People refuse to understand, then realize they don't understand, then claim that no one else makes sense ... because if everyone else was making sense, those people would understand.

No one is saying that is certain cases helmets cannot prevent some injuries.

Same with knee- and elbow pads.

In fact, people could cycle in hockey pants, and have significant hip protection ... and football shoulder pads to more collarbone protection.

In fact, people could cycle on stationary trainers in their garages .....

So let's make staying in the garage mandatory.

In the case of [MENTION=392125]79pmooney[/MENTION] though ..... if he was in a wheelchair he might post more, and I find his posts most insightful and intelligent.

So he doesn't know how to ride a bike and he shows no interest in doing proper science. Just another zealot.

You have to wonder, don't you. I'm sure this post is meant to be humorous, up to the last line, anyway, which borders on the offensive..

Riding with a helmet is safer than riding without one. No one can honestly dispute that. If you choose to ride without one, I have no problem with that. But all the rhetoric in the world about extraneous items like knee pads doesn't change the reality that it is safer to ride with a helmet than without one.

Yes, I can.
Actually, there's a very strong correlation between helmet wearing and danger for the cyclist. It's not causation and it has probably more to do with other factors, but the numbers simply don't support the claim that a helmet makes cycling safer.

Look at the vignette from my friend's excursion to mountain bike in China without a helmet. If you're set on doing risky things, you're going to do them whether or not you're wearing a helmet. I think my story sets out another point, which is if given the choice to act safely, some people are going to choose to make the decision to act unsafely and endanger themselves

And the references for your second point?
-

There are studies that suggest wearing helmets make people act more unsafely, but that's not really what I mean. My viewpoint is that cycling itself isn't dangerous and safe to the point that a helmet has no advantage. The merit of a helmet comes with added danger, like cycling for sport or cycling in dangerous environments. If that's the only cycling you do you might as well wear a helmet everytime you go cycling. But let's not forget about the possibility, or dream for some, to cycle somewhere in someway that a helmet isn't of any use.

Well...this IS A&S where anything can be disputed.

A helmet only increases your safety IF you hit your head just right. And the helmet makes your head substantially LARGER, so you are more likely to make contact with an object than with your bare head. How many head injuries could have been avoided if the head had not made contact with the ground without the helmet?

There are many people who will not ride a bicycle if they are forced to wear headgear. <-- This will certainly makes them safer from a cycling head injury, and can not be disputed!

Another helmet thread merged into Helmet Thread 2.

To answer your last question, < .001%. You, surely, must see that helmets provide 1 or 2% max extra thickness, so a helmet that hits the ground at, say 8 kph, is going to provide lots of protection, whereas it would have to hit it at, say, .0001 kph to avoid any damage? I'm assuming the head is decelerating at a good rate, by the way, with which most experts would argue. In either case, the downward force is not going to cease in the 1 - 2 cm protection the helmet provides.

I don't understand what you mean by your second sentence. You need to provide proof for that sentence with evidence, which, frankly, you'll be pushing to find.

If a person refuses to ride a bicycle under a mandatory helmet law, then they are 100% safe from a cycling head injury because they are not riding a bike. This use of a helmet, I agree, will do a fine job of preventing head injuries for those persons who give up cycling rather than wear a helmet.

No study is required as proof. Don't ride a bike and you won't get hurt doing it.

While I understand why, I'm not sure about this, as I suspect certain people will dismiss the entire thread as more nanny cyclist rubbish, or simply not bother to read it.

Perhaps it would be better to have basic safety thread, which includes the advisability of using helmets, even if it is a legal requirement or not. After all, this forum is a successful one read by many enthusiasts throughout the world, so has a widespread influence, and with that, as I'm sure you are more than aware great responsibility.

?? Where did mandatory law come into it? You didn't mention it your earlier post. I'm also not convinced by your analogy - lots of people refuse to obey mandatory helmet laws, and they ARE riding bikes. In fact, how would you know they'd refused to ride a bicycle: they were wearing clips vélo jaunes in protest??

