# Fixie riding helmet or no?



## Breakfast (Jan 1, 1970)

What's the proper headgear to wear when riding the fixie as a form of casual transportation? No lectures on safety please.

Helmet, cycling cap, beanie, bare, backward cap?


----------



## wipeout (Jun 6, 2005)

Helmet. Duh.


----------



## Mr_Snips2 (Jun 26, 2006)

two wheels+riding it=helmet


----------



## kiwisimon (Oct 30, 2002)

going to get a newspaper or whatnot, sunnies and bare head or beanie in winter.
going somewhere serious, helmet and sunnies but no lycra.

then again my worst crash was 100 meters out my door going to get a carton of milk. I was wearing sandals shorts and t shirt. A&E were not happy to see my sad arsed face. Actually I face planted so helmet wouldn't have helped.
helmet............. no, but ride slow so people can see its a fixie..


----------



## filtersweep (Feb 4, 2004)

Posting at RBR: helmet
Posting at bikeforums.net: no helmet (dress andro/emo/hipster- make fun of roadies in lycra, talk sh!t about other people's conversions and messenger bags, absolutely no brakes allowed, carry a U-lock in rear pocket, use all NJS parts, toe-clips, etc.).

Seriously, what is your point? And why are you asking? What is proper? If it isn't about safety, then don't wear a helmet. Nobody wears helmets for style points.



Breakfast said:


> What's the proper headgear to wear when riding the fixie as a form of casual transportation? No lectures on safety please.
> 
> Helmet, cycling cap, beanie, bare, backward cap?


----------



## Spinfinity (Feb 3, 2004)

*Gears don't change the value of your head.*

You decide that one for yourself.


----------



## Breakfast (Jan 1, 1970)

filtersweep said:


> Posting at RBR: helmet
> Posting at bikeforums.net: no helmet (dress andro/emo/hipster- make fun of roadies in lycra, talk sh!t about other people's conversions and messenger bags, absolutely no brakes allowed, carry a U-lock in rear pocket, use all NJS parts, toe-clips, etc.).
> 
> Seriously, what is your point? And why are you asking? What is proper? If it isn't about safety, then don't wear a helmet. Nobody wears helmets for style points.


I don't have a point, really. And why do you ask why I'm asking?

Anyway, trips to the coffee shop a couple miles away seem to inspire helmetless riding for me. The fixie conversion thing I'm sure has a certain appeal and I was curious about some other's ideas.

I strongly encourage helmet wearing and safe riding and brakes on a fixed gear. Rebellious to a degree but not crazy.


----------



## RedRex (Oct 24, 2004)

"trips to the coffee shop a couple miles away seem to inspire helmetless riding"

two blocks from my house on a 13 mile commute, I hit another rider head-on who came around a blind corner on the wrong side.

Two destroyed road bikes, (LeMond steel, Specialized plastic)
Two shoulder injuries
Two destroyed helmets
Zero head injuries.

My leg goes over the top tube, a helmet is on.

And the Bell Commuter/Citi helmets are VERY styling, IMHO. Color coordinated.


----------



## CycleBatten (Sep 28, 2004)

I think you're just fishing for a little validation of not wearing a helmet on short trips. I don't always, even though I know better. Do what you want to do, it's the skin off your noggin, not my hyde.


----------



## SSChameleon (Jun 29, 2005)

*Helmet, always*

Worst crash I ever had was less than one mile from my house on my fixie. I was only going a mile and half to return a CD to a friend, had a minivan stop short in front of me and I put my head through the rear windshield. I had on a BMX style helmet that I wear around town (I like the more casual look it gave). I still have the helmet hanging on my wall to remind me what the windshield wiper blade would have done to my skull if I had not been wearing it. It is also a reminder to not be stupid and pay more attention.

Because of my experience I will always wear a helmet. If you don't want to wear one that's your decision, it's just natural selection at work.


----------



## roadfix (Jun 20, 2006)

Breakfast said:


> What's the proper headgear to wear when riding the fixie as a form of casual transportation? No lectures on safety please.
> 
> Helmet, cycling cap, beanie, bare, backward cap?


