Please provide us with your scary credentials to state crap like that with such assurance. I don't know that there couldn't be a significant impression made evenly that was difficult to detect by touch (and neither do you), but I do know to a certitude that the helmet went through a process (crashing with a head inside it) with a relatively high likelihood of significant impact. I did not measure the thickness of the foam with a caliper before the crash, so I don't have a baseline to compare it to after the fact.

There is a small chance that the helmet I buy off the shelf is defective in a way that is hard to detect. I updated the probability of that based on the fact of it going through the crash. I determined that the risk of it no longer being properly functional outweighed the relatively light cost of replacing it (I pay about $50-60 for my helmets). Get someone to explain Bayesian probability to you.

zandoval

this was my helmet post. I didn't want to reply in the other post because I didn't want to get in trouble for having a helmet conversation there lol.

Thank you for the suggestions that you made. A helmet liner or padding solutions may be helpful. I'll look into the brand you recommended as well.

I do feel all the helmets were too round (and maybe they were slightly big in general, but the adjustable band at least made them snug in the back of my head and painfully tight at the center of my forehead.

I've read about "round" vs "long" helmets online, so I thought a "long" helmet might be a better solution for me, but was hoping for some people with experience looking for "long" shaped helmets.

How many people in the Netherlands wear helmets??
 

I don't wear a helmet. They're uncomfortable. Unnecessary, unless your going 60mph downhill in the Tour De France. Limit peripheral vision. (Sorry I'm not about to read all of the post on this threads, but that's my 2 cents.)

If one takes the bother to read accident fatalities with bicyclists one will quickly learn that they die as a result of head trauma. If one does not want their first accident to be their last then spending $50 on a bike helmet is a smart move. New helmets provide good protection and good ventilation and UV protection at moderate cost. A helmet can also increase visibility so a motorist can see the cyclists soon and avoid a collision.

A friend that I introduced to cycling did not like to wear a helmet as it messed up her hair. The first day on her new bike she applied the front brake to tightly and flipped the bike and she struck her head hard on the pavement. After that incident she had no problem with wearing a helmet.

I am not in favor of everyone using a helmet (or a seat belt) as sometimes the gene pool needs garbage removal.

Seat belts I'm 100% on board, can't compare the two. Why don't people in the Netherlands wear helmets? I know they've done studies on this and have concluded there is no net benefit to them for average riding.

Don't wear one if you don't want to, but your post is just factually incorrect. You can easily suffer head trauma at very low speeds. And any decent cycling helmet does not interfere even a tiny bit with your peripheral vision. Also, the new helmets are quite comfortable. But you do you.

Can you give me some insight into why they don't wear helmets in the Netherlands?

I expect few here care what they do in the Netherlands. If you live there you should be in a better position than BFers to figure this out.:foo:

According to this study in the Netherlands:
https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentra...89-020-08544-5

For the general population helmet use is not cost-effective. They are cost-effective for the elderly since they are more susceptible to TBI. If prices of helmets were lower by 20%, they would be cost effective for the general population.

So it's close, according to this one study in 2020. Another point is that the Netherlands is considered the 2nd safest country in Europe for cyclists behind Denmark.

I'm America, we have Fahrenheit 451 style aggressive drivers so if I rode mostly on the road I would probably wear a helmet. I mostly ride on sidewalks and bike trails to avoid cars, so I feel less of a need to wear a helmet.

I'm not sure you would have less hazards on a sidewalk. And interactions with hikers and dogs on the trails? That being said, if I was falling off my bike on a regular basis then it would make sense to wear a helmet all the time. I own a helmet so I wear it. I'm cheap like that, lol.

After a couple of pretty bad falls, I've toned down my cycling style a lot. Never afraid to come to a complete stop. Time intersections to allow cars to pass. Go behind cars attempting a right turn and not looking for cyclists to the left. Going around pedestrians, dogs, baby carriages by a large distance. Stopping and waving an opposite approaching cyclist to pass by. Slowing way down on blind corners.

I often think to myself "Why...such desperate haste?" from Henry David Thoreau's Walden.

Thanks for the link. Calculating the cost-effectiveness of reducing rates of death, traumatic brain injury, and disability resulting from bike crashes is a pretty cold-blooded way to determine whether mandating helmet use is worth considering. The same reasoning could be used to recommend the defunding of fire departments. I've been paying ever-increasing property taxes to support the local fire department for decades, and my house hasn't burned yet. Doesn't get less cost-effective than that.

The authors of the study were not disputing the efficacy of helmet use in preventing injury and death. Also, if you think avoiding riding in traffic means you're not at risk of a potentially debilitating bike accident, think again. From the article:

"About 75% of all bicycle-related head injuries are caused by single-bicycle accidents, i.e. accidents without any motorized vehicles involved. In most cases this involves falls or collisions with an obstacle [14]. Polinder et al. (2016) identified these injuries as a priority area for prevention [15]. The use of bicycle helmets has been found to be an effective measure of preventing head and brain injuries, especially in the case of these single-bicycle accidents [16,17,18,19]. It is associated with a 51% reduction in odds for head injury, according to the most recent and comprehensive systematic review on the subject [18]."

