land. As I've said, I've learned that insisting on my "right" to take up a lane on a crowded, 35 mph road may place me place me legally in the right, but pragmatically, it's just stupid. It's been provoking the nastiest reactions, and they've been doing really stupid, dangerous things to get around me. There are slower moving streets around here, as well as quiet residential streets that aren't the direct route anywhere, but make the ride much more pleasant.

As far as "thick" skin is concerned, I've not really required a lot of armor. People responding to my questions have been courteous and patient, and I thank you all.

Living in an area that has a helmet law, I can say it's the arguments for helmet use that lead to helmet laws. At least that's what happened here.

The arguments are used to force helmet use on cyclists, "for their own good"

ON this thread, they have been mostly baggage carried by the anti-helmet folks. It appears that, for some, any statement made to the effect that helmet wearing might have some value, is a blow for mandatory helmet laws. That's absurd. Even if I wear my helmet and think it's a good idea for me to wear it, I don't really care what you or anyone else does - it's your head.

I didn't see Shifty's posts. But I'd characterize all of the postings in the few days that I've been monitoring this thread to be "pro-helmet-choice". The problem seems to come, for some, when someone else decides to exercise that choice by wearing a helmet, and actually believing (and saying) that it might do more good than harm to do so.

I see the issue as one with 2 points.

1, is cycling risky enough to require helmet use and,

2, does a helmet provide the protection I am looking for

On both counts for me, the answer is no

But they're still separate issues. An analogy would be that anyone saying "Babies are cute, and having children can be a rewarding and satisfying experience" is taking a step towards making abortion illegal, so we must argue as forcefully as we can to convince people that babies are awful, noisy, demanding, smelly things that do nobody any good. I think you can like babies and still be pro-choice.

And that's fine -- for you.

You are careful to avoid the fact that there *are* MHLs, and that by and large these were presented as being necessary in order to address the problem of serious head injuries in the cycling population.

I would have hoped, by now, that you would understand that there is no evidence that helmets do any such thing and that anyone claiming that the contrary is true is actually lying ... quite barefacedly.

It's the saying part that's the problem. If they say: "I have absolutely no evidence to back this up, and in fact most studies show the opposite, but I really believe that my helmet will save when a car hits me or I speed downhill at neckbreaking speeds", then how can I dispute that? That's what someone believes. If they simply say: "My helmet is designed to stop scalp tears and mitigate low-speed impacts" then how can I dispute that?

If on the other hand they say: "My helmet saved my life. You are stupid if you don't wear one" then they're lying.

The reason that those are a problem for me, is that they are the explicit reasons used to justify MHLs. If you are seriously going to argue that belief does not lead to action in this instance, then I'm going to borrow some words you used recently and describe your thought process there as "silly" and "absurd".

Well not really because when I ride without a helmet, not only am I subject to being fined, I can have my bicycle confiscated as well.