Oh a bunch of hooey! You knew that this is a hot topic based upon your first post that stated,

"All that said, at the risk of triggering WW3 (having seen another thread discussing this topic from a different angle), I am mulling over the whole cycling helmet debate. "

you invited comments and opinions so why do you think anyone is personally attacking you? You asked for it.

Whether you wear a helmet is your problem.

This is a logical fallacy unless you can control for the change in time of the number of riders, the distances they are riding, the type of riding they are doing, and the seriousness of the injuries. To take one potential example, the rise in helmet use over the last 20-30 years coincides with the increase in popularity of mountain biking. If you have statistics of serious head injuries/mile of road cycling (or insert another appropriate modifier instead of "road"), you should point us to them.

This is why the most cited whole-population studies have come from Australia and New Zealand where there was a quite sudden and dramatic increase in helmet usage as a result of well-publicized and enforced mandatory helmet laws. And there were traffic surveys conducted both before and in the years following the MHLs so that the numbers of fatalities and hospitalizations could be normalized based on changes in the number of riders. These studies have failed to find the hoped for benefits of increased helmet usage and even showed a slight increase in injury risk when the drop in ridership was taken into account.

Also, one must be clear that nobody in the pro-helmet camp is under the illusion that wearing a helmet makes bike riding safe. When your head hits the ground the net change in momentum is the same whether you are wearing a helmet or not. The role of the helmet is to distribute the force over a larger area, thereby mitigating the severity of the trauma. I do not have access to appropriate statistics, but one might guess that helmets would not reduce the frequency of concussions as strongly as say, the frequency of fractured skulls. This is why an argument about "the frequency of serious head injuries" is meaningless unless the type of head injury is specified.

If you don't believe that objects are protected from trauma by padded containers, go ask someone who sells eggs whether they think it's worth the extra money to use padded packaging.

Perhaps we may argue about the definition of "hoped for", but the first 4 articles I found in an internet search came to a conclusion different from yours:

http://www.bhsi.org/henderso.htm
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...00423-0031.pdf
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...3&searchtype=a
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...9&searchtype=a

[QUOTE=MinnMan;11381597]Perhaps we may argue about the definition of "hoped for", but the first 4 articles I found in an internet search came to a conclusion different from yours

The first study (Hendersons) is a meta-analysis of other studies and relies primarily on case-control studies rather than the whole-population data following the MHL although it does include a brief summary of early findings after those laws were enacted concluding that there were benefits but admitting that they were less than expected. The second study is entirely a case-control one and subject to the usual concerns about self-selecting groups not necessarily being representative of the rest of the population. The third study does look at early findings after the MHL (and I think was the basis for Henderson's data in the first study) but fails to fully account for declines in ridership and also changes in some of the medical reporting procedures that were instituted at the same time. And the final study is again just a meta-analysis of other papers - since only the abstract is available it's hard to know how those other papers reached their conclusions and whether they were based on case-control or whole-population.

OTOH, here's an article from the BMJ summarizing the effects of MHLs in a number of jurisdictions and concluding that the main effect was to reduce the amount of cycling and had no appreciable change in the rate of head injuries. In addition to normalizing the results based on ridership counts, Robinson also looked at the comparative records of pedestrians vs. cyclists in that period to account for confounding factors such as changes in medical reporting and general traffic safety campaigns.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1410838

And
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9110034
found little change in head injury risk following the marked increase in helmet use in NZ just prior to the introduction of their MHL when a concerted publicity campaign greatly increased voluntary helmet usage.

I am also sick of this debate, last summer a guy in our town made a sudden left turn in front of an on coming car and ended up with his head on the horrified woman's dash board (not wearing a helmet). He died on impact, maybe a helmet would have helped, I don't know, maybe.

You can decide these things, it's OK.

The thing that always surprises me in these helmet threads is the passion of the anti-helmet people.
Having smacked my head on the pavement both helmeted and non-helmeted, I prefer to wear one on all rides.

Bicycling is an growing sport. There are more total bicyclists than, say 20 years ago.
Because the sport is expanding, and many, but not all wear helmets, it IS possible for both the number of helmets in use to increase AND the number of head injuries to increase.
Imagine that helmet use remained the same at 50% (I don't know the actual figure, just using 50% as an example), while the sport grows at 10% per year.
If any given percentage of riders experience accidents and head injuries in a given year, then it is still possible for both "the number of helmets in use" AND "the number of head injuries" to increase, because the total number of riders is rising each year.
More head injuries does NOT prove that helmets are ineffective, it just proves more people are riding.

I love it - safety is overrated. Why do we cringe so, and turn into moralizing babysitters, whenever people do things that can get them hurt?
As Ron White says, "You can't fix stupid."

Anyway, here's the deal - just get a helmet. Don't spend a lot of money on it, either, as they are all designed to meet the same standards.

Try it out for 2 weeks.
Then ride without it two weeks.