By the way, I rode 1,8 km in Bangkok to the start of the airport cycle track at dusk. I would never advise this, but to go back meant going the same way as rush hour traffic, so I judged it safer to continue, and walked a lot of the way. At the track they refused me entry as I'had no helmet, but lent me one, as they also did the the access device, as I had no money either, and I was off. Lots of people on the track, visitors, locals, all kinds of bikes. I have to say the helmet and the access device gave me a great sense of reassurance, as did the friendly nature of all those organisers and participants. One example, but thoughts of safety in foreign countries with unknown attitudes of other road users can sometimes concern the innocent tourist.

The OP of the latest thread (now merged with "The Helmet" thread) stated:Cycle helmet safety - recent study concludes they're a must.


This is where I got the mandatory idea, from the OP headline that suggested such.

Fair enough, though that title, while not incorrect, was meant to bring attention to the report - I hadn't been aware there is a history of contentious bike helmet threads on this forum. They are compulsory in many countries now, not just my ex home countries, and I can see no reason why not. As noted, I've occasionally forgotten mine, but have always been aware of the consequences.

Some might read posts from certain posters that have the similar tone as your recent posts on the subject who are also as sure of the correctness of their message, and dismiss those certain posters as helmet proselytizing nannies.

... such as the United States.

I certainly dream of a day when I don't need a helmet.

My own view is that "studies" are not going to settle this matter anytime soon. Look up "replication crisis" in the behavioral sciences. Car safety involves far more vehicles and miles of travel, making it more amenable to scientific study, and still it's difficult. Also, the insurance companies have a vested interest in gathering good data for cars. Cycling will always be rare enough in the US that it won't rise to the level of being a public health issue. We have bigger fish to fry. Driving a car is more dangerous than it should be.

In the absence of convincing studies, the next best thing for me is just to use my own common sense. Naturally I can't force that on anybody else.

Was I right or was I right?

As they said in earlier times, I doff my hat to you, sir

Well ... the helmet is 1 or 2 inches extra thickness, not 1-2%, and the nominal reason that a helmet protects against TBI is that when that thickness crushes the impulse is spread out over time. Which presents lower force to your skull. This does result in lower risk of traumatic brain injury, but of course does not prevent it.

It isn't really known whether the extra thickness increases the chance of banging your head, though you'd expect that to be the case. Secondly, it's also not known for certain but generally accepted that it's rotational forces that results in more of the TBI injuries than linear impact. The extra thickness (presenting a longer lever against the ground) may actually exacerbate that risk, but that also lacks supporting data.

He is making a logical point, a pretty good one actually.

WPH Have you heard the expression "if you have nothing to say, don't say anything"?

Humorous? After 2800 post you'd think there would be some concensus. Yet some of us return to look back down the hole.

Unfortunately, bicycle helmet data is incomplete and always will be. Trying to extract a helmet's usefulness from this incomplete data is beyond challenging.

Here is what I mean. Keeping in mind - bicycle crashes are rare - head-strikes in a bicycle crash are even rarer - head-strikes in which a helmet would prevent a serious injury are even more rare.
a) A cyclist crashes with no head-strike. The helmet was not a factor and doesn't belong in the data. --No issue here
b) A cyclist crashes with no head-strike. However, there is a serious injury elsewhere. A hospital visit or police report is generated in these cases. The report would very likely state whether the rider was wearing a helmet - regardless of it playing a part in protecting the rider. --Data skewed with a report
c) A cyclist crashes and there is a head-strike. The helmet helmet does its job, protecting the rider's head and there is no serious injury. The cyclist never reports that to anyone. --Data skewed due to lack of reporting.
d) A cyclist crashes with a head-strike. The helmet does its job, protecting the skull/brain from serious injury. However, the cyclist is seriously injured elsewhere. The report will show a helmeted rider being seriously injured, even though the helmet did its job. --Data skewed
e) A cyclist crashes with a head-strike. The helmet fails to prevent a serious head/brain injury. This is reported as a helmet failure. --No issue here