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.

I decided long ago that wearing a helmet when riding my bike made more sense than not wearing one, so with very rare exceptions, I always wear a helmet when I ride a bike. I am sure glad that the ride I took three weeks ago today was not one of those exceptions.

Almost precisely the obverse of my own position. I don't care if you wear a helmet. What I do care about is being told I'm an idiot for not wearing one, usually by people who are utterly clueless about, and grossly overestimate, both the risks and the potential benefits.

Hello Liddy, and firstly, congratulations on entering the world of cycling. Good luck, many safe miles to you

Secondly, you couldn't have chosen a hotter whirlpool of opinion to explore!

I have a point of view. I hope I can express it without seeming any kind of unreasoning advocate, I hope this has a healthy 'signal to noise' ratio. Here goes.

• I think I count as 'some kind of experienced' - used to be a keen schoolboy racer, national finalist, raised the kids on the back of tandems, bike touring holidays every year, bike commuter in London, Paris, New York and Jakarta.
• Only serious injury on a slow family ride. I'm Mr 2 mph broken leg
• Location and speed, in my experience, doesn't predict likelihood of unforeseen incident (like your garage topple?)
• I have both sides of my son's helmet. He was going to college on a rainy day, foot slipped off a pedal as he was pressing hard from a stop, head (helmetted) hit a Curb. Helmet was a goner, he wasn't

Your choice, of course, but in my view exposure to traffic isn't a variable that I'd include in my 'helmet or not' choice.

You miss my point. You are talking about large groups of individuals around which the statistics are based. To the individual for which the helmet served its intended/stated purpose well, those statistics don't mean anything. It would be foolish to think that helmets never help or make a difference between moderate to major head injury. And it likely happens just enough that there are folks who will always want to wear a helmet.

I did read what you said and disagree. I would suggest that there are scenarios where adults are at much more risk than they might imagine. I'm suggesting the statistics are irrelevant when it comes to a personal choice. You can't force people into a position because statistics paint a particular picture. As I originally said, I'm interested in a range of possibilities when making decisions. I don't want my choices limited by statistics. I'll give you and example. My cousin was a world class musician. He was always trying to protect his hands. He would wear gloves at times that put him in the position of a social outcast. He would avoid many activities because of the possible damage that could be done to his hands. One day, he wasn't wearing gloves, picked up some poison ivy from a neighbor's dog on his hands. He got an infection from scratching the poison ivy and couldn't play for well over six months. You will never convince him that it wasn't a mistake to not be wearing his gloves. The odds of what happened were probably very small. Yet, to him those odds are meaningless.

Life is dangerous. I had a next door neighbor crushed by a bus because she slipped standing on a curb. I suspect there are probably statistics showing that it is much safer to wait on the curb than on the roadway when attempting to cross a street. Yet in this case even standing on the curb was not safe enough for a woman using a cane with balance problems. I don't especially need an odds maker telling me how dangerous something is. Each individual is unique. I rode a motorcycle for several decades. I sold one of them to my older brother. He had it just one afternoon before he dumped it. Of course it was some time later that we discovered he suffered from petit mal seizures and it would never be safe for him to drive a motorcycle. My point is that each person's situation is unique and often unknown to others. If folks want to wear a helmet when walking down the street, I OK with that. I have no reason not to be.

I would not presume to know what most people's attitudes are related to driving and cycling. Both activities are very dangerous. That is, the consequences of poor judgment or performance can be life ending. I have friends who live in cities that refuse to drive, because they believe it is too dangerous. I have others who refuse to take public transportation and drive instead. To them public transportation is too dangerous. I think it dysfunctional to suggest that one is more correct or incorrect than another. It goes back to the uniqueness of each individual, what skills, attitudes, physical makeup, illnesses, etc. each has can be a very large determining factor in their decisions.

Heres another summary of the same observation:

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience". - - C. S. Lewis


Welcome, ye, the Nanny State.

Oh, FFS, shut up, already... all of you.

Wear a helmet or don't, and allow the other guy to do the same.

You're not smarter because of your choice. There's no definitive evidence to support either side, so do what you personally feel is in your own best interest (and lose this crap about paying more for the guy who chose not to, that's crap, too).

Bottom line... MYOB.

