I wore a helmet for the first time on Saturday...@ fiddy tree.

My question specifically is about non race related bicycling events and non professional cyclists. I don't believe any insurance company is covering the cyclists' health in these events for any injury suffered while participating, whether they wear helmets or not.

The participants' own personal insurance policies are their only coverage, and none require their policyholders to wear helmets when bicycling, unless perhaps participating in races or if required by local law.

If anyone knows differently please provide correction.

The organizers of non-professional events are regular people with $1500 in their checking account and perhaps a mortgaged house. An injured person's attorneys are going after everybody - deep pockets first. These deep pockets belong to the insurance company. Since it is unlikely that a participant will contract cancer and have to be treated for months or years due to a bike event, the biggest concern is head injuries. In order to protect themselves, insurance companies try to limit the amount of damage a person can do to themselves. Yes, the event insurance company may have to pay for medical expenses NOT paid by the injured party's health insurance - maybe $5000 deductible and 20% of the 80-20 policy plus pain and suffering in some cases. Nursing homes, extended care, nurses, whatever, over the life of the ruined participant with severe brain injury. Since brain injuries may be lifelong tragedies costing millions of dollars in care, pain, and suffering that insurance company is going to try to do anything possible including Voodoo to prevent that sort of catastrophic damage to a participant. Hence the helmet requirements. Unlike many here on BF, insurance companies know science and know helmets can and do lessen head trauma in many instances.

Event organizers purchase insurance to protect themselves and insurance companies INSIST on certain things like helmets, closed course, police *******, paramedics on site, ambulance on location, Voodoo dolls etc., to protect themselves, so that when they get dragged into court they can show a jury that they took EVERY precaution. Civil court juries generally decide how much the injured person is awarded in damages including pain and suffering. Not insisting on helmet use could be interpreted as neglegence on the part of the event planner and transfer cost to the insurance company.

The only case I know for certain was a local bike club I belonged to years ago. In order to obtain insurance for club rides the insurance company insisted on the helmet rule for any club ride. At least this one case it was the insurance companies' mandate.

Insurance company "may" pay medical expenses for ride participants? Maybe once in a blue moon when it is in total eclipse, but I doubt it.
I'd be very surprised if event participants get any compensation from the ride's Insurance company for medical expenses incurred as a participant on a ride. Certainly not without a winning lawsuit and an alleged helmet requirement is not likely to be any factor in a decision or award.

I believe you were told about the local club requirement. I was told the same thing by a local club member here about local rides that they helped organize or were sponsors. A few questions to one of the leaders of the club revealed that no insurance company mandate existed at all but it sounded good and the club members wear them anyway. The Insurance Company "requirement" was used by club personnel to discourage non club members and other undesirable rif raf from participating.

That's been my experience as well with regard to club helmet requirements for normal (non-race) club rides. I checked with the insurance company recommended by the League of American Bicyclists to their affiliated clubs and was assured that there was no requirement by them for the use of helmets on club rides.

OK...you got me there. I can't be THAT certain as I did not deal with the club insurance company directly. And YES it would generally take a jury to award money to an injured participant beyond the pittance an insurance company would willingly settle for.

Glad you both got me thinking deeper into this.

I sometimes work (since 2006) for a local bike shop cleaning up their computer inventory and consulting. They rent bikes - all kinds of bikes including road and mountain bikes for race use as well as city bikes for tourists to explore the area. I can't think of a more dangerous situation that setting noobs out in NOLA on a bicycle. However, the insurance company that "protects" the bike shop from litigation does not require helmet use and neither does the bike shop. The bike shop employees RECOMMEND helmet use and actually charge EXTRA for helmet rentals. Helmets are "available" which gives the participant the option to wear one or not. Apparently that is good enough for the insurance company - or perhaps they don't care at all.

