Classic media bias here, clinging to their helmet evangelism despite contrary evidence:

I was so put off by the first bullet point paragraph,
that I went to the study to see if it really said that.

This, the dubious bullet point presented in the most significant position by the article writer, arises from opinions of a focus group. Furthermore, the focus group consisted of car drivers and bike share riders, who themselves are described as inexperienced. It wasn't the study or scientists who were responsible for this misrepresentation, since the study openly acknowledged that the focus groups "were designed to explore the perspectives and perceptions of bikesharing safety" (emphasis added) and it was the author who presented it as fact.

Although the study authors do not escape blame either, since they also interviewed "experts" (including government officials, industry representatives, and emergency responders) who concurred. Why any of these would be expected to have any more insight than the random focus groups into whether the clunky bike design is safer, is anyone's guess. So we have, in effect, guesses about guesses about why we don't see the number of accidents that all of these people would probably have expected.

MY guess is that bike share riders typically ride more slowly and for shorter distances, and that bike shares accompany biking infrastructure.

While I wouldn't claim it as fact, I do suspect that bike design, or more specifically bicycle riding position, does factor into the head injury rate. The more upright riding posture of bike share bikes puts rider center of gravity farther back, and changes the tipping point of front wheel braking in a way favorable to reducing the chance of an endo. Also factor lower likely speed and you get reduced chances of the specific types of crashes that are tend to cause head trauma.

The position and speed differences, along with other factors may help explain why countries like the Netherlands have lower rates of head injury vs. the USA, despite a far lower percentage of helmet use.

Of course no single factor, nor even a few factors can explain the disparity in head trauma form country to country. They're only pieces in a large and complex puzzle.

In studying bicycles crash data, it may to pay to consider that the rates don't average out across the spectrum. Some riders report multiple accidents with head strike (with or without helmet) while many or even most have none. Just about any rider may crash, but some, not only crash at rates above average, but in ways that cause head strikes. This leads me to suspect that those studying bicycle related head injuries might pay attention to rider habits as possibly a major factor.

This leads to my "broken record" stance that the first place to look in reviewing accident causes is the mirror. I'm not saying that the riders themselves are the proximate cause, nor always even a contributory factor, only that they often are, and in any case represent the only factors in the rider's direct control.

I have to be confrontational, because this is the Helmet Thread™ so please interpret that in this light. Although I mostly agree with you, but ...

I would be skeptical of that, not the least reason being the relative rarity of tipping over the front for road riders. If it only happens rarely, it cannot be a large factor in relative accident rates. Secondly, sitting upright puts the center of gravity higher, a factor which increases ease of accidentally going over (mitigates the benefit of increasing the lever arm of shifting it back). So both the data and the theory need to be fleshed out for your idea.

I recall tipping over once, hitting a big rut parallel to my slightly downhill path, at less than a walking pace. The slow-motion tip, happening while I could do nothing to stop it, was excruciatingly embarrassing. I'd have dismounted to the side, but certain designs of that particular bike prevented it. Believe me, no high speed is required.

Whether or not lower speeds increase or decrease the accident rates needs to be determined. As I mentioned, my guess is that the typically lower speeds of the bike share riders makes for less risk. However, that's highly dependent on the riders and the purpose of their riding, and as noted, a guess on my part. I have absolutely no data showing that higher speeds, on the same types of rides, have greater risk than lower speeds. I'm basing my guess entirely on personal experience that pushing to the limit is more risky, and even that is only partially based on absolute speed.

And finally, I think that you probably refer to slide-outs on turns by that last sentence, and if so I don't think that that's valid either. Any crash can cause head trauma, and not necessarily more likely from a low-side slip. Head trauma can and does result from falls at low speed, or even stopped. It's not at all clear which types of accidents are more likely to result in head trauma

Do the Netherlands cyclists who train on road racing bikes have higher accident rates than those who don't?

it seems that way, yes. At least this strongly suggests that:

Why are Dutch cyclists more likely to be injured if they wear helmets?

I think that the article reflects what I said, that the risk is due to the type of riding and not the design of the bike.

Well, it kind of suggest that in a round about way, when only compared to other competitive cycling sports, not daily cycling. The article states that only .5% of riders in Netherlands wear a helmet. Of that .5% only 13.3% were admitted to hospital. Now lets put that in real numbers, out of 1000 riders only 5 wear helmets and out of the 5 helmet wears .66 (less than 1 per 1000) get injured enough to be hospitalized. Of that 13.3% that were injured about half were road cyclist and the other half mountain bikers.
The last paragraph of the article is a key point that needs to be made.
Nice article.