Assume the minimal risks associated with cycling during this period, in the interests of enlightenment.

After this month, decide what you like.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I listened to all the crap that goes with helmet debate, too, and ended up asking myself, "Why the hell am I listening to all this crap?!"
Once my trial was over, I found the helmet made me feel no safer. It was the same thing a DVD player comes packaged in. Oh, maybe if I fell over in the driveway and hit my head, it might help. That is what they are deigned for, after all.

Overall, though, I can take them or leave them in terms of safety. I'm half convinced, in fact, that much of what we are led to believe about them is either profiteering sham or fear mongering... which often are the same thing.

The one place they do excel is as a visibility tool. They are the highest point in the riders world and you can really do a lot to take advantage of that. Everything from Fluorescent paint to flashing lights is doable on a helmet. This lets you be seen long before you have to hope the helmet is gonna help you.

So get one, try it, and decide. Cycling is NOT dangerous in and of itself, despite what the alarmists say. Helmets don't change that.

The helmet is not supposed to make you fell any safer - it's meant to MAKE you safer. But as I said before, don't make lame excuses,
just don't wear one and say proudly, I don't want to wear one. All of this extra stuff makes people look foolish and insincere..

I found that I wear my helmet cause I would really feel stupid (if I felt anything) if I hurt my head in a fall while the helmet was in the closet. Just stupid. Kind of like the umbrella in the car when you have to cross the parking lot in a downpour.

Liddy made it pretty obvious he was a troll, so I guess I don't need to follow that line.

Funny things bike accidents.
I tried bike polo a couple of weeks back - what a blast! The local group are pretty casual, not like some of the videos you find on the internet. One lad didn't have a helmet for some reason (compulsory here), but that was fine, he had excellent bike control and as I said, it was pretty casual. The ball managed to go under his rear wheel - not his front, his rear and the result was a forward piroutte, right over the bars and onto his head. The graze was about an inch square so it was obvous where he hit - that's right, inside the area that would have been protected by the helmet. He lay on his back for quite a few minutes. Was obviously dazed when he stood and staggered to the side lines. Didn't ride again that afternoon. I don't actually know how he got home as I left before he did.

Very slow speed.
Not on road.
Accident that resulted in a head injury and included some brain injury.

If you're in an area where you don't need to wear a helmet, you've got a choice. Use it, but you are choosing to risk injury ... bit like riding in the first place but you're choosing to risk injury. So why get so het up about defending your choice (like Liddy the troll)? Make your choice and wear it.

Personally, I was wearing a helmet on every ride 5 years before they became compulsory here. I'm free spirited enough to think that personal choice is a good thing and that you can't legislate safety, much as they try. I'm happy to applaude that you have the choice, just don't expect me to agree that not wearing a helmet is a good idea.

Richard

I've worn a helmet (almost) religiously since 1977 when the USCF proclaimed that I must wear a "leather hair net" if I wanted to race. However, there have been times recently while riding in south Louisiana in 105F+ heat index when I've wondered if the danger of heat stroke wasn't a more serious consideration than the potential for crashing and striking my head. Just something to ponder . . .

Dunno mate. Our February regularly posts temperatures above 40 C (your 105 F) so I know the conditions. Yes, you do sweat like blazes but wearing a light bandana as I do helps keep things cool - I actually started wearing the bandana to fight skin cancer after noticing the strange, mottled sun burn on my scalp (yes, balding badly). Without a helmet, you still need sort of hat to protect yourself from heat stroke.

Richard

No, sorry, this is not what has happened. The only places where real and relatively reliable figures are available are Australia and New Zealand. Introducing mandatory helmet laws reduced the number of cyclists, possibly because some people just didn't want to wear one, possibly because their introduction sent a message that cycling is dangerous. Yet the number of head injuries did NOT fall faster than the number of cyclists fell. In fact, in New Zealand I think I am right in saying that the biggest decline in head injuries to cyclists took place before the helmet law was introduced.

I have yet to hear a response to the question of head injuries to pedestrians. Given that the incidence of head injury to pedestrians per mile travelled is similar to that for cyclists (both groups get hit by cars) why, if it is common-sense to wear a helmet while cycling, aren't all you helmet-wearers wearing them while walking across the street?

Let's be clear. I am all in favour of helmets in certain circumstances. Young children learning to ride are the group most at risk of the sort of incidents where helmets are likely to help - low-speed falls with no other vehicle involved. Downhill MTB-ers are highly likely to come off at speed in potentially unforgiving terrain - full-face helmets are a good idea. And I'm all in favour of anyone who thinks they need a helmet, wearing one. But it does not follow that helmets are necessary for ordinary road cycling, or will significantly alter your already tiny chances of suffering a serious injury. So recognise that for the most part, while they may make you feel safer, they probably aren't doing much to help you be safer. And the subliminal message that is being sent - "cycling is dangerous and if you don't wear a helmet you might die" - is both inaccurate and has highly negative consequences; including, for example, fostering a belief that cyclists don't belong on the roads with other traffic.

