The only time I am outside for extended periods of time in sunny Southern California is when riding my road bike on training and conditioning rides. I always wear a helmet. (Well at least since they became "popular" or common fare which really is less than 20 years ago.) Then I never wore one.

When I ride my get around town short trip errand bike, ( I don't drive), I never wear a helmet. That time and the few other times outside such as taking short trips on the Metro I am hatless to keep my shaved head somewhat tanned to reasonably match my always tanned face and neck.

For protection purposed do helmets offer protection from TBI? Yeah, for sure, but nowhere as much as most people think. The helmet is actually much better at protecting the bone and skin that it covers than it is at protecting the brain. In other words, you are better protected from injury to the head or brain when wearing a helmet...just not as much as what everyone is striving for in protecting the brain itself from trauma.

Cycle helmet safety - recent study concludes they're a must
 

UNSW study reveals how many lives saved by using them Interesting article from an Australian newspaper. According to the study: "There were 1144 cycling fatalities in the period 1990-2016 and, using the pre-legislation trajectory as a guide, our model estimates 2476 cycling fatalities from 1990 to 2016 if bicycle helmet legislation had not been introduced."

Bear in mind the wearing of helmets is compulsory in throughout Australia now.

"Those who argue against helmet laws claim the laws have reduced interest in cycling, with many would-be cyclists hesitant to ride because they don't want to wear one."--

I am curious whether cycling interest would be reduced here in Ontario if there was a mandatory helmet law for all person, not just minors. What is a bigger deterrent for cycling is the lack of infrastructure, the same as in Australia.

I agree with the study, all English-speaking non-Americans probably should be required to wear helmets at all times. :D

While I dislike mandatory helmet laws, remember one thing. Cyclist without helmets make good organ donors.

I don't wear a helmet to save my life, I wear one to save my ride. In the past 5 years I've gone over the bars about 4 times, some worse than others, and all of those times my helmet had minor contact with the ground, but nothing more than a mild concussion. I would guess that had I not been wearing the helmet, I would've at least gotten a gash that would likely have ended the ride.

BTW: Pedestrians should really be the ones wearing helmets: Why it makes sense to bike without a helmet ? Howie Chong : Howie Chong

Personal safety should never be mandatory.

No doubt that the thread in A&S will get moved here. Y'all feel free to get a head start with the debate.
https://www.theage.com.au/national/r...08-p50wj7.html

Here's a fun quote from the link:
When asked if he believes this report would change anyone's mind, Professor Olivier was blunt.
"No, I have no faith in that at all," he said, but added that he doesn’t do research to convince the anti-helmet people that they're wrong, as "they'll never be convinced".

Can we agree that 90% of regular BF contributors live somewhere in the USA? I find it interesting that so many studies based on data sets outside the U.S. are promulgated here in an attempt to validate any POV that is uppermost in the agenda of a poster. US helmet standards exceed those of Australia, Canada and Europe. US helmet adoption exceeds other developed countries. And? What? Notwithstanding our outsize love for all things helmet, US cyclist death, derangement, and dismemberment metrics still exceed (a bad thing) those in the rest of the developed world. If you are whacked by an F150 or an Escalade (vehicles that are rare, or do not exist in the rest of the developed world) you will suffer blunt force trauma to your torso that no helmet as yet devised can protect against. Being hit by a large American pickup truck or SUV is at least as likely as going over the handlebars in a panic stop. I wear a helmet. It is more than 12 years old. It's not even scratched. It is a handy place to affix a rear view mirror. I hope never to actually find out how it works for keeping me alive. I have WAY higher standards for 'quality of life' than most of my family and friends. They all want to survive an accident even if they are left drooling and/or lying in a vegetative state for the rest of their natural lives. Me? No. I would rather not make it in the event of an accident serious enough to deprive me of mobility, mental acuity, sight or any other vital sense. But that's me.

Just saying. The forum software provides us with emoticons precisely so that posters can avoid using triggering GIF's in open forum. Evolve please.

A handful of years ago, my son went down on a descent. We took him to the local walk in clinic and they looked him over with a broken collarbone diagnosis. So off to the ER we went. As we were sitting there, I asked him if his helmet hit the ground. He didn't think so. As I looked at the side of his head, I could clearly see a red waffle looking area along the side. When we got home, we looked at his helmet and sure enough, it was shattered. Without the helmet, he'd surely have had a concussion. They are not perfect, but they can be the difference between a concussion and being able to walk away.

Absolutely no scientific way to prove that wearing a helmet would prevent any specific fatality, or even serious injury.