No offense, but this must be one of the dumbest questions I've heard in regards to riding a specific type of bicycle.:mad2:

But if you're looking for fashoin advice, you'll get straight answers from these guys...
http://www.bikeforums.net/forumdisplay.php?f=178


----------



## bahueh (May 11, 2004)

*helmet? here's a couple questions..*

how much did you pay for your education? 
now how much is your car worth?
do you insure your car? 
do you think your family will really enjoy feeding you through a tube until they die if you
receive a head injury while "going to the coffee shop" on some casual saturday morning? 
do you enjoy massive hospital bills and bed sores? 
how about a catheter? 
do you enjoy speaking?
the ability to urinate when you want? 
do you ever want children? a wife? even a girlfriend?
how do you feel about your freedom to say...walk?
enjoy life without a wheelchair?
do you foresee yourself spending large amounts of time with a physical therapist in the near future?
what do you think Saul Raisin would say?

skin grows back...brain tissue doesn't.


----------



## Henry Porter (Jul 25, 2006)

For me, riding with a helmet has nothing to do with me and everything to do with the idiots around me, whether they are walking, cycling or driving.


----------



## Mark McM (Jun 18, 2005)

*More questions*



bahueh said:


> how much did you pay for your education?
> now how much is your car worth?
> do you insure your car?
> do you think your family will really enjoy feeding you through a tube until they die if you
> ...


What are your chances of suffering a head injury while cycling compared to your chances during the rest of your (normally unhelmetted) activities?

How much can a bicycle helmet be expected to lessen the severity of a potential head injury?

Why don't people normally address these two questions when deciding whether or not to wear a bicycle helmet, even though they are more directly applicable than the original list of questions?


----------



## Mark McM (Jun 18, 2005)

Henry Porter said:


> For me, riding with a helmet has nothing to do with me and everything to do with the idiots around me, whether they are walking, cycling or driving.


Are the idiots around you who are walking, cycling or driving only able to cause injury to you when you are cycling, and not when you are walking or driving? If this is not the case, then can I assume you also wear a helmet when you are walking or driving?


----------



## yetisurly (Sep 30, 2005)

Breakfast said:


> What's the proper headgear to wear when riding the fixie as a form of casual transportation? No lectures on safety please.
> 
> Helmet, cycling cap, beanie, bare, backward cap?[/QUOTE)
> 
> Helmets suck. I have been helmetless since birth. bare head. sunglasses.


----------



## Henry Porter (Jul 25, 2006)

Mark McM said:


> Are the idiots around you who are walking, cycling or driving only able to cause injury to you when you are cycling, and not when you are walking or driving? If this is not the case, then can I assume you also wear a helmet when you are walking or driving?


Driving is more protected than cycling due to the car's structure, seatbelts and airbags. Walking, I'm moving much slower and not in the road. 

I don't understand the attacking nature of your post since I merely stated my reasons for wearing a helmet while I ride a bike.


----------



## bahueh (May 11, 2004)

*those decisions...*



yetisurly said:


> Breakfast said:
> 
> 
> > What's the proper headgear to wear when riding the fixie as a form of casual transportation? No lectures on safety please.
> ...


----------



## yetisurly (Sep 30, 2005)

bahueh said:


> yetisurly said:
> 
> 
> > are often what keep ER doctors employed... you were born with sunglasses?
> ...


----------



## bahueh (May 11, 2004)

*but...*



yetisurly said:


> bahueh said:
> 
> 
> > the OP asked an opinion. He got one. Now you are making it an argument.
> ...


----------



## TylerDurden (Jan 28, 2006)

I think those two questions you came up with make it more obvious that you should wear a helmet, rather than show why it's unnecessary.


----------



## filtersweep (Feb 4, 2004)

Because there is no such thing as what is "proper." That is why I ask.

While I always wear a helmet-- no matter which bike I ride-- I find it interesting how the US probably leads the world in wearing bike helmets. While much of Europe has helmet laws covering motorcycles, the percentage of use is much lower for bicyclists. It is completely uncommon to see them on commuter bike riders in Amsterdam, for example. And I have never seen anyone in Asia wear a helmet-- despite traffic that would kill a westerner in mere minutes.



Breakfast said:


> I don't have a point, really. And why do you ask why I'm asking?


----------



## Mark McM (Jun 18, 2005)

*Answers?*



TylerDurden said:


> I think those two questions you came up with make it more obvious that you should wear a helmet, rather than show why it's unnecessary.



The questions can't show anything one way or other. Only the answers can. What are the answers?


