It is like one helmet safety site asked:

If helmets are that important to our safety, then why aren't they required in for auto drivers who suffered far more head injuries than cyclists?

Also, the optimum helmet, according to a study in 1990, would have a clear face shield. Why hasn't that become the standard? Most head injuries for cyclists are facial.

A cycling helmet is designed to be effective at a speed...basically that of a person running. Why aren't runners required to wear helmets?

I want airbags for my fixed... and a shoulder belt.... and legislation that prevents me from being decapitated if I run into the back of a parked truck.

This says nothing about the effectiveness of helmets, this is a red herring.

Again, red herring, this says nothing about the effectiveness of current helmets, and let's hear some stats on "most head injuries are facial."

Who says they're designed to be used at the speed of someone running. Oh right, I forgot, your study doesn't want to risk being cited cause it's on the run from the feds.

There are plenty of studies and reports on the internet A helmet is designed for an impact of no more than 14mph. The average speed of a runner in a 100 yard sprint is over 20mph.

From magma.ca

The maximum 2 metre (6'8") drop simulates a 20 km/h (14 mph) impact. Direct impacts over 20km/h can be expected to be lethal.

"One has to agree that in high speed impacts [a helmet] won't prevent death."


Facial and head injuries, admitted to an emergency room, actually are about the same number. The consensus is that most facial injuries go unreported, but occur more frequently. The red herring about face protection indeed says nothing about current helmets and their effectiveness. If you had considered the question more thoroughly, you would have understood it's intent.

Why are we not using helmets that will, for a few pennies more, protect ourselves to an almost 100% level? Why use protection that only partially does it's job? Are you satisfied with just being partially protected?

the worst part about helmets is you all sit around bickering about it.. giving weight to the issue for non bikers.. so when some dude gets plowed over by a truck in NYC, the press states "he was not wearing a helmet" and the person reading thinks "oh.. no wonder they are dead..."

Wear a helmet or dont... and let other people do whatever the **** they need to do...but drop it as an issue...because its being used against us when the real issue is the roads are not safe to bike on and our safety protection choices are being blamed for it

I have to admit that this is the most logical statement made, including those made by myself or anyone else. Unfortunately, the people who fall for the "no wonder they are dead" statement are the people who make our city and town ordinances. It goes back to lawmakers making helmet laws, thinking they've done everything to make cycling safe, and do not address the real issues of what would save lives.

exactly...and anyhting after that has become our fault

I am not for or against helmets, but you can die just as fast from a side impact. Say you get hit by a honda and it pinches your leg between your top tube and the bumper breaking your leg and severing your femoral arterie. You would die in fifteen minute. When the femoral arterie is severed you bleed out rether quickly.

In another scenerio. Say you get hit by a pick-up or suv in the leftside. The impact breaks three ribs ruptures your kidney and spleen. You die within the hour. The bile enters your system and you die. If you ge tmedical attentioon right away you will still end up living life differently. You can't eat spicey foods you suffer from diabetes and many other conditions from the irepairable organ damage.

I wear a helmet because my loved ones asked me to.

Its as easy as that. In any cause, the huge jumps of logic that the original study states are hardly convincing. Maybe sprinters should wear helmets... if they wove in and out of rush hour traffic in the middle of the road. I will continue wearing a helmet on the off-chance that I get into an accident at ~14mph, and you can not wear a helmet if you want. Why the ceaseless discussion on the topic?

Your helmet will protect you in crashes at faster speeds too it is just tested with conditions roughly equivalent. JWC et al. would like you to believe that this means its completely worthless in higher speed crashes but that is incorrect.

Likewise pointing out that you could injure yourself in another fashion when hit by a car does not mean a helmet is worthless just that it doesn't protect against every situation. Lots of car/bike accidents end with the rider hitting his head but not causing any damage to thoracic or abdominal organs. A helmet is quite goos in such a situation.

Strawman. Car accidents are completely different.

The reason I brought up autos was because it was mentioned on three helmet sites, two against helmet laws and one promoting helmet safety, but not all full-enforcement laws.

turns out they arent...thats the whole point of that argument

I find a cup (with athletic support) much more important.

