I've been cycling in traffic for over 40 years...I'll go by my experience, thank you. Nobody said there were not accidents...there is the potential for accidents in a great many day-to-day activities that people don't normally wear helmets for. We're talking about the potential of head injury here...unless you contend that a helmet can somehow prevent or mitigate scrapes, cuts, strains, broken collar bones, broken limbs, stupidity, etc. ;)

My experience has shown that normal riding has no greater risk of head injury than many other of my daily activities...but obviously if I choose to make cycling more dangerous...when racing for example, I increase my risk and a helmet might be warranted. It's the same with driving a car....I don't even think about wearing a helmet normally, even though there is a far greater risk of head injury in an auto accident...but if racing a car I'd probably wear a helmet. It's not rocket surgery. ;)

The only person making that grand assumption is you. If you'd take off that helmet, it might have sunk in the first time. :lol:

Define "dangerous". Bicycling carries with it the potential for severe injury and death. But so do many other daily activities for which few if any of us wear protective gear.

Yes, but - IMO - not nearly as often or as effectively as many cyclists believe.

The first part is unanswerable, because the answer to the second part is "By the standards of the individual making the decision".

I'm sure they can be more effective, and I'm sure they can be made lighter and more comfortable. I'm not sure if both things can be accomplished at the same time. For me personally it doesn't matter, because the reason I don't normally wear one isn't that there are any real drawbacks. It's simply that I perceive them unnecessary for the level of risk I assume while riding.

Not in my opinion.

I'm capable of deciding whether I need seatbelts, airbags, helmets, etc. I'm not, though, always capable of deciding whether the internal wiring of a new appliance is adequate. I am not against all safety standards, but I do think that the average adult is reasonably capable of deciding for him or herself what personal safety gear is appropriate for a particular activity.

Some parents will make bad decisions for their children. Does that mean that no parent should be allowed to make decisions for their children?

Of course. And I go by mine. I know from experience that you can end up smacking your head on the concrete while riding a bike. I know that a helmet, flimsy as it is compared to, say, a motorcycle helmet, can prevent at least some injury. To me, a helmet is no burden at all, so I'll use that piece of safety gear. I certainly don't expect miracles from it, though.

The problem with personal experience, of course, is that it can only account for the past: you never know what kind of misfortune might await a cyclist the next day. S--t can indeed happen.

Certainly one can get a head injury in all kinds of circumstances. Yet, if one grants the presence of the risk, should one take a simple step to avoid it? At least with a bicycle helmet, wearing one is a normal part of the culture, so you wouldn't create quite the same bizarre impression as wearing one while walking on slippery pavement outside the grocery store :) (Though maybe one should: would you rather look like a weirdo or get a concussion?)

I wonder if it's not dangerous to believe that so much control regarding safety rests in your hands, that you can control all the variables to a point where cycling poses no risk (or no risk of head injury in particular). That doesn't account for choices by motorists, other cyclists, pedestrians, dogs, potholes or debris momentarily obscured by clouds, a mechanical failure that falls outside your ability to observe or predict, etc. Life is full of surprises. The only way to totally remove all those other variables, I think, is not to cycle.

Looking through this thread a bit, I've seen that argument put forth a number of times. Yet it doesn't quite wash. Because you expose yourself to risk in some areas, does that mean you should not try to mitigate it in others? Is it perhaps not better to reduce the risk of injury in at least some activities than to adopt a consistent stance of "I do everything dangerously"? :) "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."

That's the way society normally works, though, for better or worse. Someone perceives a real or imagined potential for harm, and a rule or law then gets put in place to regulate everyone's activity in that sphere. There's usually not a clause that says, "If you personally feel that you're not at risk, or dislike government intervention, or simply don't give a damn and want to be contrary, then you can ignore this statute."

I'm the guy who knows that we have no control...when your number is up, your number is up...and all the helmets, armor, bunkers, shoulda, woulda, couldas in the world won't make any difference. Cycling doesn't even make the top 100 of things I do or have done that could seriously injure me. If it's different for you, great, you do what you need to do for your own perception of safety...just respect my right to do the same for myself. ;)

A fatalistic philosophy like that would seem to imply that your choices make little or no difference. But most people, I'd imagine, believe they have some influence on the course of their lives and believe in taking certain reasonable precautions, though what "reasonable" means will obviously vary.

most people haven't seen the crap I've seen, but you are correct that reasonable is in the eye of the beholder...and things like putting on a helmet for the simple act of riding a bike is way beyond reasonable for me...YMMV. ;)

and if helmets had a track record that showed they made a difference, maybe more people would wear them, that is if people thought riding a bike was likely to end in head injury. But they don't, except in isolated areas where cycling is not the norm, so helmet use is not the norm, except in isolated communities that have been convinced cycling is dangerous and the helmet is the answer to that danger, even if the track record shows otherwise.

I don't think anyone needs convincing that cycling might be dangerous: you can obviously fall off or get in some kind of wreck for various reasons. I can't imagine anyone seriously believes that a helmet could totally prevent any sort of cycling head injury.

that would be your neck of the woods, and if you had a broader view of the issue, you'd see that relatively few people in the world wear helmets, except where they been legislated and have had little to no evidence of making a difference except in the minds of those who want to believe they have.

You're assuming my view is narrow. Either way, what the majority of the world's cyclists do doesn't directly answer the question about the potential of helmet wearing to prevent injury or the question of whether a government has a right to dictate that behavior.