The results of the study show that the rates of death and debilitating injury resulting from bike crashes in the Netherlands are not quite high enough (yet; they've been increasing substantially of late, according to the article) to justify mandating helmet use in the country. Reasonable, if, as I noted above, a bit cold-blooded. But the average cost of a helmet in the Netherlands is only about 90 euros or so.

No need to mandate helmet use. Buying a new helmet every 5 years for about 90 euros per helmet works out to about 18 euros a year. Since that's a trivial amount for almost anyone, funding nationwide advertising campaigns that alert the country's residents to the increasing rates of serious injury (including brain injury) and death resulting from bike accidents would seem to be the obvious way to approach the problem.

Incidentally, data presented in the article show clearly that the surprising increase in the rate of single-bike accidents in the country and the attendant increases in morbidity and mortality are largely consequences of the increase in the number of electric bikes being ridden there.

OK - now you're arguing cost effectiveness. The Netherlands is a whole different situation. I don't want to opine on that. It's flat, they have a pervasive bike-friendly culture, and people use their bikes differently than in the U.S., often as primary transportation. In the U.S., most people are not relying on their bike as primary transportation because it is all they can afford (although that is the case for some people). I would think most people in the U.S. -- at least the ones on this forum -- who are largely cycling by choice not out of necessity, can afford a $50 helmet.

Don't even get me started with people biking on sidewalks. It's one of my biggest pet peeves.

Stupid, not to mention illegal in many if not most places.

Please don't call someone stupid and then state something that's inaccurate.

According to:
https://www.bikelaw.com/2022/08/is-i...e-on-sidewalk/

Local laws govern whether it's legal or illegal to ride on sidewalks. Most states allow it or have no law regarding it and you must follow local laws.

Admittedly MOST cyclists on sidewalks are horrible. I'm not one of those cyclists. I don't scare pedestrians.

Cycling on the sidewalk is legal in Washington State. People riding on the sidewalk must keep your speed prudent and yield the right of way to people on foot.

I believe the major reason it's allowed here is that we don't have enough safe bike infrastructure to be able to get around safely without using the sidewalk. I, and I suspect many others, ride on the sidewalk as the last resort.

https://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default....or%20crosswalk.

Riding on the sidewalk is stupid. People don't have to be stupid to do stupid things. Nothing in your link counters illegal in many if not most places.

Only these states and NYC prohibit or generally prohibit bikes on sidewalks:
Alabama
Georgia
Maryland
Nevada
North Dakota
New York City

For the other states they either ALLOW it or have no law for or against it. In these states a minority of local municipalities have disallowed it, mostly in business districts.

So you're wrong. It's LEGAL to ride on sidewalks in most places in the US.

You've checked all the local ordinances to come up with a minority? Didn't think so. Nevertheless, my statement was "many if not most." You go ahead, though. Sidewalk and no helmet, Darwin approves.

Not cost-effective, in what way? How are you calculating cost-effectiveness? 20% lower than what price point? The high end of road bike helmets is sub-$400. On the other end of the spectrum, you can get a MIPS-equipped helmet for sub-$50. I value the function of my brain a lot more than $400, and being unable to work due to a head injury would probably cost me a lot more than $400. A helmet seems to me like a pretty cost-effective way of reducing the chance of a TBI.

On three different occasions, a helmet has sacrificed itself to protect my head. When I was young, my father was struck from behind by a car while commuting home from work. He was one of the early adopters of the original hard-shell Bell helmet, and it saved his life. Today's helmets are significantly lighter, safer, better-fitting, and better-ventilated than ever. If I'm riding any further than the end of my block, I'm wearing a helmet. Then again, I don't ride slowly on sidewalks and bike trails. Most of my road riding is on streets with cars. My small amount of time on bike paths is usually in excess of 20mph - fast enough for an accident to be potentially catastrophic.

Stop trying to gaslight me...

I listed the minority of states that disallow it or mostly disallow it.

Regarding the other states. About HALF if not more of them ALLOW it, statewide.

Local laws govern the legality in the states that have no statewide laws. For example in California, only 5 cities have banned it out of a gazillion. Your assumption that most municipalities have banned it in states that have no statewide law is wrong.

Pal, your reading comprehension is on par with your cycling knowledge. Past time for you to be added to the iggy list.

Okey dokey smokey :)

Here’s an example of why Netherlands is much safer for riding bikes…
https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...170628fbe.jpeg

This is not a condition I have ever encountered in the US. Additionally, traveling by bicycle is a much larger part of common Dutch culture, and people are more aware and in tune with bikes around them.

That's the big part, in addition to the network of safe bike infrastructure (including Dutch intersections).