suppose each to their own ....

I used to ride motorbike and always wore a helmet .... in a car I always wear a seatbelt .... on a bicycle, I wear a high viz jacket and a helmet when commuting to and from work especially in heavy traffic

I saw a bike accident today .... no helmet worn and she was receiving medical attention:
http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Coll...ail/story.html

and I never saw this one happen a few days ago, but it's in the same area .... sadly, she died:
Trumpington Road closed after cyclist seriously injured in collision with coach | Cambridge News

Cyclist seriously injured in collision with coach dies in hospital | Cambridge News

and here is another article about helmets especially in Cambridge UK (over 30 universities her, thousands of cyclists and loads of (fast) cars, busses and lorries on very narrow roads

loads of bike accidents here ...

Is your helmet more of a help or a hazard? Cambridge cyclists have their say | Cambridge News

Because of stuff I've read in these threads. What's your qualification to say such claims are valid?

True, and we Dutchies happen to have the highest percentage of regular cyclists, and despite our 99+% helmetfree ways, we also have the best cycling safety statistics. Rather interesting isn't it? Especially if you consider the fact that English speakers have more or less the opposite going on.

A three died from a collision with a motor vehicle. Do you really think a bicycle helmet is significantly going to help against that kind of force? I'll answer that one for you: no, of course not, because bicycle helmets are designed to protect part of your head against falling from a bicycle at a low speed. So it basically offers protection against the kind of accident you'll probably walk away from anyway.

Massive difference between bike helmets and seat belts, both in functionality and regarding how proven the concept is in use. I don't know enough about motorcycle helmets to comment but I imagine they are somewhere in between bike helmets and seat belts, but very likely skewed heavily towards the former.

this is a recent video showing a bike accident in London .... I commute daily in similar traffic and on narrower roads .... luckily, the bike rider was ok and shook hands with the taxi driver .... the guy was wearing a helmet and never landed on his head, but if he did, the helmet may have saved him 13 stitches in his face and head?

accidents happen fast, and if you read bike forums, many guys have come off several times, so wearing a helmet makes sense (to me)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TGSWcSfK_U

I have no qualms about riding my bicycle without a helmet... even though I usually wear one... but I would not go out on a motorcycle without one...

all depends where you ride

go ride your bike in London and you will soon want a helmet ....(I recently went to London with my wife, and there were loads of cyclists .... I never saw any cyclist without a helmet)... and many had video cameras on their helmets

live in the country in a small village with little traffic , .... and yea, no probs not wearing a helmet ... try London or New York, and you may change your mind

Seems to me that the huge difference between Dutch cycling and English speaking cycling is the cultures and attitudes of both the drivers and cyclists. I see far more large tired heavy bikes in the photos I see of Dutch cyclists than I do here in the US. I suspect their average speed is a lot lower. And I suspect that, with the much higher numbers of Dutch riders that drivers are much more aware of them. That the Dutch riders are often wearing "civilian" clothing rather than what would be perceived as racing outfits probably helps this perception a lot.

I will also guess that commutes in Holland are usually shorter than the 30-50 kilometer round trips many in the US have to do; long enough that riding in "civies" isn't civilized.

In short, there are so many difference between the Dutch cycling experience and the US (and I gather, the UK) experience that using them to compare helmet statistics is a little like comparing the need for helmets when ice skating between hockey players and folks out skating on a beautiful day on a pond. (And yes, just like cycling, there was a day when none of those hockey players wore helmets.)

Ben

Soo... are you saying I should usually not wear one... or not usually wear one... ?

LOL ... I'm not in the mood for arguing over petty issues ... :p

do whatever you want

I voted yes and while I have gone down a few times luckily I have not hit my head very hard if at all. Still in all I am glad I always wear one.

What do you suspect is the effect on head injuries that derives from the alleged difference in average speed that you are guessing about? A little, a lot or not at all. I suspect your guessing and suspicions about the effect of these alleged differences are just that - guessing and agenda driven suspicions.