Fwiw, the law where I live only dictates helmet use for minors, though the majority of adult cyclists I see wear them.

particularly if cycling is not in the mainstream. When cycle use is common however, it's perception of danger diminishes

as anyone can doing any number of things. If a human body could not endure the effects of a simple fall, humans wouldn't have survived as long as they have

many people who have been convinced a helmet is necessary when riding a bike have an inflated view on what it can do. some of them go on to say that without them, cyclists will surely die

in terms of helmet use, yes

governments can get in the habit of doing what a few people want them to (and there are always those who want others to do what they think they should, even if there's no good reason for it) so as long as governments follow popular choices, they'll do it

fwiw, I live in an all-ages mhl province where the government has the right of not only fining non-helmet wearers, they can seize the bicycles from them too

Perhaps, but I'm not talking about relative perceptions or relative likelihood of injury, merely the fact that one can indeed get hurt or killed cycling.

Already noted. But like I said, exposing yourself to certain dangers doesn't imply that a) you should not modify or refrain from that behavior to enhance safety or b) that you should refrain from protecting yourself from certain other dangers. I could slip and fall in the bathroom. Does that mean I should not take measures to protect myself in other arenas?

What statistics/studies are there for the views of these anonymous "many people"? Sounds like that could be a straw man. And as for the actuality of what a helmet will and won't do on the large scale, we'd need a decent body of scientific studies. Looking at this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_helmet it doesn't seem like there's a preponderance of sound scientific evidence either way.

That's not very charitable. Because I don't echo what you say, or?

Well, a representative democratic government is supposed to do what's popular :) But I agree special interest groups with the cash and clout can have unreasonable leverage. In the US, we have certain groups fighting to restrict everyone's ability to make choices, even to undermine Constitutionally protected rights, all the time.

or because it is narrow?

and therein lies the problem; people are worried about what can happen rather than what is likely to happen.

you mean like not carrying around a lightning rod in case I may get struck by lightning, or wear a helmet in a car because there's just as good a chance of being hit on the head in the car?

well, if there's not a clear preponderance of scientific evidence that show helmets are needed or helpful, why do some people seem to think they're an important part of cycling safety?

what Chip said...

Why would you not be concerned with likelihood?

You could fall off your bike in one of the rare accidents that kill cyclists tomorrow. Or you could fall in the bathroom and bang your head. Just because you wear a helmet on your bicycle, does that mean that you should not wear one in the bathroom?

Or are both of these events so rare and unlikely that it's a bit bizarre to wear a helmet in anticipation of either of them?

Not concerned with regard to that specific point. As to myself, I am moderately concerned with the likelihood :) Since a helmet is no imposition or burden on me, and I know from experience they can prevent certain head injuries, I wear one. In that practical sense, it's a non issue for me, though the broader philosophical or political implications raised in this thread I find interesting.

For me, there's no expectation of a bike helmet preventing death, which is what you mention. But certain lacerations, contusions, or concussions? Quite possibly. Barring incontrovertible evidence suggesting that helmets increase the likelihood or severity of head injury, for me wearing one will continue to be a simple and easy bit of common sense precaution, akin to wearing shoes and gloves and sunglasses.

That's what I was saying: one situation doesn't necessarily imply behavior in another, unless your primary object is uniformity or consistency of behavior. Something could fall of a shelf and hit you in the head at home. You presumably don't wear a helmet in your closet. Should you therefore neglect to wear a helmet in other circumstances? Do you need to study statistical tables and have a cutoff percentage that determines when something is dangerous enough to warrant protective measures?

"Bizarre" is a loaded term. Is it indeed strange to take a precautionary measure in an athletic activity, a measure that imposes no unreasonable physical or financial hardship? (Leaving aside for the moment the question of having this enforced by someone else.) Nowadays, it's generally acceptable in many sports/athletic activities to wear helmets, pads, cups, gloves, mouth guards, etc. Are these people engaging in "bizarre" or paranoid precautionary behavior since the likelihood of injury might not be as great as in other situations?

That's not necessarily a problem, more a question of outlook. It's like the old saying about guns: "Better to have one and not need it than to need one and not have it." People have differing perspectives on what constitutes an acceptable risk and what constitutes effective precaution.

A few possible reasons:

Because there is not a clear preponderance of scientific evidence that shows helmets are not needed or helpful
Because of anecdotal/experiential evidence supporting their benefits
Because of reasoning by analogy from other athletic or vehicular activities
Because of a "better safe than sorry" attitude
Because of the willful dissemination of false information (though I doubt there's a helmet-maker cabal that leaks false statistics to boost sales :) )

That doesn't answer my question. What specifically about my outlook on this issue is narrow?

It may be an outlook, but it is a problem

A logical sequence of order is needed to deal with issues. If you don't want to be logical, there's little point to discussion

By that token, I can accuse you of unnecessary risk-taking because you both walk AND drive bare-headed. Foolishly consistent? Or a realistic evaluation of risks vs. benefits?


"Because that's the way it is" is hardly a persuasive argument. Imagine where we'd be if the folks in charge had applied that rationale to slavery.

This is an utterly nonsensical line of reasoning. It could be used to argue for helmet use in any conceivable situation: "You don't wear a helmet while dancing. Does that mean you shouldn't wear one while tying your shoes? Are you so foolishly consistent that you can't wear a helmet while tying your shoes just because you also don't wear it while dancing?"

You imply that people approach this, or any, issue logically :) As you know, lots of decisions are based on emotion, and that includes public policy decisions. While logic has its uses, if you expect logic from everyone all the time, you will be waiting in vain, and this obviously seems to be a hot-button emotional issue to some people here. Of which, I haven't read this whole thread, but I so far haven't seen posts saying, "Helmets are devices designed to offer injury protection, irrefutable evidence shows helmets to have no ability to afford any injury protection, therefore there is no safety benefit in wearing one, therefore I don't wear one." Rather, I see statements along the lines of "I don't personally feel there's a benefit, the costs outweigh the potential benefits to me, cycling seems safe to me, I make cycling safe, etc." Is that hard facts and cold logic or an explanation/justification of personal choice?