At the shop where I work PT, we rent bicycles. We live in a State, County, and municipality without adult mandatory helmet use laws.

When I rent bikes, I offer up a helmet free of charge, for those who want one.

My boss also will offer a helmet with a bike rental, but insists on charging extra if the rider wants one.

Which policy is the better one?

(We loan locks out with the rental bikes for free. Neither of us pushes for helmet use at all, leaving it totally up to the discretion of the customer. We will tell them point blank that there is no mandatory use law, that it is completely up to them. When people ask my advice, I say that it is a completely personal decision I can't make for them; if they push, I will admit that I wear one most of the time -- no one has ever asked for more elaboration on why I do.)

That's kinda bogus to charge extra for helmet rental, if you ask me. Helmet cost should just be figured in as a cost of doing business.

That's probably the only helmet law I could get behind - that all rental agencies provide helmets free of charge upon request. Heck, even with Spinlister, I think it should be required.

A hotel on the waterfront here offers free bikes to guests, and they offer helmets and locks with them. I've seen people riding them sans lid. Sometimes even riding them with the helmet in the front basket!

Societies where bicycle helmet use is common or prevalent all have one thing in common: hardly anyone rides a bicycle there. To get a full-fledged bicycle culture, you need to get the great majority of (potential) cyclists on a bicycle. Namely, the casual utility cyclist who only opt for a bicycle if it's convenient, comfortable and (perceived as) safe. This group, typically doesn't fancy helmets, and in places like Australia and the US of A, typically doesn't ride a bicycle either.

So what really have is a group of cyclists who aren't discouraged by (among other things) bicycle helmets.

Their choice to charge for it. Your choice to rent elsewhere.

You mean something like this?

On bike shares:

Boston's Hubway has prototyped high-tech kiosks (of course MIT students were going to go with a high tech solution) to rent helmets at $2.00 per 24 hours. They found a very low loss rate.

Seattle's Pronto has a far simpler system with low-tech borrow/return bins to rent helmets at $2.00 per 24 hours, essentially on the honor system. They found a very low loss rate. (About the same as Boston's loss rate.)

London's Boris Bike, uh, Barclays Cycle Hire, uh, Santander Cycles, makes no on-site provisions at all.

New York's CityBike has no on-site helmets, but the member agreement requires helmets.

All four have partnered with various outlets for discount helmets for their members. (In Boston's case, this was deemed sufficient for fulfilling requirements for Chapter 85 Section 11D, with the agreement to study an on-site solution.)

Contrary to assertions that helmets kill bike share, real world experience would disagree. Yes, you can find bike share that has failed (poster child, Anaheim's Bike Nation) but helmets were not why they failed.

-mr. bill

To charge at all seems underhanded. Kind of like a mechanic already having a car on a lift and pointing out work that needs to happen to someone they know will just pay. You should just give the helmet for free (included in the rental), but charge for replacement if they don't bring it back.


Nice rundown of different shares. Great info!

Twin Cities here (St Paul & Minneapolis), so Nice Ride is our local implementation of a bike share program, and it has been very successful. How successful? So successful that the national park (Mississippi National River and Recreation Area - MNRRA) and its non-profit volunteer wing Mississippi River Fund, soon to be renamed as Mississippi Park Connection (I think that's it) is in the final stages of starting a canoe rental/sharing program. You'd be able to rent a canoe, get out at a location, check your canoe in and then transfer to a Nice Ride bike to carry on. How cool is that?!?!

Nice Ride does not require helmet usage, but does suggest it

IMHO The ride where you don't wear your helmet will be the one where you take a header. Murphys law.

My experience is just the opposite. When getting back into bikes as an adult and a commuter, I didn't wear a helmet, thought they were goofy. One day, I figured it couldn't hurt and it seemed like a most riders in my demographic were wearing one. So I grabbed my helmet... and promptly wrecked it a couple miles from work after a crash where my head hit the road.

Since then, I've been on rides where I have not been wearing a helmet and not crashed. Which would be remarkable if not for the fact that I have also not crashed most of the time, when I wear a helmet.