What, besides wild donkey guessing, (or overdosing on Bike Forum enthusiast postings) causes you to allege that "many" people in the U.S. commute 30-50 km by bicycle. I'd be very surprised if ½ of 1% of U.S. bicyclists regularly commute that distance. I suspect that you have a very loose definition of "many" in this context.

I am not trying to argue numbers. I am trying to say that there is a large difference in how cycling is done in this country and Holland and just as a much difference in how urban drivers view cyclists in the two countries. Also that many US cyclists ride outside the immediate urban areas (both to commute and ride for pleasure - partly the result of American suburban sprawl.

Just for a simple comparison - think about a corner with wet leaves. How is more likely to go down, the Dutch commuter on his heavy, upright fat tired bike or the American riding an 22 pound road bike with 700c x 25c tires? Or instead of leaves, how 'bout that deep crack in the road?

It sounds to me that your position is that Americans need additional safety equipment ( whether it works or not) to allegedly protect them from the unsafe bikes they choose to ride that they are unable to keep upright or ride safely under typical road conditions.

Yes. (Typical road conditions here in the US include American drivers and roads that were not built and are not maintained with bicycles in mind. Typical road conditons in urban Holland include frivers that are very aware of cyclists and roads designed with bicycles in mind. (And as I understand it, comparatively few ride rural Dutch roads which I have heard are a lot less safe.)

Ben

The main difference is that in English speaking societies no one but a few enthusiasts cycle regularly, and in the Netherlands basically everyone but the haters cycle regularly, and everything else comes from that. But if you want to boast about how American cyclists, who are typically young adults, have an average higher speed and ride greater distance than a population that includes loads of preschooler and senior cyclists, be my guest.

Of course trips are shorter, that's what you get when everyone uses there bicycles for everything. And just like in the US of A 30-50 kilometer roundtrips aren't very common, but if it concerns commuting, it's generally in "civies". Lycra is generally reserved for sport oriented cycling.

Bicycle helmets where designed for slow-speed one-party accidents, or in this analogy, the type of accidents you would expect to happen to folks out skating on a beautiful day on a pond. Not that Dutch cycling typically consist of leisurely fair weather cycling......

So Dutch cyclists ride clunky bicycles and Americans make poor choices when riding their state of the art road bikes....

Can we stop with the generalizations already?

What is interesting is the fact that Dutch people almost universally don't view one-party cycling crashes that would be the typical outcome of the situations you described, as terribly dangerous events. It's something you typically walk away from with bruises, road rash and a slightly damaged ego. Americans however often claim a helmet saved their lives in the same type of crashes.

Im not. But the people that were in accident were, and they know of the severity of of the accident. You dont.

it seems reasonable. 10 questions about the Dutch and their bikes doesn't sound at all like my own commute. three miles at 9-11 mph for example. Crowded bikeways from our perspective. Very moderate climate. I wouldn't commute on a road bike either if that was the case, but I don't see any clear reason why equipment choice would have much to do with their accident stats however.

Do you believe everything you read on the internet?

They know the severity of their accident; they might not necessarily know the extent of injury mitigation -- if any -- their helmet provided.

Of course not, which is why I follow links posted here to their source and read, examine critically, and make informed decisions. ...and which has led to my reasoned stance regarding bicycle helmets.

A "reasoned" and logical stance on helmets would indicate that a person should wear one. ANY injury no matter how small that is prevented by a helmet is a good thing.

It's like Pascal's Wager; but with helmets...

They might not know the severity of their injury, TBI is funny that way.

But no matter, if a doctor tells them that the hemet mitigated their injury, you'll complain that the doctor is not an engineer. And if the doctor is also an engineer, you'll demand that they repeat the crash without a helmet. And in the unlikely case where they unethically repeat the crash, you'll complain that there is too much uncertainly in the original conditions.


Bottom line: One never knows, do one?


Observation - while you never fail to pipe in with your vacuous statements whenever someone says a helmet helped me, you are usually mute when someone says helmets are worthless.


-mr. bill