Over ten times as many helmeted road bike riders admitted to the hospital than you'd expect from the percentage of helmeted riders. So apparently, close enough.

Yet I have to wonder, do the road racing bike riders, who are presumed to be out training and riding fast, perhaps ride more than ten times as far as their non-helmeted counterparts do on local trips to work or errands? It seems reasonable that they're riding further, if not ten times. If so, that greater amount of exposure would be a better explanation than high speeds, risk compensation or the other speculative reasons discussed.

The article lacks sufficient data and cannot be considered a study. Any conclusions are based on supposition and guessing.

Joe

Having split a helmet in two, I know I will always wear one.

Having never spilt a helmet or for that fact never having a head impact accident in the last 5 years, I know I will not wear one.

Do you Wear a Helmet on your Bike Touring Trips???
 

Do you Wear a Helmet on your Bike Touring Trips???

Do you like Wearing a Helmet???

Do you don't like Wearing a Helmet???


When I got my Surly LHT 26in 52cm 2008 on 11-2008 and I did not have the money for
a Helmet and I don't like Wearing a Helmet on my Touring Bicycle! but on 2-2010 I ordered
Rudy Project Sunglasses so I can wear Eyeglasses inside them and I got a free Helmet from
Rudy Project and sometimes I wear it and sometimes I forget I have a Helmet in my Storage unit

Biketouringhobo

my friend on Facebook
http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=514973

Did Not On my European tours, neither do they . Its a Better infrastructure .


And Im a slow rider which is always aware of the Nutjobs on the roads

I did while leading a tour for a Organization that required it.

a $45 helmet was too expensive?

yes. always. i wear a helmet on my motorsickel, why not on a bikesickel?
considering i'm biking sometimes upwards of 50 kmh. (downhill, tailwind, etc.)
keeps the sun off.
provides a bit of shade.
looks sexy as hell.
protection from magpies!

I use one of these:

http://content1.sportpursuit.com/med...phi-vis-01.jpg

acts as a sweatband and also keeps my ears warm

I always wear my helmet when on a bicycle tour. I actually lie because when in The Hague I rented a bicycle (while traveling in the city) and did not wear a helmet. My ex wife has had concussions when slipping on ice... never mind falling off her bike when she was wearing a helmet several years before.

Do you Wear a Helmet on your Bike Touring Trips???
 

I do just out of habit. I'm kind of on the fence as to whether helmets provide any meaningful protection in a major accident, but I guess that decision is personal.

I may get to the point of riding without one on country roads for the joy of the wind in my hair, and put the lid on in towns and cities...

:popcorn

It is a coincidence, but I was just doing some research for a project I'm working on concerning cycling fatalities this morning, and ran across this.

Some interesting stats about helmets:Fatality Facts



http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=515019

I always wear a helmet whether i am riding the road bike, mountain bike or motorcycle. In NYS, it's the law to wear a helmet while operating a motorcycle, but optional on a bicycle.
To each their own but in my family, we wear helmets, for our safety and protection. Since they are light and very ventilated, there is no real reason not to because accidents happen all the time. Last Fall, a rider in our group crashed due to (of all things) railroad tracks. That led to three other riders going down with him. One rider was knocked out but thanks to his helmet, nothing more than that happened. Of course, he did not finish the ride and went to the ER to get himself checked out, but in the end all was good.
Another crash last Fall was due to a stone on the road. He went down hard and cracked his helmet, broke his collarbone but stayed conscious. Wrecked the bike pretty good too but the bike was not wearing a helmet, lol.

Nope, and I even wear ear buds sometimes to listen to music..

Thanks for posting this, I'm going to show this web site to my statistic students tomorrow.

outside the metro area, where cars travel 60+ mph, always.

inside the metro area, where cars are many and riding is semi-dangerous, never. The reason is I can usually find an alternative, like a sidewalk or side street, where the riding is slow speed.

Wouldn't it be more rational to do it the other way round? If you're involved in an accident with a vehicle travelling at 60+ mph I don't think a helmet will be much help, but in a low-speed accident such as with a pedestrian or slow moving vehicle at a junction, a helmet might limit damage if you fall off and your head hits the kerb.

I wear one because it's not uncomfortable to do so, and on balance it probably does more good than harm.

People aren't always rational. I know a woman who was involved in a slow speed accident in urban Philly. Car pulled out of a parking space in front of her. She fell and hit her head. No helmet. Closed head injury. Coma. Feeding tube. Breathing tube. Hands tied down once she was awake. I nearly tossed my cookies when I went to see her in the hospital.

Personally, I always wear a helmet. I take blood thinners daily so any extra protection I can take makes sense.