From the report: "Immediately following bicycle helmet legislation, the rate of bicycle fatalities per 1 000 000 population reduced by 46% relative to the pre-legislation trend [95% confidence interval (CI): 31, 58]. For the period 1990–2016, we estimate 1332 fewer cycling fatalities (95% CI: 1201, 1463) or an average of 49.4 per year (95% CI: 44.5, 54.2). Reductions were also observed for pedestrian fatalities; however, bicycle fatalities declined by 36% relative to pedestrian fatalities (95% CI: 12, 54)."

So ... what was the cause for the reduction in pedestrian fatalities? Helmets?

Maybe the big push to enforce helmet laws made drivers more aware? Maybe law enforcement started getting serious about driver ****ting cyclists and pedestrians?

In the US we have seen drastic reductions in drunk driving because of ad campaigns, changed public opinion, and much stricter enforcement. No helmet mandates so far.

These people looked at bicycle fatalities from 1971 through 1990, which means from about the time people first started riding a lot on the road and no one knew how to cope with bikes .... until 1990, when the government got serious about bicycle safety. How much of the reduction was due to awareness, how much do to infrastructure changes?

Also, the paper claims immediate reduction of 46% ... so show the totals for 1989 which are 46 % higher than 1990. otherwise ... "projections." Not facts. Interpretations of facts, not facts. Spin, we call it in the U.S.

Based on their "model," which is they way they chose to imagine what might have happened, not what actually happened, "For the period 1990–2016, we estimate 1332 fewer cycling fatalities ... " So they admit there is no data showing that helmets alone saved lives.

And what about other factors? How many of the riders who died were wearing helmets? Maybe there have been more low-speed crashes because there are more cyclists on residential roads, and thus fewer fatalities? Have other factors like cyclists using lights, bike lanes, bike and traffic laws and their enforcement, been factored in? Has drunk cycling been reduced?

I know Orlando, Florida, used to be the cycling fatality capital of the nation year after year. Then Mayor Glenda Hood started a program to make the city more bike friendly---bike lanes, law enforcement, ad campaigns ... and Orlando lost the title. No helmet Laws.

To me this is more junk science. Correlation noted, causation assumed.

I find this post based on who knows how many misunderstanding of laws, percentages, intention of helmets, and, most sadly, basic human biology.I suggest the OPhas a think and withdraws it.

Perhaps because we're not all Americans and the physics of a head injury are the same regardless of where you're from?

I'm amazed so many fail to understand what the laws of another country are meant to do, which is to uphold the values that a particular society holds dear.So you have no helmet laws in Orlando. You'll still have a pile of injuries, if not deaths. Do you not understand what bike laws are intended to help?

Anyway, taking it from the top, do you not understand cyclists use the road, as do cars, and pedestrians the pavements? In other words, your suggestion helmets might reduce pedestrian injuries is entirely specious. I do hope your point about drivers becoming more aware of cyclists because they wear helmets is correct. Cyclists and vehicles share the same space, but one is far more likely to cause harm to the other in the event of an accident.

Your point about the link between drunk driving and ad campaigns is spot on, though I don't think it's remotely relevant for motorists vis a vis cylists, unless you are saying you think a cyclist is like a drunk driver, so remove the drink and you'll save lives? The cyclist, the pedestrian or your beloved driver?

You also seem to be totally unaware of conditions in countries other that your own, not to mention the history of cycling. I do not know why you think no-one knew anything about bikes on the road in the 1970s and had to get used to them, they've been around since Victorian times.

Your other comments are irrelevant; If you cycle yourself, you know the most important thing is to remember for any road user you share the road with other road users, who should be respected, and whose lives are just as important as yours. I assume you cycle or have cycled, so you are well aware that, if you have an accident with a motorised vehicle, it is unlikely they will come off worse.

I find your other points not worth bothering to refute, I mean, drunk cycling, for example. Yes, there may be cases, but a drunk cyclist speeding through a red light into a bunch of cars? Really!!

However, here's a final one, which made me chuckle :"For the period 1990–2016, we estimate 1332 fewer cycling fatalities ... " So they admit there is no data showing that helmets alone saved lives.

Do you understand what the word "estimate" means ?

I'll talk about somewhere I know something about: Portland. OR. I've lived here for 12 years continuously. 14, if I count visits and shorter stays. There is no law that says adults must wear helmets here! Only children. But you will have a hard time finding an adult that isn't wearing a helmet. A very hard time. Without any legal coercion whatsoever the VAST majority of active cyclists of any age are wearing helmets. Nevertheless the daily toll of severely injured and/or killed cyclists increases year over year with no actual increase in the overall size of the cycling population. I wear a helmet anyway, I just don't credit doing so with anything miraculous. For ME my helmet has yet to prove its lifesaving capacity. That is just ME. But thanks to your thoughtfulness, even if I removed my post you have reproduced much of it.

Ibtm/l

No, then I'd remove mine.