----------



## Mark McM (Jun 18, 2005)

Henry Porter said:


> Driving is more protected than cycling due to the car's structure, seatbelts and airbags. Walking, I'm moving much slower and not in the road.


But clearly the car does not provide enough protection in many, many instances, since about 42,000 people die in motor vehicle accidents in the US every year - almost two order of magnitudes greater than the number of cycling deaths.

What difference does your walking speed make, since you say that your main concern has "everything to do with the idiots around me, whether they are walking, cycling or driving." Did you know that there are about 6 times more pedestrian deaths in the US every year than cyclist deaths (4,600 pedestrians vs. 700 cyclists)?

I


Henry Porter said:


> don't understand the attacking nature of your post since I merely stated my reasons for wearing a helmet while I ride a bike.


I'm not trying to attack, I'm trying to understand your thinking. While you may have presented reasons why you wear a helmet while cycling, I don't understand why that same reasoning doesn't extend to other activities where there are demonstrated risks of head injury.


----------



## Henry Porter (Jul 25, 2006)

Mark McM said:


> But clearly the car does not provide enough protection in many, many instances, since about 42,000 people die in motor vehicle accidents in the US every year - almost two order of magnitudes greater than the number of cycling deaths.
> 
> What difference does your walking speed make, since you say that your main concern has "everything to do with the idiots around me, whether they are walking, cycling or driving." Did you know that there are about 6 times more pedestrian deaths in the US every year than cyclist deaths (4,600 pedestrians vs. 700 cyclists)?
> 
> ...


1. More people ride/drive in cars than ride bikes. This completely skews your statistics and makes them almost worthless here. I'm too lazy to look up the per capita rates on this. 

2. Walking speed matters since it is far easier for me to stop upon seeing a dangerous situation than clipping along at 20 mph on a bike. Again,you are putting out statistics that are not applicable due to population differences. 

3. It's all about the level of risk that *I* perceive an activity to have. I live in a University town with many young distracted drivers. Again, these are my decisions. Are we not supposed to post our opinions _on a messageboard_?


----------



## BianchiJoe (Jul 22, 2005)

Molteni cycling cap (hey - it was good enough for Eddy!)

Sure, wearing a helmet _might_ be a good idea, but so would wearing a suit of armor. The $130 plastic hats that Giro sells aren't designed to save you in a car/bike accident anyway, nor are they tested under those conditions. 

Personally, I think helmets provide a false sense of security that might inspire more reckless riding behavior. Furthermore, they often give drivers the impression that the playing field is level, so extra caution around cyclists is unnecessary. 

In my experience, I've found that the best way to protect yourself is to ride in a consistent and predictable fashion, obeying the laws of the road unless it's safer not to, and avoiding high-speed traffic wherever possible.


----------



## Anonymous (Oct 22, 2005)

I don't worry much about my head. If I fall on my ass, I'll scramble my brain.


----------



## kiwisimon (Oct 30, 2002)

filtersweep said:


> Because there is no such thing as what is "proper." That is why I ask.
> 
> While I always wear a helmet-- no matter which bike I ride-- I find it interesting how the US probably leads the world in wearing bike helmets. While much of Europe has helmet laws covering motorcycles, the percentage of use is much lower for bicyclists. It is completely uncommon to see them on commuter bike riders in Amsterdam, for example. And I have never seen anyone in Asia wear a helmet-- despite traffic that would kill a westerner in mere minutes.


New Zealand has a law that obliges all riders to wear helmets.Cops issue instant fines if they catch you helmetless.
Stops some bicycle theft too.

Japanese Junior High Schools also make it mandatory for their students to wera helmets.

cheers


----------



## SSChameleon (Jun 29, 2005)

BianchiJoe said:


> Molteni cycling cap (hey - it was good enough for Eddy!)
> 
> *Sure, wearing a helmet might be a good idea*, but so would wearing a suit of armor. The $130 plastic hats that Giro sells aren't designed to save you in a car/bike accident anyway, nor are they tested under those conditions.
> 
> In my experience, I've found that the best way to protect yourself is to ride in a consistent and predictable fashion, obeying the laws of the road unless it's safer not to, and avoiding high-speed traffic wherever possible.


I can tell you from personal experience wearing a helmet can save your life. A $30 BMX brain bucket has kept me alive. If you don't want to wear one, that's your choice, but encouraging others not to and giving advice that helmets are not a big deal strikes a chord with me because I would not be here if I didn't wear one.


