Nope. Wear a helmet ONLY if you choose to do so. I encourage helmet wear on bicycles and motorcycles, but YOU have the right to decide whether to do so, while understanding that you accept whatever consequences you might face. It doesn't bother me in the slightest when someone in the group rides without a helmet.

Likewise seat belts. If you don't wear them, that's YOUR choice, unless you're in MY car (and I'm therefore responsible for your safety).

The best head injury prevention is not to crash, the second best head injury prevention is not hit your head if you crash. Cyclist have the least head injuries in countries where helmet wear is the lowest. So there must be a bit more going on than every cyclist has the same chance of hitting his head and a helmet will soften the blow.

Is it all down to traffic and infrastructure? Statitistics don't point in that direction either. That's for commuting and utility cycling etc., to me it seems only reasonable to wear a helmet in competitive cycling. But it's not my impression less pro's got a serious head injury since the helmet got mandatory for them in 2003. I would like to have some solid statistics about that, but with all the news about dead or seriously injured pro's in the last years I don't expect to see a large improvement in safety since they started wearing helmets.

Everything points in the direction that there's more to it than 'it protects the head, so it's safer'.

Better to be wearing a helmet and not need it than need a helmet and not be wearing one, eh...?

OK, I give up -- how many injuries have helmets prevented...?

Don't all the helmet ideas also apply to wearing a helmet while doing any activity?

Don't they apply even moreso to gentler activities? A lower-energy impact is more easily protected by a helmet than a high-energy. That's why bike helmets are rated for a 6 ft drop and not for car-energy type impacts. ...Tho they would seem likely to reduce the injury of any impact.

Anyway, the sort of head injury resulting from a fall while walking or running would compare very well to the ideal scenario for protection with a helmet. Also, many, many peds and runners are hit by cars -- likely moreso than are hit by cars while biking.

Especially when out and about in slippery conditions a helmet would offer protection while doing anything.

My question is why is cycling highlighted for attention by those who want to wear rigid plastic on their heads?

Is there a particular hazard threshold constant that all cycling exceeds? I don't think so. There's not even a ballpark figure. The risks of ALL cycling aren't remotely close together.

For sheer numbers of head-wacks, car-driving has to be up there. Helmet wearing would surely reduce injuries there.

Bathroom slip'n'fall head injuries are enormous in quantity. Just hang a helmet on a hook by the bathroom door.

Driving, bathrooms, walking/running: these are the sources of nearly all head injuries. Right?

Really, a helmet might help reduce a head injury at ANY TIME doing ANYTHING so why not wear one ALL THE TIME? Better safe than sorry, right?

Why worry about the odds? If everyone wore helmets all the time we would surely prevent many thousands of injuries annually and save billions. Who cares what the activity is. The "better safe than sorry" logic shouldn't be used with an activity bias. I mean, let each sport decide for itself and each person. But in general if you want to save money and reduce injury, encourage everyone to wear one at all times.

Generally.

Often enough that I figure it's a good idea to wear one.

Evidently not. From what I gather here, all of these ideas and reasoning apply only to cycling and, for some, apply to a few extreme sports but not to physical activities in general.

To be honest, most people at a fundamental level don't really accept the odds as a relevant factor, and I've seen where even those who do and who understand some of the mathematics often don't understand the relationship of statistics and probability (rejecting that there IS a relationship). It's apparently not a handicap in general, if they have otherwise good judgment, but it renders logical probability-based arguments ineffective for them in my experience.

Better yet, safe rather than sorry zealots should discourage any and all physical activity unless absolutely necessary for survival in order to be safe rather than sorry. Certainly bicycling is not a necessary activity for survival and should be discouraged in order to wrap a safety cocoon around the reckless safety last individuals who are foolish enough to partake in such an unnecessary activity.

Once upon a time, I used my helmet at 20 mph or so (younger and much faster then) to hop a car. I was running a generator light and drafting a helmetless, lightless racer on my way home from work in the dark. Mistake. As I strained, head down, I noticed there was a headlight next to my knee which seemed very odd. Ah yes, intersections. My touring bike hit the car at an angle and folded up like car in an old volvo ad, completely destroyed. I am told that my head struck windshield at joint with roof and I went flying over the car lengthwise. Driver was fine, so who knows. Whatever, the helmetless guy never got touched, so maybe he was smarter than me . Miraculously, I was not hurt toooo badly, although it was not good either. As a friend likes to say: "It didn't affect me, affect me, affect me."

So I always wear a helmet, figuring I would have died that night-or the car would have missed me . I wore it last week riding to the dentist. I locked my bike and helmet to a rail I found out of the way and went in. The hygienist saw my funny shoes and pants and we chatted. Suddenly she froze and in a accusatory tone said "Do you wear a helmet?" I sighed, rolled my eyes, and said 'Yes.' She relaxed a second and then froze, asking "Then WHERE IS IT?" Grr, outside, mom: "I locked it to my bike." Not sure she believed me.