In my opinion I think that riding without a helmet is never acceptable. I've seen many friends riding their bikes without any protection and it just baffles my mind.

I like the visor. So, I wear a helmet every time I ride for no other real reason than the fact that it has a nice visor on it. Also, the helmet offers better ventilation than any other hat. So why not?

Those 3 words at the end of your post is pretty much the crux of the matter.

As you point out todays helmets are well vented, and basically disappear as you ride. On a ride the only two times I think about my helmet is when I put it on and when I take it off. So I say why not wear one that in the case of a fall, it only prevents road rash.

I'm guessing Vinokourov's pained expression was more about his broken femur than his helmet hair.

-mr. bill

So the grimace isn't about the pain of having his helmet removed from his head? Huh.

How many of you have ridden bike for many years wearing helmet, but could have done so without wearing it (i.e. never had an accident where you would have been worse off without the helmet)?

How many have had bike accidents where wearing helmet made, or would have made (in case you were not wearing one), a difference?

What do you think about this article WHY IT MAKES SENSE TO BIKE WITHOUT A HELMET? Probably the points made there have all been discussed in this long thread at one time or another, but I'd like to know especially what people have to say about this:

"Head injuries aren’t just dangerous when you’re biking—head injuries are dangerous when you’re doing pretty much anything else. There’s ample evidence showing that there’s nothing particularly special about cycling when it comes to serious head injuries."

In othere words, if you feel compelled to wear helmet regularly while cycling (when not racing), why don't you wear it while driving, being a passenger in a vehicle on a highway, or walking in dangerous traffic areas?

I'm not arguing one way or another. Just looking for the most convincing argument, either way.

(Breaking my own promise of not posting on this forum any more)

This assessment makes absolutely no sense in a world where the cyclists ride without helmets all the time and generally don't fall (let alone hit their heads) while doing it. You also don't seem to understand what Murphy's law is (=what can go wrong, will go wrong eventually)

I have ridden a bike for many years wearing a helmet but could have done so without wearing one and not been worse off. No crashes with head strike.

Prior to that, I crashed in a manner which leads me to believe that the helmet I was wearing made a difference -- hit my head on the pavement, helmet crush layer had crushed, and the helmet broke. It's the crush deformation of the polystyrene part, and the scratches and scrapes on the outer shell which makes me believe that the helmet probably mitigated some minor to moderate head injury.

I don't think much of the article because most of it has been hashed out here or in previous helmet threads. Many of the studies he quotes have been debunked or seriously challenged -- the notorious 85% figure, and Bath study to name two.

For me, the crux of the article is this:

IRL, helmeteers never get publicly questioned by bare-headers, "Why are you wearing a helmet?" Don't wear a helmet, however, and you will routinely hear the query, even from non-cyclists.

Don't agree with the author's assertion that not wearing a helmet will improve cycling safety. While a helmet has very little to do with actual, individual safe cycling, if we are to believe the bare-headers who say that people are wearing them for the wrong reasons, that they believe helmets are imbued with protective capacities and safety assurance beyond what they actually provide, then they may just be getting people out on bikes who might otherwise think cycling too dangerous an activity to consider, sans Styrofoam hat.

Thank you mconlonx for your input.

Actually, perhaps 90%+ of "No helemt? You should wear a helmet!" that were asked to me were from people who don't ride bikes, especially those who think it's crazy to bike commute on hectic city streets.

As for "Why are you wearing a helmet?" that's what my post was about: given the accidents that occurred to drivers or their passengers in car accidents, or to pedestrians, which caused head injuries, some of which fatal, why don't people ask drivers/passengers/pedestrians, at least in accident-prone areas or on highways, "Why don't you wear a helmet?" And if I were to wear one while walking or in a vehicle, I bet I'd get stares and question "Why are you wearing a helmet?".