----------



## TylerDurden (Jan 28, 2006)

look, if you get into an accident with a car, you're goin flying off of your bike most likely. how is this any different than other accidents? obviously a head on collision or actually getting run over would be different, but your head hitting the pavement is still your head hitting the pavement.


----------



## Mark McM (Jun 18, 2005)

SSChameleon said:


> I can tell you from personal experience wearing a helmet can save your life. A $30 BMX brain bucket has kept me alive. If you don't want to wear one, that's your choice, but encouraging others not to and giving advice that helmets are not a big deal strikes a chord with me because I would not be here if I didn't wear one.


Hmmm.... I really wonder how you can tell from personal experience that wearing a helmet saved your life. It's not like you reproduced the same incident twice, once with a helmet and once without, and you only survived the incident with the helmet. When I hear these kinds of stories, I can't help but think of Lisa Simpson's tiger repelling rock.


----------



## bahueh (May 11, 2004)

*dude...*



Mark McM said:


> Hmmm.... I really wonder how you can tell from personal experience that wearing a helmet saved your life. It's not like you reproduced the same incident twice, once with a helmet and once without, and you only survived the incident with the helmet. When I hear these kinds of stories, I can't help but think of Lisa Simpson's tiger repelling rock.


and I wonder if you've ever truly experienced a bike accident where you hit your head on the ground and cracked a helmet? I'm guessing not because the force involved in doing that will almost surely crack a 1/4" piece of skull bone. I've gone over the bars twice and both with the same result...cracked helmet, slightly dizzy (minor concussion)...still here writing dribble on this website ...so something worked. 
your logic, as I read it is frightening, and I"m guessing you're in the profession of law...arguements such as this come out of lawyers mouths all the fricking time on the local circuit...

There was Pro/1/2 rider at a local series here a few weeks back who got caught urinating under the bleachers at the race venue by officials, experienced public derision, and argued that it "wasn't writen in the rulebook that public urination wasn't acceptable". 
I think he failed to realize it was actually a law......


----------



## Mark McM (Jun 18, 2005)

bahueh said:


> and I wonder if you've ever truly experienced a bike accident where you hit your head on the ground and cracked a helmet?


Well, how about this one then: A few years ago, I was riding my bike to school one morning. I had ridden down a small descent and was travelling about 30 mph, when a car coming from the opposite direction decided to turn left, across my path. Unfortunately, I was too close to the car and traveling too fast, and was unable to avoid hitting the car. My bike hit the front left fender of the car, and I was catapaulted head first into the windshield. I stopped nearly instantly, and came to rest lying on the hood of the car. 

Did a helmet save my life?



bahueh said:


> I'm guessing not because the force involved in doing that will almost surely crack a 1/4" piece of skull bone. I've gone over the bars twice and both with the same result...cracked helmet, slightly dizzy (minor concussion)...still here writing dribble on this website ...so something worked.


And how do you know the forces involved, either in a head hitting pavement, or to crack a skull? It sounds like you are just guessing. Maybe you're right, maybe you're wrong - the point is, you don't really know for sure, do you?



bahueh said:


> your logic, as I read it is frightening, and I"m guessing you're in the profession of law...arguements such as this come out of lawyers mouths all the fricking time on the local circuit...


No, my logic is just that - logic. There are too many variables and too many unknowns in a single accident to be able conclude cause and affect - especially to conclude the cause of something that _didn't_ happen. If some one told you they were in an accident, but they weren't killed because they were carrying their lucky rabbit's foot, would you believe it? After all, they _were_ in an accident, they _did_ survive, and they _were_ carrying their lucky rabbits foot. A logical thinker should be skeptical in both cases - there are too many variables to draw a conclusion What's really frightening here is your lack of logic.



bahueh said:


> There was Pro/1/2 rider at a local series here a few weeks back who got caught urinating under the bleachers at the race venue by officials, experienced public derision, and argued that it "wasn't writen in the rulebook that public urination wasn't acceptable".
> I think he failed to realize it was actually a law


I think this demonstrates another example of lack of logic and jumping to conclusions:

A) USCF officials do not have the responsibility or authority to enforce federal, state or local laws.
B) Public urination is covered under USCF Rule 1O5(a).


----------



## Henry Porter (Jul 25, 2006)

Mark McM said:


> What's really frightening here is your lack of logic.