Maybe the helmetless guy was paying attention to where he was riding and/or looking ahead while riding in order to avoid crashing into things. Who wudda thunk it?

Yay, I knew someone would get the moral of the story 😀. That's why he did not use lights at night either, he was so good he didn't need them

Apparently good enough to see what was in front of him, in combination with paying attention. But because he was paying attention he didn't get an opportunity to give testimony to the life saving powers of a magic hat.

He blew thru a stop sign he didn't see, but don't let not knowing the all the facts stop you from making stuff up to fit your opinion. Never seems to stop the rest of us.

No cyclist wants to hear of another cyclist getting hurt. And it is all too easy to armchair quarterback a situation. But, talking about how you rode head down through an intersection and got hit, while another helmetless cyclist with you did not, and then extolling the virtues of the helmet you were wearing isn't making a strong point.

Oh but such testimony does make a strong point, just not the one intended.

The other half of the story is more compelling. The hygienist, seeing his cycling attire and then grilling him over whether he had a helmet.

I'll admit that when I do wear a helmet, that type of situation is part of the reason. Sometimes the only reason. I just don't want to deal with conversations with safety nannies and don't want to return their rudeness. And also I've found that carrying a helmet excuses the attire, or at least explains it and heads off comments about that as well.

The takeaway is carry your helmet in with you.

Well said, I agree. I was an idiot that night without question, and criticism for my stupidity is well-deserved. I paid for it, but it was entirely my own error. I tried to make that clear, but if not, yup, I made a mistake.

How do you know the other cyclist didn't see the stop sign as well as the location of other vehicles and then rode safely through the intersection? The only thing not seen was the car you ran into for the reason that you provided.

It had to be a near miss if MattDwyerva was drafting him, right? Most people don't try to time a near miss with a car like that, a second or less. But you're right we don't know what was going on in his mind. Maybe he was afraid to slow down with someone drafting him, it's all speculative.

[MENTION=256281]MattDwyerva[/MENTION] in case you didn't realize, posting in this thread is basically asking for an argument. The thread has special status as a quarantine zone for all helmet related arguments, so that they don't ruin other threads on the site.

[MENTION=256281]MattDwyerva[/MENTION] in case you didn't realize, posting in this thread is basically asking for an argument. The thread has special status as a quarantine zone for all helmet related arguments, so that they don't ruin other threads on the site.[/QUOTE]

Fair enough. I was trying to tell my story accurately, hoping to relay more than one simple message. I raced back then, not that I won often. That accident ended that, so hard to be completely calm about it. But I am grateful that it was not worse, and that in less than one year i could ride again.

Drafting = tail-gating for cyclists, it's risky and when it's done without some form of consent, it's asocial to boot. If you draft me, expect to be kindly asked to **** off. I like my personal space to be free of strangers in general, and strangers who are unaware of the limitations of human reflexes in particular.

Something about this crash strikes me as off. The timing seems wrong.

The OP says he was drafting a rider ahead, yet the description sounds like he hit the car with the front end of his bike rather than being broadsided by the car. Of course I may be drawing the wrong conclusion, but if not, then the timing tells a different story.

Consider that there was enough time and separation for a car to insert itself between the first and second bikes. If so, then there had to be more separation than "drafting" implies, and the first rider was well clear when he crossed.

All this is secondary to the general moral that drafting and close formation group riding on open roads is inherently dangerous. Besides the increased risk of bike/bike collisions, there's the special risk of group think. The riders are playing follow the leader, whether they're conscious of it or not. At intersections, the first rider gauges traffic, works the timing in his head, and decides he's OK to go. The problem is that his calculation rarely includes enough time for those following, and someone doesn't make it.


The real moral is that it's not the helmet that keeps you safe, it's what's under it.

My number came up October 9 a year ago. Pedaling home about 1:30AM-I was hit by a drunk. Wrecked my 1965 Rudge-now THAT really angers me ! The police arrested the perpetrator-a woman-ASAP! DWI, texting while driving, driving erratically after an accident, etc. Impounded her vehicle. I woke up in the ambulance, one of the officers said I did everything right-generator light, flasher on the rack, leg light, reflective vest. They too me to the local trauma center, held for observation, released after 12 hours.
Someone asked if I suffered a concussion-swelling of the brain. Those who have known me for years say I have a swelled head, my mother often said my skull was one of the thickest and most impervious substances in the universe.
So I am out a bike, but am otherwise unharmed. No helmet-I wouldn't be here typing this. Anyone who says helmets are not for them-they can read this post.

Off to the helmet thread! However, although I am sure you believe your statement, it is unprovable.

True believers don't need no stinkin' proof.