You say tomato, I say tomato.


Wear one or not. I don't care.

Agreed, with the exception that only you feel the sting of insincerity - as others have said, it is all highly personal. Recall, I do wear a helmet; I've passed through the fire.

However, one should get the sense that a thing is doing some good, that it fulfills it's purpose. This little plastic and foam shell we claim is so much safer is more of an affectation, a nod towards our sense of propriety and pious moralizing on behalf of others.

In the end, millions of miles will be logged by millions of riders - with or without helmets - and nothing will come of it. Those who wear them will do so because they either feel safer, or someone told them they would be. Very few will have actual data or experience to prove the helmet prevented anything from happening to them. Even then, the lions share of their backing information will be hyperbole ("Without the helmet I would have died!"), or based on some study and/or conclusions that resonate with them.

The cycling helmet, itself, is simply overrated in its effectiveness.

First, I always wear a helmet. I feel it slightly increases my chances of less road rash, and other minor-type injuries. I would prefer the addition of some sort of face guard, however.

Second, Yes, I would agree with the above statement. "The cycling helmet, itself, is simply overrated in its effectiveness. "

There is an argument out there in helmet argument land that if the money spent on the purchase and promotion of helmets was spent, instead, on bicycling safety and techniques promotion and classes and whatever, the entire bicycling world would be safer. It may be a true argument, but it is also specious in that it would never happen - spending as much money on safety education as on helmets.

So, as I wear seat belts and drive defensively, and have a convex extra mirror on my car for blind spots in my rear left side, the helmet to me represents a slight increase in safety vs the discomfort/cost/whatever negatives of wearing a hemet.

What is "significantly alter"? If it alters at all some will say it's worth it. Statistics are highly irrelevant to the individual who falls outside of the norm indicated by the statistics.

I'm not interested in "for the most part". I'm interested in the range of possibilities from which my decision can be made.

I'm not actually asking the helmet to do much. I simply want it to provide a level of cushioning that is not there with its absence.

Actually cycling is dangerous and if you don't wear a helmet you might die. This is not an inaccurate statement at all. Your odds of having this happen are another thing entirely.

I can't buy your argument that wear a helmet sends signals to stay off the road. Wearing seat belts, logically should then send the same message.

Holy cow, it's my long lost twin.
http://i35.tinypic.com/kdwc5w.jpg

http://i36.tinypic.com/2euo3yu.jpg

A helmet cannot make you safer...it can only potentially mitigate the damage (to part of your head only) after something bad happens. Geesh, it's not brain surgery.

So were it to be clear that the benefit of wearing helmets was insignificant, they'd still be worth it? And of course if you've sustained a head injury, the probability of you having sustained a head injury is 1. But statistics are highly relevant to assessing the probability that such an event might transpire in the future.

I don't think you really read what I said. I suggested there were scenarios - young children, downhilling MTBs - where helmets make sense to me. But for the most part adult cyclists don't fall into these categories, and they don't fall into them at all when just riding along. And of course the range of possibilities from which your decision can be made includes absolutely every possible contingency, including your being struck by a meteorite. I'm guessing you think that statistics are relevant when assessing the chances of that one, no?

This is reasonable. Unfortunately there is a fair bit of evidence that helmets often fail to do that, breaking rather than deforming and thereby simply transmitting the shock rather than dispersing it. However, I'm happy to concede that helmets do sometimes help, especially in preventing some bumps and scrapes.

No, the odds are not another matter entirely. Odds are what determine where something lies on the spectrum from dangerous to safe. And the statement is no more accurate than "being a pedestrian is dangerous and if you don't wear a helmet you might die." Both are only true if you define dangerous so widely as to be misleading. And of course one can equally say, for example, "cycling is quite safe and if you don't wear a helmet you're unlikely to come to any harm", which is fairer reflection of the odds.

Should it? I don't think so. The experience of being in a car and on a bike is completely different, and so is most people's attitude to driving as opposed to cycling. My point was about the constant reinforcement in the public mind of the "cycling is dangerous" message. I don't know about where you live, but I frequently talk to people here who are intimidated out of cycling on the roads. They are usually incredulous when the actual statistics are presented and say things like "ah, but a thousand-to-one chance could still happen". They're right, it could. But they then proceed to behave in ways that are much more dangerous, unhelmeted and without a second thought.

:lol::thumb:

I believe that the nanny state we live in will mandate head protection in many ways in my lifetime. Head injuries to the elderly from falls is a big problem, perhaps all people over the age of 75 should wear a helmet as well. What about cars...can't be too safe they say, and the idea of wearing a helmet in cars has been tossed around too.

What really surprises me is the lengths the anti-helmet crowd will go to to justify their position. No one needs to give me some huge statement on the merits of not wearing a helmet. It's almost like "I don't wear one...and this is why you shouldn't either". Wear one or don't wear one, just don't try and convince me it's a bad thing.