I think what's frightening is that you seem to be totally against a proven safety device. It helps people reduce injuries, if only part of the time. That's better than nothing.


----------



## bahueh (May 11, 2004)

*hey, at least..*



Mark McM said:


> Well, how about this one then: A few years ago, I was riding my bike to school one morning. I had ridden down a small descent and was travelling about 30 mph, when a car coming from the opposite direction decided to turn left, across my path. Unfortunately, I was too close to the car and traveling too fast, and was unable to avoid hitting the car. My bike hit the front left fender of the car, and I was catapaulted head first into the windshield. I stopped nearly instantly, and came to rest lying on the hood of the car.
> 
> Did a helmet save my life?
> 
> ...



I got some total stranger to spend part of his day looking up USCF regs. on public urination...that alone is worth a laugh.  I ride/race outside of USCF regs...and our books states nothing about it. By your logic, homocide would be okay at a bike race just because the race officials don't have lawful jurisdiction? please...

of course there are accidents upon which a helmet would do nothing...there are accident upon which airbags or seatbelts do nothing to help reduce injury or save lives...

seems kind of contradictory that you spend part of your "second life" after a near death experience arguing against the use of proven safety devices. 

I was right about the lawyer wasn't I?


----------



## FTM (Feb 4, 2005)

'Proven safety devices' do not exist. This is not lawyer-speak but logic and science: one cannot prove a positive assertion, ever. One can only disprove assertions. I have never seen any statistically viable evidence that supports the claim that helmets save lives or will make me safer. 

That said, I always wear a helmet. Why? Because I believe that in certain circumstances they might reduce a head injury and since wearing a helmet is such a slight inconvenience that it would be (borrowing from Pascal's Wager) illogical not to.


----------



## JoeDaddio (Sep 3, 2005)

I'll always wear a helmet as a holdover from ym skatepark and BMX racing days.

I don't know if my helmet saved my life, but I would have a few rail shaped dents in my noggin if it weren't for my trusty Bell. I'd also have a nasty crescent moon on the top of my head from a peg coming down on my head after eating it on a mini-ramp. I'd also probably still be picking the dirt and gravel out of my head from the Fall Nationals at Coal Canyon in 1997 where I crashed bad over a tripple step up and cracked the right side of my helmet wide open.

I might be alive today without my helmets that I've broken, but I most likely would be at the very least a lot uglier, and, at the worst, slurping up my steak through a straw as my dad changed my adult diapers.



joe


----------



## BianchiJoe (Jul 22, 2005)

SSChameleon said:


> If you don't want to wear one, that's your choice, but encouraging others not to and giving advice that helmets are not a big deal strikes a chord with me because I would not be here if I didn't wear one.



SS: I don't mind if you want to disagree with me, but please don't misrepresent my position in your eagerness to refute it. 

I did not encourage anyone to not wear a helmet. Nor did I state that helmets are "not a big deal." Nor did I give anyone any advice other than to follow the law and ride consistently and predictably.

My point is that helmets are simply one way to make riding safer, but they aren't the only way, and they may not even be the best way. If you must argue, argue that.

--Joe


----------



## BianchiJoe (Jul 22, 2005)

TylerDurden said:


> look, if you get into an accident with a car, you're goin flying off of your bike most likely. how is this any different than other accidents? obviously a head on collision or actually getting run over would be different, but your head hitting the pavement is still your head hitting the pavement.



Bicycle helmets are designed to prevent injury from falling off of your bike at a slow speed. That's the way they are tested and that's how they earn their ratings. If they do more than that after a rider has been accelerated by an impact with a moving car, it's dumb luck.

According to the Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute, "Under US standards bike helmets are tested in 2 meter drops that achieve about 14 miles per hour (22.5 kph) on the flat anvil. *The typical bike crash involves a drop to the pavement*. The important energy in that crash is supplied by gravity, not by forward speed. So bike helmets are tested with a 2 meter (6.56 feet) drop. A really good bicycle helmet can handle that. In sum,* your helmet will do a good job of protecting you in a fall*, but the limits can be exceeded. It should be clear that nothing about wearing a helmet affects the need to ride safely, or the need for safe riding facilities. "

To take a look at the testing equipment and read more, go to http://www.helmets.org/testing.htm


----------



## TylerDurden (Jan 28, 2006)

Directed at Bianchi Joe:
"It should be clear that nothing about wearing a helmet affects the need to ride safely, or the need for safe riding facilities. " ok, so i definately agree with that, but i still think car/bike accidents are basically the same as any other bike accidents that fling you from your bike based on what i've seen walking around campus. (excluding obvious exceptions). according to what you cited, the important energy is the vertical/potential energy, so if a car speeds you up somehow, it's still the same distance to the ground. that's a pretty cool site, thanks for the link. There's still obviously a lot of chance involved, I agree with you there too, labs of course cannot recreate all possible crash scenarios. 

