Assuming that helmet wear "could" help mitigate the severity of some injuries to some degree, what do you think explains the absence of injury statistics that demonstrate this mitigation effect when comparing bicycling populations where the percentage of helmet wear is relatively high as in North America or Australia vice countries where helmet wear is low as in NL or DE?

Better rethink your math, two clowns are funnier than one, doncha know?

[MENTION=392672]Tiglath[/MENTION]

What do you think about the Netherlands, our helmet-free cycling ways and the top notch safety statistics that go with it?

...everyone knows that's due to legalized pot. There's a statistical correlation.

I would sugest different settings/type of riding conditions for bicyclists... Even different bicycling styles... Looking at what normal riding in NL & DE seems to consist of as compered to what I see in N America...It seems very different risk wise, from the pics at least...

Judging from the pics there's hovering bicycle roundabouts everywhere in the Netherlands, but TBH I never saw one of those. And we don't have a different riding style, our cyclist population includes more than a couple of very select demographics, so the people with an "Anglosaxon" style are a minority here. Pretty much everyone cycles here including scores of people from accident-prone demographics like children, teens and the elderly. Anyway, Cycling is no doubt much safer because we eliminated the big hazards but I'm not convinced we have less accidents of the type bicycle helmets are designed for. Most typically simple falls.

Judging from the videos etc., the increased risk seems for an important part due to the fact that many cyclists have little insight in safety. There might be more to win by growing some common sense so people understand that riding without lights, salmoning and doing 20 mph in busy down-town areas are inherently unsafe behaviors.

All in all NL and DK prove the world day after day that bicycle helmets aren't important to bicycle safety. That's a fact.

Beef is bad for the environment. So is styrofoam.

JRA at 12 mph is like walking, IMO. 18 mph is like jogging, still don't see joggers wearing hats. I check the trail running magazines to see if any of them wear helmets but haven't seen any yet. I still wear one for mtb. And while racing.

By different bicycling type/style I meant everyone seems to be going along like on a bulavard cruse, nonchelontly riding where they need to go. Not around here, everyone rides like they are on a mission, to get from A to B as fast as possible... :innocent: Probably cause the distances one must go are farther in N America than in Europe or China...

This is a really good point, Tiglath. Of course, it's just as true for people who think cycling is dangerous. I kind of doubt that's going to make any impact on you, though.

Turns out that more than 250,000 people die in their sleep every year, just in America. So I guess that makes sleeping far more dangerous than bicycling. Or maybe it just means that using raw data without context while trying to prove a point is stupid.

I feel bad for anyone who truly believes that the only thing standing between a cyclist and bloody death is good luck. It must be quite frightening to feel so near to death during even the most routine of activities.

As for "surmising the odds", it's important to realize that the death rate for cyclists before helmets existed was extremely low. Adding a helmet most likely adds a small additional degree of safety to what can already be a very safe activity, and few if any of us have a problem with other people who choose to add that extra safety. But the argument that cycling is necessarily a life-threatening activity (and that a bicycle helmet essentially removes that threat to life) is just ignorant.

Or maybe because your view is focused on local "enthusiasts" who ride just as you describe. Perhaps you should expand your view beyond hot shot speed obsessed cyclists. Then again, perhaps North American cyclists don't care to post videos of nonchalant cycling but prefer to only post videos of themselves or others cycling like jackasses.

I'm sure there are people who ride like jackasses in Europe and China too, My view around here and in N America in general, is that the attitude towards biking is different, more for fun, then necessity, thus different stile of riding/level of risk, plus vehicles, plus roads not bike friendly, +++ All JMO

I would agree that a different attitude can be found between enthusiasts who find their cycling "fun" in riding like jackasses or obsessed speed demons (hence the boasting and videos of same on YouTube/BF) vice cyclists located throughout the world who enjoy/appreciate cycling whether riding nonchalantly to wherever they want to go or JRA/boulevard cruising.

JRA, Boluvard cruising is basically a N American endeavour... Most other people around the world use the bike as a vehicle to get around, thus the higher number with no helmets and seemingly no death by not wearing helmets problem... doing all the things the N Americans are doing with vehicles... Their whole infrastructure is set up to accommodate such an endeavor, ours isn't, thus, it's much more/can be a more dangerous way to get around in N America, thus helmets can be more effective in N America then in other parts of the world... ;) As I see it... :eek:

Well, maybe folks should make informed decisions regarding helmet use for their own style of riding. "Bicycling is really dangerous" is no more true than "Bicycling is really quite safe", as a general statement.

IOW, my style of cycling is pretty safe. Your style of cycling, I have no idea. Therefore, our decisions about necessary safety gear are our own business.

My point is that people who us other countries bike ridership not wearing a helmet and being safe enough for them so it's safe enough for everybody, doesn't necessarily equate to N American way of riding a bike and the infrastructure it's ridden on is as safe when all the differences are not accounted for... ;)

Agreed. Nor does it have to be an all or nothing decision. On some of my rides, knowing the type of ride, traffic and road conditions, I may decide to wear a helmet whereas on other rides I decide not to. Same with driving - if driving in some competitive events I'd wear a helmet but using the same car to go to the neighborhood grocery store I wouldn't. I don't really get the idea that there's something so uniquely dangerous about a bicycle that I need to put on a helmet every time under every circumstance before swinging a leg over the top tube. Sure there's always the possibility that something very unusual happens even on a normally casual and safe ride (just as something could happen when driving to the store), but we base our decisions on necessary safety precautions based on our best judgement of the probability of risk, not on always imagining the worst case scenario. If we did the latter we'd never dare get out of bed in the morning.

Can any of the anti helmet types here explain why almost all bike clubs demand that all riders wear helmets on their club sponsored rides?

Required by their insurance co.

Exactly. There seems to be some sort of confusion surrounding an Internet browsing driven concept of a singular "North American style of cycling" with a need for speed at all time, that is generously called enthusiastic riding and less generously described as riding like a jackass in traffic. It is also apparently believed by some that the higher risks entailed by this "North American style of cycling" is significantly reduced by helmet wear.

Newsflash: Many North American cyclists do not ride in the Jackass Style of Cycling favored by some "enthusiasts" and are not in need of protection from the insignificant risks encountered in their own cycling.

Or so the bike club leaders say to enforce conformance with their leaders' own standards of proper cycling gear. Maybe truth in theclaim in some cases, probably not in most. Probably ranks up there with often spouted Urban Legends like "the insurance company forbids use of the drive-in service by bicyclists at this establishment."

Another possibility that the "rule" may help to discourage the unwashed riff raff with the wrong profile from participation in club rides; similar in effect as enforcement of dress "rules" in fancier dining establishments.

Ok--------------so why do Ins companies demand that to get insurance bike clubs must decree helmet use?

They don't.

The Bicycle Club of Irvine is one of the oldest - and certainly one of the largest - bike clubs in Southern California. Hundreds of riders show up for their weekend rides. I once showed up without a helmet, and took all kinds of abuse, including foul-mouthed insults. One guy put his face about ten inches in front of mine and yelled (literally) that riding without a helmet was against the rules and that he would not allow me to ride. Other people intervened before it came to blows but everyone did insist that the club forbade bare-headed participation, and several people claimed that the club would lose its liability insurance if I rode without a helmet.

Eventually, the club founder and president had to stand up and make a speech about the fact that the insurer had nothing at all to say about helmets and that the club had no rule about it one way or another. The entire experience sums up, for me, the level of knowledge (and manners) of the typical cyclist around here. It may also explain my attitude toward the "Just buy a helmet and wear it" posts on BF.