I've gotten hit on the head with a golf club. It was a two iron and the guy swinging it was trying to kill me. As you can see I didn't die and the strike did not cause any major injuries. Just some pretty heavy bleeding.
Honestly I was more concerned about the second strike at the time since it ripped open a gash three inches long on my back

And I still don't think helmets are necessary for all riding. Riding a bike is safe, hanging out with the wrong people at your youthful years is not. And the human head is made of pretty good stuff.

How and why bicycle deaths happen in the US - Vox

This is fairly interesting. Investing in a rear-view mirror might be your best protection,it seems.

Thanks, that really is interesting. And it is markedly different from the UK, where only 25% of fatalities involved the vehicle colliding with the rear of the bicycle. Over here, much the most common cause of fatalities is vehicles emerging from or turning into junctions without "seeing" the cyclist.

Cycling Accidents - Facts and Figures | Cycling Safety Advice and Information | Road Safety | RoSPA

Dutch charm sounds like a brand of condom!

LAW is anti-helmet?!!! Hahaha!

But, yep, as more cyclists wear helmets, more will be caught dead wearing one:

http://cdn2.vox-cdn.com/assets/44898...2.36.36_PM.png

Keep in mind, rear end collisions are the rarest type of bicycle/automobile accident. The study is interesting and contains useful information, but there are those who use this study as proof that bicycles should not be ridden on the street.
If you get struck from behind, your odds of fatal injuries are higher. However, it is very rare to be struck from behind. Just like in the UK, your odds of being in a collision with a car are far higher at intersections.

That's about the way I read/see things, MMACH 5.

Getting hit from a vehicle coming in from a side road, chances are good they're entering "your" road from a stop or near stop, so you're more likely to get hit at 10 mph or so, instead of 45 mph or so. Easy to guess which is more likely to kill you.

I'd imagine that being thrown clear of the vehicle is slightly less likely in a rear end accident than a side impact where the vehicle is on a path described by an arc.

Wow, you can find anything on the falken internet if you look long and hard, yet we have statistics to prove otherwise and has been posted many times, and here it is again: Bicycle Helmet Statistics.

Oh and speaking of pie charts since you like those so much, here's one:
Why you should always wear a bike helmet, in one chart - The Washington Post This is of course an American study not a European one.

I don't get it. What's wrong with wearing a V1 Pro? Bern helmets look like Kryten heads to me, and don't imagine racing in one would be much fun, what with the blackness and relative ventlessness :)

Ummm, the League of American Wheelmen (or whatever they call themselves these days) report was conducted by and for Americans, BTW, in case you were wondering why they have the word "American" in their name.

Gee I pondered that too.

This has nothing to do with helmet use and/or effectiveness, unsure why you continue to post the link saying statistics like these have any bearing on helmet use or not...:

[h=4]Statistics from a Johns Hopkins U. study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in February, 2001:[/h] [h=3]Bicyclists and Alcohol[/h]

• One drink increases a bicyclist's probability of serious injury or death by a factor of six.
  
• Four or five drinks increases the probability by a factor of 20.
  
• One third of bicycle fatalities have elevated blood alcohol levels.

(We have a page up on Bicycles and Alcohol.)

Really, so because you know absolutely nothing about helmets or the statistics posted by the government who compiles more data then you have brain cells, you think, wait you don't think, you blabber on about how those statistics don't mean anything simply because you don't like to wear helmet! And bring up drinking? Are you really that lacking? I guess you are. And because you're lacking there is no further need to discuss anything with you in regards to this thread because I don't discuss things with irrational people, they're simply too needy.

It seems to me that this data implies that you reduce your chances of a fatal accident by not having a drink. The accident statistics cited to promote helmet use are therefore deflated by one third.

The point is that the League of American cyclists' figures are likely to be more accurate than those you keep quoting, because they looked at the details of each recorded fatality and the Government statistics don't. And their figures make much more real-world sense. Everyone knows that collisions with motor vehicles cause the vast majority of cycling fatalities, and even the helmet manufactureres acknowledge that the forces involved in such collisions overwhelm the protection a bicycle helmet can provide. So the suggestion that 90% of dead cyclists were helmetless never made any sense. By far the likeliest explanation is that the data is unreliable.

