A bike helmet looks ridiculous compared to a Nazi helmet ? Were you in Charlottesville, Va. last Summer ?

Aww, come on, a couple of tattoos would fix that, no...? :p

No tats are saving you from looking like a mushroom. It don't gotta be this way.

https://dmcycling.files.wordpress.co...pg?w=640&h=853

Okay, if mushroom's cool, why not turtle-back?

https://i1.wp.com/ae01.alicdn.com/kf...65%2C665&ssl=1

There're all manner of takes on it..

https://www.leatherup.com/imagesproc...H355_MW400.jpg

Meh, i'm still not wearing one. Good old cycling cap, that's all you need. Preferably with a slim, firm, low profile padding..

https://i.pinimg.com/736x/25/ec/3a/2...bike-style.jpg

Okay. But are huge, rock-hard polystyrene shells really the best way to protect a 4ft fall..? What's wrong with a good old sausage hat? Comfy!

https://i.pinimg.com/736x/5d/74/42/5...ke-helmets.jpg

There are plenty of modern takes on the concept, too.

https://c.shld.net/rpx/i/s/i/spin/10...&wid=64&qlt=50

In fact, soft hat technology is progressing, many of these are foldable and machine washable.

http://road.cc/sites/default/files/s...?itok=z69UWMEt

And bump-hats are progressing elsewhere in sports too, being far more protective on hard floors than they look. These could be the direction for many cyclists, particularly roadies.

https://i.pinimg.com/736x/25/72/96/2...ke-helmets.jpg

Anyway, my point is you ain't gotta look like a toadstool. Or i ain't, anyway. Cycle helmets are moving on, as this one demonstrates - hopefully i'll find something before i need it...

https://static1.squarespace.com/stat...g?format=1000w

They are thick so that the crushing minimizes the impulse. Plating would help against penetration but not as much impact protection. It would be better than a beanie though.

I haven't worn a helmet since November, well maybe once or twice, but I don't think it's wrong. It's just a choice, like which gloves do I wear, or which shoes.

I know this is anecdotal, but the worse bicycle accident I ever saw up close happened on a protected MUP. The cyclist who crashed was just behind me and I had just passed him on the left. He was an older gentleman, actually a friend of a friend. The path was paved and elevated, with a ditch and small trees and heavy heavy brush off to the right. He must have strayed too far to the right and in a moment of inattention, his front wheel went off the paved part of the trail and in trying to correct his error, went down and into the trees and brush. I heard him go down. His helmet took the brunt of the impact and was cracked, his glasses broken, so I surmise he went face first into one of the trees. His head was bleeding and he was not making any sense. We called for an ambulance and he spent the night in the hospital. If he were not wearing a helmet, who knows? He might have suffered a permanent head injury or possibly even died from a skull fracture.

A great many of the "A bicycle helmet saved my life" testimonies, start with describing how recklessness and/or stupidity was the cause of the accident. It's just my impression, but a lot of the bicycle helmets fanboys don't even seem to understand the bare basics of cycling safety.

egg =/= head. But it's probably this kind of simplistic and flawed thinking that sells bicycle helmets.

Bicycle helmets are an obvious safety measure, like crash helmets for motorcyclists and seatbelts for motorists. Fanboys have nothing to do with it, though logic, safety and science all do.

I don't see where wearing a helmet in an accident has no value. I do see the value in not having accidents in the first place.

Classic confirmation bias. Classic.

I would love to see all the peer-reviewed scientific reports that prove the effectivity of bicycle helmets then.

I would say that if safety is the goal, there's no reason to not don a full-face motor-cycle helmet instead of a foam-hat. Bicycle helmets usually aren't like motor-cycle helmets, they are obviously less effective.

I would classify bicycle helmets as a little better than completely worthless. They likely offer some protection, but overall they are not really important to cycling safety. Coupled with the fact that they come with serious drawbacks, they really don't seem worth it.

Non-arguments like this can be discarded without refutation.

You couldn't be more wrong, and you really do need to back up your assertions with facts and figures.

Hiny: you won't find much :)

Actually, the people who make claims should be the ones who prove those claims. That would be the people who pretend bicycle helmets are an incredibly important safety feature. The reluctance of people to accept bicycle helmets as their Lid And Savior is mainly rooted in the lack of evidence that they work. Until said prove is delivered I'm content with cycling bare headed.

Well, you did make the claim they were worthless, so the onus is on you, but on your own head be it then. Good luck.

I did not make such claim. Try reading my post again.

You aren't being honest.

