I don't know if over all the cyclists who ride very little are the ones to die; I do know that in the last year several people died in bike accidents here in Indiana and all were long time cyclists according to the newspaper. And the people that I knew of that died over the years when I lived in California were all long time cyclists. I would think that a person who cycles more is exposing him/her self more to possible bad situations. It's a known fact that someone who drives 40,000 miles (or more) a year in their car (or truck as some may be professional drivers) has a higher risk of an accident then someone who only drives 7,000 miles due to exposure.

Read the investigative case files of the incidents of cycling deaths.

At least three-quarters of them are from mind-numbingly stupid decisions in cycling behavior.

Everyone can make them but, those that know less make more of them.

DANG! except #3, those sound exactly like HH's techniques!

Well and 4 too...he only 'acts' like he's drunk...I go for the real McCoy, or Beam, or Daniels...

I have found this an interesting thread to follow, but I'm not sure as someone without an axe to grind (someone looking for good answers), I've found much go on in terms of making a decision on the helmet or not.

I wear one while mountain biking, because due to my clumsiness, I have managed to bump the noggin' off of trees and rocks, and I'm happy I had a helmet.

I haven't worn one on my 3.5 mile commute, because this commuting thing has made me feel like a kid again, and in small town Texas I never wore a helmet and neither did anyone I knew. But in the late 70's early 80's I don't remember it being an issue. I'm pretty sure if they had been anywhere near popular, my overprotective (but sweet) mother would have forced me to wear one. As it is, I still have scars on my knees from those days, and I show them off proudly...oh, and definitely no head injuries.

Being back "into it" now, though, I do sometimes wonder. I've already been buzzed by SUV's going quite close and at what seemed to me to be a high rate of speed. If they or myself (afterall, we all make mistakes sometimes) mess up and I get clipped, would a helmet help me?

I think arguing "well you're safer biking rather than not biking and getting disease" is specious. Let's just agree that we all think biking is better than not biking.

Once you've gotten to that point, however, the question becomes "with or without a helmet?" And I'm not sure deaths are the only quantifiable measuring stick of the worthiness of a helmet. Concussions/head wounds are worthy of thought.

But if you tell me "hey, when a vehicle clips you at 30mph or more, it doesn't matter whether you have head gear on or not," then I'll accept that. Maybe.

It just seems like I've read 6 pages, and I'm not anymore clear on what course I should go in terms of safety and enjoyment combined than I was when I started.

There is no conclusion. Some people feel better with a helmet, some don't. Some people won't ever feel safe unless they have a huge cage around them - and they outnumber us.

If you choose to wear a helmet - understand it isn't some kind of super suit that will protect you regardless of other decisions you make. Under certain conditions it might help - probably will. Educate yourself what those are.

Just slapping a helmet on your head is no cure all - learning to ride, and ride safely is much more important in my opinion.

I sustained a head injury in the seventies riding on the road without a helmet.

minor concussion.

and a helmet may not help being clipped doing 30 (been there, done that) but it helps when you hit the ground.

agree with the premise of some of this thread, that NOT EXERCISING-cycling- is more hazardous to your health than bicycling.

Getting "buzzed" can usually be avoided by proper lane positioning. You may be making the mistake of riding too far to the right...this invites overtaking vehicles to attempt to pass you when it's not safe.

You might also want to consider a mirror. I use one, and it allows me to exercise a degree of control over overtaking traffic. If I see someone coming up who's not moving over enough, I move my bike *left* a bit to force them to move further left. This works 99% of the time, especially when you do it early enough. Even *ssholes who just want to buzz you will move left, because their intent is to scare you, not kill you. In the rare event that the overtaking car does not move left, you then still have room to the right to bail out. A good quality cycling mirror (e.g., the Take a Look) makes this an easy maneuver.

Yes, this thread is going here, there & everywhere (VERY old members will no doubt smile at this point), but I always thought things were pretty simple :

You have a fall /crash (I'm talking pure accident-that-can-happen-to-anyone here, no recklessness-because-I'm-protected-anyway-stuff) -your head hits the ground ...
- no helmet : NO protection
- helmet : SOME protection, i.o.w. better than nothing
OK?