But hey, just carry on cherry-picking information that seems to support your prejudices, and ignoring the rest. It's so much easier than actually thinking, and we wouldn't want to put ypu to any trouble.

You're doing the same damn thing, you're cherry picking a site that agrees with you so you think that one is more accurate because it agrees with you and your beliefs, I think the government keep much better records than the League of American Cyclists. I would much rather see an impartial statistic then one that isn't like the one you keep beating your chest about. I can't believe that someone would think that an association all for cyclists called the League of American Cyclists is not impartial...talk about not thinking!

I know a bunch about helmets and statistics--you, on the other hand have a hard time with statistics, especially when you post a link regarding helmet use which includes all kinds of other statistics but do not clarify or specify which stats you'd like us to pay attention to.

I wear a helmet nearly every time I ride a bike. Again, you haven't been paying much attention.

I didn't bring up drinking, you did in the link you posted. The part I C&P'd was from the link you posted. I don't know why you post statistics regarding drunk riding in a helmet thread, but there you have it.

You already said you would ignore me, but you have lied about that many times over now.

Pick and choose data:

• Fact: If you were to fall over backwards and allowed that the first part of your body to strike the ground (hard ground, asphalt, cement, etc.) was the back of your head --- you would most likely be dead, or, at least, seriously brain injured.
• The following may seem grim, however – facts are facts and you should learn to live with them: Sixty years or so ago a helmet manufacturer (can’t remember which one) commissioned a series of tests. Those tests were made with cadaver heads (yep, cadaver heads). The researchers dropped those heads from varying heights, starting with about two feet (as best I can remember).
• They were:
  • 1) Devoid of hair, and flesh.
  • 2) Devoid of hair but with flesh.
  • 3) Hair (1/2”) plus flesh.

• The results were clear: A fleshy, hairy head would crack the skull if dropped more than about 3.5 feet while the bare version only needed 1.5 feet (again, as best I can remember). It is generally accepted that a cracked (fractured) skull results in brain injury.
• Most of us have viewed the collision between an inexperienced/idiot motorcycle rider https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNFaAqS2f18 and an innocent bicyclist. Take a look at how the (bi)cyclist struck the ground: He struck it with the back of his helmet; he did not die. Had he not been wearing the helmet, he most likely would have died because he fell more than five feet to the ground and struck the back of his head (basal skull fracture).

I investigated an unusual motorcycle death several years ago (I once did that sort of thing as part of my living). The rider was wearing an excellent and proven helmet. However, the fatal blow (her head against the pavement) missed the helmet; her forehead struck the cement from a height of about six feet, with some forward velocity. The blow was so catastrophic that she did not bleed from the three-inch gash in her forehead. As sometime happens, the shock of the impact stopped her heart.
Bottom line: Helmets work, given that they are between your noggin and the object, and, that you aren’t asking too much of them.

In an earlier reply, I mentioned my crash at 18mph where my helmeted head bounced after hitting the back of my head on the pavement cracking the foam but resulted in no injury or even a headache. Have a feeling I would not have had the same outcome had I been helmetless.

OldTryGuy:

You would have died. I'm glad you wore your helmet so that we might have a beer together, if only metaphorically. ;o)

Joe

Internet seems to think a Dutch Charm is a clog shaped pendant. I'm not sure how useful those are as condoms.

I suspect it has something to do with a higher degree of separation of bicycles and faster traffic. I tried to dig up Dutch statistic but to no avail. Alcohol (and other drugs) seem to be a common cyclist killer everywhere.

[MENTION=202847]Joe Minton[/MENTION] What you got there is a list of unsupported facts (or perhaps those are "facts), If-I-Remember-Correctlies, hasty conclusions and speculations about anecdotes. Nothing we can work with I'm afraid.

Setting an example. Yesterday while riding my trike, I was stopped by a family out for a ride. Both the father and the mother wanted to know where I got my trike. The lady was most interested trying a trike. Being stopped this way is getting to be more frequent.

Then the father said to his daughter, see even the guy on his trike wears a helmet. The whole family was wearing helmets, but the young daughter was not too keen on wearing one. I assured her that her parents really cared for her, and thats why they wanted her to wear a helmet.

Gee, TDF finish yesterday********** No need to wear a helmet. :rolleyes: