you're kidding, right?
 

You've obviously never been hit by a car.

Note that they live in the Netherlands. Cars are not the gift of God's there.

Not in the numbers or places that cyclists regularly collide with them (and don't hit their head if it brings them down at all). Maybe they adapt like dogs seem to have done and avoid the busy roads.

Only twice.

appearantly.

Yes, and on top of that people tend to take more risks when feeling protected.

Helmet wearing only offers some protection in some cases. It's not a magic hat that makes all dangers disappear.

No. I really don't mind people wearing helmets in dangerous situations and places, like mountainbiking, going fast on the open road, in the shower, in America. But when you enter an urban area in the Netherlands full of cyclists and pedestrians, many of them below 10, it should be normal to cycle in a way a helmet has no use, even with the chance of pigeons and cats crossing. Switch off from a competitive or speed state of mind, get the feet out of the clips and relax, get in tune with that environment.

I meant a case could be made, it's not the case I want to make because I don't believe it should be regulated at all. The case I want to make is that cycling itself should remain a helmetless activity, unless there are specific risks. That could be wildlife in some places, it could be ice in others, it could be speed or competition in any place. That could but should not be traffic. Cycling is not an inherently dangerous activity that requires a helmet for (some) safety. That's my problem with helmet advocacy, it makes the exception into the rule.

I think it's the possibility of the exception that only a rule can address. IOW, the exceptional scenario of bike-related head trauma can only be addressed with the rule of wearing a helmet.

And I'm going to guess being clipped in to pedals isn't very popular either...

Bike-related head trauma doesn't exist. Head trauma is speed-related, traffic-related, wildlife-related, incompetence-related or whatever, but it's not related to the activity of cycling itself. Cycling itself is safe to the head once you've learned to stay on it. The risk comes with where and how you ride it. Cycling calmly among lots of other helmetless cyclists turns out to be the safest.

Head trauma is speed-related, traffic-related, wildlife-related, incompetence-related or whatever, but it's not related to the activity of cycling itself. Cycling itself is safe to the head once you've learned to stay on it. The risk comes with where and how you ride it.

When one turns to semantics to make a point, you know the substance of their argument is getting very thin. Trauma that happens on a bike is bike-related trauma by definition, helmet ideology aside. I may be new to these forums but your comments have affirmed my decision to wear a helmet always.

Helmet zealots, whether they are new posters here or are the same old, same old characters posting "questions" on this subject are already committed to their helmet wearing/proselytizing decision/beliefs; questions for which they have no interest in the responses unless they "affirm" their quasi-religious decision/beliefs in the risk reduction power of Styrofoam.:rolleyes:

No, I don't think so.
Now you are making it about semantics. I might have got it wrong semantically, at least the point I was trying to make was about the substance.
In the shower and in the car too? Unlike a lot of helmet advocats I don't enjoy telling other people what to do. I could not even tell whether I think it's wise for you to wear a helmet or not because I've no idea where and how you ride your bike.

Same here.

I wear a helmet and seat belts, and advocate strongly for their use, but I figure that any adult who chooses to not wear one has that right, the same way they have the right to leave home for vacation without locking the door or leave valuables on the seat of their parked car. If they place any value on something, they will take steps to protect it against the unforeseen.

If cyclists really prioritized their safety, they would be wearing a snuggly fitting full-face motor-cycling helmet when riding a bicycle. They serve after all the exact same purpose. And yet cyclists typically opt for what's left of a motor-cycling helmet that after all the concessions to comfort, weight, temperature, etc. etc. is reduced to something that can hardly even.be called a helmet. I just go one step further, and discard the last scraps of styrofoam, accept that there's in practice not that much you can do to protect yourself on a bicycle, and count my blessings cycling is inherently safe if you accept those limitations and act on it.

Most of my claims are simply logical.
Bicycle helmets obviously do have the same purpose as motorcycle helmets.
A full face motorcycle helmet obviously offers far more protection than a bicycle helmet, if only because it covers more of the head.
The difference between the two is due to all kinds of concessions to make the bicycle helmet more marketable suitable for cycling
The reasons why cyclists prefer bicycle helmets over motor cycle helmets are typically the same as the reason why I opt out of helmets altogether.

Pro-tip. If you demand from people to support their claims with proper sources, you might want to do the same for your own claims.
but knock yourself out, anyway

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_helmet
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorcycle_helmet

Great question. Not sure, but I read recently that after helmets were introduced and popularized, the number of head injuries reported went up for cyclists. BUT, at the same time, the number of fatalities went down for the same group :) So, to some extent, I was reminded that introducing helmet usage to a study can at times complicate the bigger data set.

No Helmet
 

I was wondering when did wearing helmet while riding road bike become trendy, because I remember when only mtb'ers were wearing them, out of fear of hitting tree while riding on some forest trails.
I know that pros at tour de france wear helmets because they give some slight aerodynamic advantage, although they have lately such huge hair so not sure if the helmet can help much. Needless to say I don't wear any, my reasoning is that it is better to prevent than cure, it comes out of my bad experience when I fainted, because it traps hot air and that tight strap under your chin is not helping either. I think this is far far more likely than hitting anything with your head while on the bike. Since I'm riding for 10 years now 15 thousand km a year I can say out of my experience that helmet is not necessary while riding a road bike, I did have few accidents but to fall on your head you'd have to rollover, which is impossible on the bicycle. Each day I ride between cars through the city and I can't imagine having anything on my head, because with protounding helmet I'd be hitting every car's and truck's mirror and that is bound to give me concussion. You're naturally aware of your head's width but if you wear something that adds few cm's on either side then it spells trouble. Now I know about statistics but I also know that statistics are not real life and that is my experience, I think world is going towards eliminating any possible danger which in theory is good but it creates new unforeseen dangers, it's same with new cars and super thick pillars, sure they save you in case of rollover but they terribly obstruct the view which can cause an accident in first place, and one much more common than rollover, which happens very seldom.

Is there a correlation between people who don't use helmets and people who don't use paragraph breaks?

They wear helmets because the rules say they must wear helmets. The rest of what you think you know is equally reliable.

Widespread helmet usage in the US (as far as I remember) was around 1986 when Greg Lemond sported a Giro styrofoam helmet with a lycra cover over it. That was about the same time the USCF made us start wearing helmets and wouldn't allow leather hairnets anymore.

I care not one bit what someone else thinks about wearing helmets, nor do I care whether they wear one or not. I started wearing one back in the late 80's. There are instances when I do not wear one. If I have been working on a bike and am just going to do a short test ride in my neighborhood I usually do not put one on. I also sometimes head out on a ride and realize at some point that I do not have my helmet on. I will usually go back and put one on. However, sometimes, Iike today, I am already miles away from home when I realize I am helmet less. If that is the case I will probably just continue on my way, as I did today. IMO, not a good scenario. I have never had the misfortune of having tested the level of protection from a helmet. To me, it is pretty obvious that I am better protected with a helmet than I am without one.I also think it is just as obvious that a helmet is not going to prevent all injuries from happening. I did have a fall off of a bike a couple of months ago that did not cause any contact with the helmet/head area, but, just the same, I am glad I had one on.

I put my bicycle away for a motorcycle in about 1974, and didn't ride again until around 2008. I'd never personally handled a bicycle helmet to that point, and didn't see a lot of point to it except for some misadventures on ice. I have several now, that I use about half the time, but I still think that they're mainly for children and special sporting events. And group rides of course :rolleyes:

No backwards?

Great catch!

https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...b2319a9422.gif