I knew we could agree on something, but a couple of things, wow!

Just don't let it go to your head closetbiker!

the question seems to me is, how much more likely (or not) is a head injury on a bicycle than in a car or on foot? Most research shows not any more likely, so we're back to just ride that bike and stop worrying

I too agree deaths are not the only quantifiable measure of a helmet. Superficial injuries are a pain and problem, but they are quite survivable. The typical bicycle crash impact occurs at a force level equating at 10 mph. That's what they are made for. There is a real problem in quantifing injury below death. One persons scrape is another persons tragedy. Concussions occur to helmeted riders on a regular basis and what's better is most of those concussed riders feel the helmet saved them even though they had a concussion. The mechanics of brain injury reveal helmets cannot prevent the tearing of neural tissue that cause brain injury. It's important to know the limits of helmets and the prevelance of incidences where a helmet could have helped. Most people don't.

I'm not holding my breath for a hug session with my fave Seattlite.

Cagers tailgate all cyclists. The difference is that cagers kill cyclists without helmets.

And the ones that are aware enough to give non-helmet-wearing cyclists the extra room, usually aren't the ones that hit cyclists at all.

they kill cyclists with helmets too

What the statistics show may be right overall, but my experience tells me that I'm much more likely to take a hit to my head when I am cycling as opposed to walking, driving, etc. because that's just me.

I won't say that the numerous times I have taken a head blow while wearing a helmet has prevented brain trauma but just looking at the damage to the helmets in those falls I can confidently say that it has at the very least saved my scalp and ears from some nasty road rash and I'm happy to wear it for that reason..... plus its the best place to mount my homebrew light .... and its required by law here anyhow.

and that's just fine, but if you look at insurance, hospital and doctors records, adjust for proportional
participants, and you'll find there's no more cyclists than old people, drunks, pedestrians, motorists etc., etc. receiving head injuries

For me, I've never scratched my helmet and I've fallen plenty on the bike, but I have banged my head many times on all kinds of things when I haven't been on the bike.

americans are unjustly fearful...period! there is so much out there that various watchdog groups want to protect us from, it's become a matter of protecting us, not only from ourselves, but from life itself.

when i was a child/teenager, helmets barely existed, much less talked about; i commuted to my first job by bike, 12-13 miles roundtrip, on the streets, in traffic, and hardly ever had a problem w/ cars. incidents were so few and minor that i cannot remember the details of any.

now, granted, there is a different society, different conditions, and i do not ride w/o a helmet -- but the helmet will not keep a car from grinding me into paste, obviously. i would not let my child ride as i did at her age, because of the callous nature of society today (careless endangerment by cars as well as abduction). but this constant assault by these groups about this & that, all of which has been shown to kill someone/something somewhere, therefore abstain from it...i'm fed to the gills with it!

i saw the stossel piece, and all i will say about it is this -- if i ever ride in nyc, i'll take more lane so they have to go around me! but i'll never ride in nyc anyway, because i'm not interested in seeing the city.

6 pages later, a reply from my original post!

I agree and I think people (unintentionally) shoot themselves in the foot trying to do good and end up worse off.

That's the point of the whole show/segment.

I don't think it's about helmets at all. It's about unintended results from misguided efforts to be better off.

This thread is still alive???

I agree that mandatory helmet laws don't make sense, but I still think it's wise to voluntarily wear a helmet. A helmet will protect you from pain, and that's good enough for me. Wear a helmet, ride prudently, and focus on your own riding instead of whether someone else is wearing a helmet.

This topic is a favorite of mine. Even better than helmets.

The list of crises that the news media report on seems endless: shark attacks, heat stroke, anthrax, missing children, weapons of mass destruction, killer bees, snipers, flooding, breast implants, rising crime, airline crashes, Sars, West Nile Virus, Avian Flu, bicycle deaths and injuries, and so on.

How are bike deaths over-reported?
As a cyclist I'd be a hell of a lot more mad if they weren't reported.

not so much over reported as no context given in the reporting