I've been working on a solution using a little bit of technology borrowed from NASA. I'll let you know if it works or not.

Mmmmm.....bionic hair?

Havent been around these threads much, have you? We LOVE this stuff - dont steal our joy.

the toes are the fulcrum, your body is the lever. a slow speed amplified by 6 foot of lever gets the head moving pretty quickly. you don't always fall to flat ground. a curb, a fire hydrant, a retaining wall, could be in just the wrong place. the hand you thought would break your fall and keep your cranium from striking the pavement may get stuck in that pocket searching for the energy bar.
sure all those things could happen just walking down the street. but riding exposes you to those walking risks at much higher frequency. enough to warrant the helmet. as an ex observed trials rider, i know how quickly things can happen you never expected.
i used to not wear one because of helmet hair. i'm retired now and who gives a rats @$$? i even found one that provides better protection for the back of the head where the part of the brain is that controls BREATHING.
my 2 sense (haw) dabbindan

[QUOTE

I have read the following and found it thought provoking http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycle_helmet Even before reading that, I had decided that cycling away from traffic does not, for me, require use of a helmet. If and when (last week I'm afraid it was when) I fall from a bike, it will be a fall from more or less my own height sideways at a low speed. Even as I get faster, I doubt it would be merrited.

Anyway, I am interested in the considered, mutually respected opinions of other. Any takers?[/QUOTE]

I had a cycling accident 2 years ago and I was on a side street no traffic and I was wearing a helmet and spent a month in the hospital and a month laid up at home with a brain injury. If not for the helmet I would be dead. To this day I have no memory of what happened and the docs say I most likely will not remember. So go ahead don't wear a helmet things can't happen to you if theres no traffic. :injured:

I'm glad youre alright. Im interested to hear what sort of accident you can have while riding all alone, that lays you up for a month in hospital. and at home with brain injury.
What did you do to yourself? More importantly, maybe the rest of us can learn from your mistake, if you share it with us.

I agree - things can happen to you. At any time. You can be struck by a car in the grocery star parking lot, for example.
But your incident puzzles me, in particular, because I've ridden for 40+ years, long before we heard of helmets, and have never been hurt while riding alone - unless I, myself, did something to get into trouble.

Oh, yeah -- I'm here every day! I'm just sick of the helmet crap. Love 'em or hate 'em, wear 'em or don't, but damn, quit preaching, people.

There's a lot of other stuff to argy about, and I'm waiting for that -- NEW TURF TO WAR OVER! COME ON, KICK IT UP!

I always wear a helmet. But then, that's my choice. But I don't ride with people who don't.

Not a comment on wearing a helmet or not, rather a compliment to all who have posted in this thread. Having read any number of "helmet" threads, this has certainly been the most polite I've seen-kudos to all. Its why I like this forum.

Well I wish I could tell you what happened. I have no memory of it other than what a witness told the police. From what was said I must have gone down on some leaves and my head hit the granite curbing breaking my helmet. The witness said I got back up brushed my self off got back on the bike and went right back down again and never got back up. The lady who's house that it happened in front of call the police and they had me transported to the hospital which in turn because I had a bleeder in the brain sent me right into a Boston hospital. I also fractured my right cheek bone right arm and broke my nose.

As far as what I did to make it all happen I have no idea. I will only say that I wish it on nobody. I never want to go through that again. But hey I still ride. :)

Im glad to hear it!
But Im still left to wonder, if you suffered brain injury regardless, what did the helmet really do?

According to the Doc all brain injury was from me accident. The helmet kept my head from being smashed open because it hit the granite curb. As it was my brain received enough bruising in the front lobe that I had to see a speech therapist for a little while while in rehab to help get over the little slurring of words I had and just to cope with the head injury. I now have no problem speaking just a little problem with short term memory but I have leaned to adapt with day planners and a reminder calender on my computer at work. All in all I consider my self very lucky. All I can say is you adapt and over come when something like this happens to you. Thank God for the helmet. Thats one of the reasons I will not ride with anyone that will not wear a helmet.

just sayin'

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4137/...c824cf5e95.jpghttp://farm5.static.flickr.com/4137/...a2a3e34dd2.jpg

Changing the subject: Does anyone NOT wear socks with their cycling shoes?