How about a little common sense and logic here. Ins companies issue policies to clubs etc. They are in the business to make money for their investors. The less money they pay out the more dividends they can pay out. Insurance companies have an actuarial staff that investigates all policies and their pay out. It is quite apparent that they found out that they payout less if cyclist wear helmets. This along with may other reasons is an indicator that helmets are a positive thing.

Can Be.

I started wearing a helmet in 1988. I have never crashed and hit my head. It is now 2014. If I hated wearing that helmet and found it distracting and annoying it could be detrimental. I know this is a stretch. But helmets are only positive IF someone falls just the RIGHT WAY on their noggin and does not mind wearing one while waiting for a day that may never come.

Personally, as stated above, I always wear a hat of some sort when outdoors. So my helmet is just another functional hat that MIGHT minimize my injuries in a crash. I really don't even know it's there and sometimes get down the block before realizing I have some other hat on - because when I go to look in my mirror...it isn't there.

If a woman with a nice hair style does not want a hat on her head and decides to partake in some other sport other than cycling because of the helmet thing, then that is a loss to the cycling community IMO. If she thinks it is too dangerous to ride with the wind in her hair, because she did her research here on the Helmet Thread, then I would be bummed.

The thought of wearing a helmet or a cycling costume prevents legions of people from trying cycling as a serious endeavor. This IS a determent to "us".

This whole thread is based on the argument of ARE vs CAN BE.

If you don't wear a helmet ......... your an automatic veggie. I Don't wear a helmet. I ride 10 mph down a rail trail (72 miles paved) across the street from my house. On a comfort bike, and there is no way in hell, I would wear one of those costumes!
I could care less if anyone of you wear a helmet or not. Makes no difference to me. To each his own.
But if I was mtb in Colorado , I would wear one, Like a 3/4 face REAL helmet. Or maybe if I were tearing downhill
on a road bike at 30 or 40 mph.

Plus, I think the cars get closer to you guys wearing that costume , than someone who is not!~!

knot

Wearing a helmet is not much of a costume as what fully kitted roadies wear.

So we'e sunk to this, discussing what part of cyclng specific clothes are more "costumish".

But don't dare make fun of your clownbike 'bents...

Is it really so apparent? Pardon me but I'm skeptical about that, and if you're just saying it because it seems self-evident that's fine but if you have some background information that you could share about it even better.

That would be a good circus act: How many "fully fitted roadies" can fit on bent trike; extra points if they are all wearing helmets? Probably would cause the audience to get hysterical with laughter.

I like

Bent riders would laugh at the roadies for wearing spandex shorts with dead goat skins all greased up with butt butter. Bent riders do not have to wear clothes that is needed to protect them from their bikes. Helmets --yes, butt butter no.

I would pay to see that ^^ at the circus.

I have no recumbent experience aside from getting passed by one now and then.

mcon

List the bikes you ride with or without a helmet please.

Oh, Oh! Memememeee!

Without, all of them

With, road bike, mtb.

I ride DF bikes in normal clothes all the time. A seasoned cyclist, with a seasoned ass, only really needs chamois cream for long distance rides.

I see more bent riders in spandex shorts than baggy shorts around these parts. YMMV

I'm riding helmet-free today. 10 slow miles.

It's a mountain bike with road bike handlebars, if you wanna know. :)

https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2886/...64b7db11_c.jpg

:eek:

No pictures, please!

hahaha. i thought about it. even did image search for "recumbent group ride".

I was shocked that there a few pics of riders without mirrors. You can't look behind AT ALL on one of them contraptions. So many bent riders with a death wish! Darwin awards, organ donors, etc...

Anyone critized you for wearing a helmet? How do you deal with them.
 

I commute to school and others do too but everyone tells me "why are you wearing a helmet?"
"You're such an idiot."

Where do you live? Around here I get the exact opposite "where's your helmet?"

Anyway the solution is to pretend you didn't hear.

Many years ago, I had a co-worker ridicule me for deciding to wear a helmet, they basically thought that I could not go fast enough on my bike to warrant wearing one.

Northwest suburban Chicago.