If only cars were required to be equipped with devices to protect the head. Maybe some sort of padded support in the back and a giant pillow in the front. But how could such a device be created that wouldn't get in the way before the accident. hmmmm it seems like someone would have solved this problem by now. Maybe they could even come up with some sort of protection from side impact. Some curtain like device.

Same here. We're all well aware that I could die regardless, but wearing a helmet makes them worry a little less. Maybe we're just forestalling the inevitable pain and sadness from when I die from spleen injuries or whatever, but at least it makes them feel better for now.

I don't think that anyone thinks that helmets will protect you from every possible injury, but I've yet to see anything that makes me believe that you'd be better off NOT wearing one. I look dorky enough already--a helmet can't do too much more damage to my image--but on the off chance that it might save me some pain/hassle at some point, it's worth it.

Not all cars and trucks come with such safety devices. If you carry your thought further, vehicles without such should either be banned from being driven or the owners ticketed for not having them. Motorcycles have been tested with airbags and shown to be safer. Yet, as far as I know, the feds haven't required them to be utilized.


Now, if only they would install air bags on the outside of vehicles so that when it detects a pedestrian or bicycle rider, the bags would deploy and protect the cyclists from idiot drivers.....or riders not riding safely.

I suppose that bike helmets are like seat belts. Buckle it or ticket it.

Honda has them on new bikes and scooters soon. Could go for this

Well, there is always this, but you still need a helmet.

http://img162.imageshack.us/img162/2064/biketd1.jpg

I'm off to buy a helmet today.... For the last year I've listened to people telling me to wear a weiner hat and I paid no attention. I thought I was smarter, I thought that riding in the city if I was gonna get into an incident it was going to be worse then a simple knock on the head. From my years trail riding on a honda xr I thought only a full face glass helmet was worth wearing.....on and on I had an excuse.

Now I've spent the last 7 weeks with a 3 pins in my hand because of the stupidest ****ing accident and luckily traded a 6 foot pavement drop on the head for a dislocated shoulder. I wasn't wearing a helmet and the only thing that kept the side of my head from hitting the ground was some quick thinking and a well placed arm.

I spent the night in the hospital talking to doctors and nurses all pushing hellmet advocacy but they were very honest. They said you don't wear a helmet for the worst case scenerio, you wear it for the one day you get into an incident that should have only left some nasty road rash but instead your parents are changing calaustomy bag.

It made a lot of sense, you don't wear a helmet to guard you from SUV's and cars, you were it to guard you against those freak accidents that do and likely WILL happen.

Oh Yeah!!! that's what I need. After a crash I could get up and walks slowly towards the car with my arms outstretched... brains... brains...

The innertube is pretty cool too. Next CM

colostomy

Only if you wish for any argument that you don't like to immediately slide into 'thin end of the wedge' ridiculous analogy territory, so you can ignore it without thinking about it.

OMG MAYBE WE SHOULD PUT AIR BAGS IN BABY STROLLERS THINK OF THE CHILDREN OMG MAN ISN'T THE WHOLE IDEA OF AIRBAGS STUPID LETS FORGET THE WHOLE IDEA

A comparison of cars and bikes is a comparitive question of how far should we go when trying to protect everyone from each other. Ironically, a customer today told me that with all the airbags in a new car nowadays, seat belts should not be required. I didn't know what to say...I just smiled and changed the subject.

Look, let me make something clear...I'm not opposed to helmets. I am opposed to their being used as an excuse to ride with a feeling of invincibility, town ordinances that do not address real safety issues of riders, and I really do feel that their advocacy is backed by the manufacturers that provide them and profit from these laws. Add-on sales are one of the first things they teach you in retail. If helmets are that important to safe cycling...then every bike should be required to come equipped with one or a coupon should be provided so that they are free.

Safety is more than just throwing a helmet on you head. Read some of the threads here about crashes. The helmet may have saved someone but, almost every post will include:

I was going 25 downhill on a wet road... (if the road is wet...slow down)
I was going too fast for road conditions..(again...should have slowed down.)
I was going too fast for my skill level... (if you know your skills are limited..slow down)
I got my front tire caught in ________ at an angle and I knew better (well, if you knew better...)
I was going 25-30mph and this car was sitting waiting to make a left turn and just as I got into the intersection, the guy turned right in front of me (Ok, I like going fast too, but I also know that car drivers are unpredictable, so I'm going to slow down and watch closely.)