There is no question wearing a helmet may protect your head in case of accident, but that applies to no more to cycling than to walking,running, driving, etc. So if one truly believes he should wear a helmet just in case one hits his head in a cycling accident, then rationally he is expected to also wear a helmet in other activities where head injury is no less likely, unless he regards his riding style as being risky.

For optimal safety, I wish to wear a helmet all the time except when sleeping, but that's impractical. So either I don't wear it at all, or I assess under which circumstances it makes the most sense to wear one. Perhaps many cyclists think cycling is more likely to land them in head trauma than all other activities in their daily life. (If you race or ride in high speed, then I agree it's more dangerous; also for newbies sharing roads with vehicles, or those practicing no-hand while vehicles are passing by.)

One thing, I hope people don't turn such debates into "Who cares if you don't wear a helmet; it's your life." We are discussing the ratoinality and reasoning based on which we make our decisions to wear or not to wear helmets.

P.S. I might decide to wear one some day, not because I'm riding a bike, but because I once had little thugs throw rocks at me while passing bad neighborhood. :D

Pro helmet people do not claim that a helmet will give protection in all accidents. In fact I only say that helmets may provide some protection in low speed accidents and falls.

So-------------the question remains isnt some protection better than no protection? Since wearing a helmet is really no burden at all, why not wear one?

Yes, a helmet can protect you against a bump on the head, and that's about it. So why does the pro-helmet crowd incessantly preach about wearing them?

Oh I think a helmet can help a little bit more than just a bump on the head... That is why this thread exists. People are trying to define just how much, or how little, it can help. A general consensus has at last seems to have developed in this latest thread at least, unlike the other 2 before.... :rolleyes:

Seems the questions have always been dodged regarding why you don't wear helmet while jogging, walking, driving/being passenger on highway/dangerous roads, or during other activities that may result in head injuries, since "the question remains isnt some protection better than no protection? Since wearing a helmet is really no burden at all, why not wear one?" Especially given the no lack of instances where people died of head injuries in those other actitivies/car accidents. Some got head trauma falling at home.

Apparently wearing a helmet is a burden when you are walking/running/driving, or else you would have worn it, since "isnt some protection better than no protection?"

Went over the bars and hit my right frontal area and had brief loss of consciousness (concussion). Cracked the helmet but did not have a scratch on my head.
Traditional helmets protect the the head from direct trauma but don't protect from concussions because they don't protect from the accelerative forces from a crash.
I am now wearing a Giro with MIPS technology

The three main components to a MIPS-equipped helmet: the interior foam liner, the Low Friction Liner and an elastomeric attachment system between them. In an impact, the elastomeric attachment system stretches to allow the interior foam liner to rotate independently around your head. Although the system only moves a few millimeters we believe that helmets equipped with this technology can reduce the amount of rotational force that may be transferred to your brain in certain impacts.

Hopefully, this this technology will reduce the risk of concussions.

Jogging, walking, showering, etc. is pretty much a non-issue. No need for helmets. Yes, some head injury occurs as a result of this kind of activity, but not to the extent of head injury suffered while cycling.

Cars are a different story, as the leading single cause of head injury in the nation. To that end, any time mandatory helmet use bills come up for consideration at the state or local level. I publicly oppose them by demanding that such laws be amended to include drivers and passengers of automobiles. All the arguments for mandatory helmet use apply to use of helmets in motor vehicles, and since they are many more times responsible for head injury than cycling, it only makes sense -- why demand helmet use in a niche segment of the population which represents a tiny percentage of all head injury, when a much, much greater impact could be made if helmet use was mandatory in automobiles? Why not start with the lowest hanging fruit...?

That goes a long way toward killing silly MHL bills.

I don't wear a helmet in my car -- lots of airbag protection in mine -- but do all the time I ride a motorcycle... and most of the time I ride a bicycle.

But all those things do have some protection to try and make it safer. We have sidewalks/crosswalks for walking, MUPS for running, airbags/seatbelts for cars, banisters for stairs, handholds for showers... Helmets for bicycling and other sports... ;)

:thumb:

Still waiting for the "burden" argument maker to chim in. :)