What does this mean?

That's a strange conclusion, since it doesn't consider either the rise in population from 1990 to present (almost 50% increase since 1986) or the reduction in trips per day (25% fewer bike trips every day), which together should account for a lot bigger drop in fatalities than the article attributed to the helmet law.

In before the lock or move (to the helmet thread 2).

Insurance companies.

[QUOTE=avole;20785460] Anyway, taking it from the top, do you not understand cyclists use the road, as do cars, and pedestrians the pavements? [/quote** No, Captain Pomposity, i didn't know that. Really. Seriously, can you not debate a topic without trying to demean the people who don't agree with you? Maybe reading is Fun-damental never made it to your school? (See, you don't like it when people demean you ... so think about it next time.) I never suggested helmets lessen pedestrian deaths. What i said was that the people who did the study noted that both cycling and pedestrian deaths went down .... and they could not account for the drop in pedestrian deaths, which means they didn't understand some parts of the changing mechanics of the situation ... perhaps deaths of No-Car Road Users dropped because drivers started being more ware of non-car-road users? I have seen that in a lot of places I have lived. But, hey, feel free to argue against whatever, whether I said it or someone else or no one.

Utter lack of reading comprehension for the total loss. What I said was that possibly, because of the news coverage in Australia about the changes in bicycle law and the encouragement to have cyclists wear helmets in compliance with the law, more drivers thought more about cyclists. Why you would think drivers could see cyclists better because the cyclists were wearing helmets ... yeah,. Whatever. if anyone had said that, it would have been a ridiculous thing to say.
Whose "beloved driver?" Had to resort to ad hominem again because you ran out of logic?

Try to understand this: In the U.S. drunk driving used to be widely accepted. over a span of a few decades, ad campaigns ot change that attitude and redefine drunk driving as a selfish, dangerous, and socially unacceptable behavior were very effective. Law enforcement jumped on board, and drunk driving (and the tolerance thereof) went Way down.

By the same mechanic----"Share the Road" ad campaigns have drastically altered the average drivers's view of cyclists (based on the reactions I get from drivers now versus several decades ago when such campaigns started. More drivers accept cyclists as legitimate road users and fewer throw things, swerve, or shout threats. See the correspondence? Public ad campaigns affected both drunk driving and cycling safety? Clear now?

Because i started riding in the 1960s and have seen a dramatic increase in people biking over the years.. Are you prepared to state that bicycle use has Not increased in Australia since 1070? Are you prepared to back that up with research data? Otherwise, you are just bickering, not actually debating.

As for the rest .... I know that data has been posted here several times showing that a large percentage of the under 1000 people killed annually on bikes in the U.S. were either riding ninja, salmoning, or drunk. So in those cases, it is unlikely they were wearing helmets. How many such deaths occur in Australia? How many of those were wearing helmets? In those cases ... simply sing lights, following the laws, and not riding drunk would likely prevent any death or injury. Helmets are not so much a factor as smart operating.

As for "estimate," again, you seem to need to insult me, and cannot simply discuss this like an adult. Yes, I know what ;'estimate" means. In this case, these people built a mathematical model based on deaths during a 20-year period, invented a method for calculating how many riders were actually riding then, invented another method to estimate how many riders are riding now, and estimated, based on their made-up growth rate (it is notoriously hard to track miles ridden, conditions, and number of riders---if you are honest you will admit this) and basically Invented a number, based on vague statistics, which Within Their Model (not in reality) corresponded to a growth in cycling fatalities. They then assumed that all reductions in deaths were due helmets .... not bike lanes, not an increase in awareness of cyclists, not hi-vis clothes and the ready availability of bike lights (I am not sure if people who have not been riding for decades understand how amazing our lighting options are now, versus even 30 years ago--I can buy more candlepower today than ever before and for far, far less money, i don't need a huge battery or a heavy, bulky, expensive generator, I can get ten to fifty times the brightness out of a tail light and because of improved battery tech can have really bright lights All the time---I am Tremendously more visible (and thus less likely to get hit) just because I can put so much light on my bike so cheaply,) not "share-the-road" campaigns ..... they decided that helmets were the sole significant difference.

Yeah, I understand scientific studies pretty well.

Say ... do you understand that people can disagree and not have to ridicule each other? How about if you do, in your next post you try that?

And there is that "Land of the Free, Home of the Brave" angle, too. if my choices do not endanger others, I should be free to make them.

Look, if we want to eliminate road cycling deaths, we should simply eliminate road cycling. people can ride on the sidewalk or MUPs. We can decide that roads are exclusively for motor vehicles, and then cycling deaths will plummet.

"Nanny-State" thinking is so prevalent people don't even recognize it.

Dude ... logic? Come on. This is a Helmet thread.