Then there are the statements:

I'm wearing my brain bucket (or I'm keeping my brain bucket). (Brain bucket was a put down on helmets we used years ago, that pointed out the were good for nothing but keeping your brains from splattering across the pavement after your death. If you're going to call it something, try something that doesn't describe it's use as futile.)

I ride in traffic with cars going 45-50 mph so I'm wearing my helmet. (Questionable logic...helmets aren't designed for such impacts with autos, but somehow everyone believes that they are.)

If I'm going for a casual ride around the neigborhood...I don't need a helmet, but in traffic I always wear one...(If you trust a helmet to protect you, then you should wear it at all times.)

Merckx didn't wear a helmet, at least not during the height of his career. Neither did Fausto Coppi.

Juan Manuel-Fangio drove a car capable of a 193 mph to a world championship with no true roll bar or seat belt.

ok. First- name of thread: "Do helmets work?" I think we've come to the conclusion that bikers who crash tend to hit their heads, and when you hit your head, you'd rather have a helmet on it than not.
It wasn't "should hemet laws be pursued to the exclusion of all other types of bike advocacy?" Nobody here was arguing that. Take that to the advocacy forum.

Second- nobody who's crashed even once feels that helmets make them invincible. Road rash alone is strong adversive conditioning, not to mention anything more severe.
On the contrary, look at how many of the crash stories here do not involve a helmet.

In addition, there are crashes that are very difficult to avoid. For example, i was waiting at a stop light, when the driver coming up behind me hit the gas instead of the brake & bounced me off their hood. I ended up with a sprained wrist and a destroyed helmet.

Third (strawman)- most bike shops do cut people a deal on the purchase of helmets with a new bike, & encourage people to get one. Helmet fit is individual. I really don't want a stack of cheap, ill-fitting helments acumulating in my closet, 1 for each new bike, nor do i want to have to pay a surcharge for something which is not going to fit on my head.

I was thinking the exact same thing.

I agree, it is about 50/50 on riders who crashed without one thinking, they now need one...but, as I said, almost all, not all, but almost, involve someone admitting they were doing something to the extreme. With that kind of rider, they do need a helmet. But, look how many people feel the need for a helmet to protect them from cars...and the helmets are not designed to do so.

You cannot control the other driver, but like they used to say decades ago, you can drive (ride) defensively.

I agree, no helmet will fit everyone...that is why I mentioned a coupon for a free helmet as an alternative. The feds can limit the price and if you want something fancier, you can pay the difference. But, if the feds or states believe that helmets are that important in saving lives, then they need to make them free (or include them in the cost of a bike) before they make them mandatory for all ages.

As to invincibility..that is something that doctors and groups investigating why head injuries increased with helmet use are theorizing. It isn't an original idea on my part.

QUOTE=jwc
>But, look how many people feel the need for a helmet to protect them from cars...and the helmets are
>not designed to do so.

That's contrary to my experience. Out of the time i've been riding in boston, i've had two car-bike runins. Both were relatively low speed, the kind of thing helmets were tested for, and both involved me hitting my head. 2 helmets destroyed, no head injuries. Both were basically unavoidable on my part.

I would not commute in boston without a helmet.
This isn't the end of safety equipment, since I would rather not interact with cars at all. For example, those who've ridden with me will attest that even my lightweight summer lightset will cause epileptic fits in small children & i'm a huge advocate of all riders having at least basic front and rear lights at night.

> But, if the feds or states believe that helmets are that important in saving lives, then they need to
> make them free (or include them in the cost of a bike) before they make them mandatory for all ages.
What we're trying to do here is convince people on the individual level to wear a helmet, particularly those who engage in riskier riding. Leave the feds out of it.

>As to invincibility..that is something that doctors and groups investigating why head injuries increased >with helmet use are theorizing. It isn't an original idea on my part.
Hypothesizing. There's no theory until there's data to support the hypothesis, and the data part seems to be lacking here.