"a little better than completely worthless" is just hedging.

Is "completely worthless" the same thing as "worthless"? Or is "worthless" "a little better than "completely worthless"?

"they really don't seem worth it" is hedging too.

No one is going to conclude from this that you think helmets have any real worth.

That's correct.

We may need to distinguish between "helmets saving lives" (which they don't often do?) and "helmets preventing some injuries".

I'm not sure a helmet would make much of a difference in a violent collision or serious crash. But personal experience shows me that it can be useful in preventing concussions during less serious incidences. My example (already used a couple of times in this thread) is that in 1991 I had a low-speed (prolly 10mph) collision with a car on a bike path that threw me to the ground. I suffered a PITA concussion because of having no helmet. In 2003 I was helmeted and had a very similar crash and bopped my head on the cement again pretty hard - this time with a helmet - and didn't have to get treated for a concussion. They def have their place, and I don't think they should be classified as "a little better than completely worthless" [MENTION=373404]CarinusMalmari[/MENTION]

People who confuse what I wrote with their own brain-farts are probably going to have trouble with understanding that post. The remainder will conclude that I think bicycle helmets are of limited effectiveness. You know, pretty much like I wrote.

That second post of yours mainly proves you still aren't capable of "winning" discussions without resorting to putting words in my mouth, etc.

No. The "brain farts" you are detecting are your own.

No, your words apply to your confirmation bias.

We had:

"a little better than completely worthless".
"they really don't seem worth it".

Now, we have:

"limited effectiveness" (whatever that means).

Is "completely worthless" the same thing as "worthless"? Or is "worthless" "a little better than "completely worthless"?

Is "limited effectiveness" more or less than "a little better than completely worthless"?

Safety Education First, Safety Equipment Second.
 

I own a Helmet.
Many times I wear it...
At times I dont Wear it.
Im not going to disect my case by case choices ajd reasons..

But, I would like to say this:

I believe the big downfall with the "Helmet" topic .... is that is often left as simple as "wear your hemet...be safe"

The helmet is what theoretically kicks into play--- because someone WAS NOT SAFE...

Its the backup last ditch effort plan for when bad choices are made and safety isnt put first... by the rider or by someone else.

Education, on the other hand...further dostances the chance of an accident in the first place.

Education in riding safety, (for riders,vehicle drivers AND pedestrians.)

Ones that choose to drive a car, walk or pedal on public areas should be properly educated and prove that they can handle themselves according to the order of the region... in a safe and wise manner.

Drivers need a drivers license. However, drivers are only one component of the traffic that happens on roads.

If a rider can't demonstrate appropriate wisdom, alertness, and courteous behaviour when mixing with traffic, he/she should not be allowed out there in the roads.

I am an avid cyclist... road and trail. Im also a licensed driver.

I believe many cyclists are smart... they stay to the side of the road..
Only claim the lane when truly necessary for safety.. and do try to be mindful of oetting traffic by when they can ( i often pull over and stop asap if I see a car is struggling to pass me. I see many cyclists that don't, and I feel that is very rude.

I believe education and enforcement would be 10x the safety factor of a helmet.

Helmets dont "make" us safe.

Applying wisdom and discernment... "make" us safe.

If helmets in themselves "make" us safe... why dont we see car drivers be legally required to wear helmets... or.. pedestrians?

Safety Education First, Safety Equipment Second.
 

Ive been cycling bare headed in my town... one time (as an example for this reply... I was waiting at a green light for an oncoming car turning right to complete his turn so I could turn left into the bike lane. Instead of paying attention to where he was turning while driving... he decided it was safer to drive turning right while hanging his head out the window looking a total different direction... (towards me) in order to thump his noggin and jesture his opinion that "I" should have a helmet on.

Just a thought here... but... it would seem to me that "he" (driving a 3600lb vehicle into a direction hes not looking..., is creating a far more serious safety hazard than me... planted stationary and alert to ALL the traffic surrounding me....

Yes... I firmly agree to your referance to blindly accepting helmets as lid and saviour.... its become accepted as such and ones are bullied for exacting sound reasoning prior to blindly following suit to appease the masses.

And that is why this thread got started, people should be able to choose wearing a helmet and not be made to wear one by law.

I agree. Same goes for motorcyclists and helmets and drivers with safety belts, people should have the right to choose!

The point is that legislation is rightly aimed at worst case scenarios. If you don’t have accidents you don’t need either safety belts or helmets. The key lies in the word « accident », and it is that against which the law aims to protect you.