Not directed at Bianchi Joe:
It seems people are already pretty set in their ways of riding helmeted or helmetless, telling themselves whatever thay have to in the latter case. I guess you just can't stop natural selection.


----------



## danl1 (Jul 23, 2005)

I'll throw in:

Fixies beg helmetless heads, if style is the question. That said, I never ride without one.

Odd thing: There's something about riding the fixie that makes nekkid riding more attractive, even though I also feel less safe riding the fixie, even with full brakes - something about forgetting I'm on the fixie at just the wrong moment and getting launched, probably. Maybe it's a romancing the danger thing. One can never grow up completely. 

My guess is Mark is pulling your chain. If I recall, he most often claims to be an engineering-type, though I suspect he's really an LBS wrench. He's not arguing that you shouldn't wear a helmet, simply that it's not sufficiently proven that you should. 

Such as it is, his logic is solid - one can't prove that a helmet saved a life in a particular wreck. It's more true in certain motorcycle accidents, 'cause if you crack them, you've made a serious impact. These foam-and-pop-bottle things we wear are useful, but exactly how much is hard to prove. 

If you cracked a helmet in half, it probably didn't saved your life. If you knocked it into 10 little pieces, it possibly did. Nevertheless, it's probably better you had it than not.

One thing is clear - while it's not certain that they will save a life in a particular impact, it's relatively rare that a helmet will cause additional injury, and will almost always lessen the severity to some extent, however unknowable. That's reason enough for me to wear one every time. I don't know how many G's I might face, nor how many from a particular direction will be too many. But wearing a lid will almost always take some amount off of that number. And since bikes accidents happen right around the margins, wearing one is at least adding to the odds - reason enough for me.

Curiously enough, the only semi-serious accident I've had to date was actually made worse by wearing a helmet. Dropped my wheel off a bike path, it got lodged trying to ramp itself back up, and physics took over - I launched. Landed flat on my back, still clipped in, with my shoulder slammed into a small-diameter tree. The added 'mushroom' of the helmet (this was back in the 80's, and it was one of those big-ol' softshell things) slammed my head to the side, and I dealt with the resulting neck injury for a few years. 

I still wear a helmet every time. To not is to follow the same line of logic as the folks that don't wear seatbelts because they might sometime be crossing a traintrack, and their car will stall and come to a dead stop, and a train will be coming, and that will be the one time that the belt decides to get stuck... And the scary part is, I've heard folks use this reasoning in earnest.


----------



## vanjr (Sep 15, 2005)

I do not ride a helmet on the fixed indoor trainer. Does anyone? 

I likely will wear one if I get some rollers this winter.


----------



## FTM (Feb 4, 2005)

Haven't thought about wearing one on the rollers. One of my funniest roller spills was about 20 years ago. I was just spinning away when my allergies decided to kick up, I weathered the first sneeze but the second on was huge and sent me down hard - don't think I ever saw my girlfriend (who was reading 10 feet away on the couch) laugh so hard.


----------



## bahueh (May 11, 2004)

*that visual image is pretty funny...*



FTM said:


> Haven't thought about wearing one on the rollers. One of my funniest roller spills was about 20 years ago. I was just spinning away when my allergies decided to kick up, I weathered the first sneeze but the second on was huge and sent me down hard - don't think I ever saw my girlfriend (who was reading 10 feet away on the couch) laugh so hard.



thanks for the story.

I would have to say from my two accidents which involved my head scraping across the pavement at 20+mph, my experience dictates I would have ended up with some sort of head injury in both. With that said, its true that other factors dictate safety while riding a bike at any speed...racing is a given that something will happen so a helmet is about the other thing to mitigate the foregone conclusion of riders hitting the pavement, a helmet and a lot of internal peloton policing, conversation, etc. Improper bike maintenance also retains a higher degree of risk...cut tires and old rusty chains I've seen to both causes unneeded accidents during races. A riders decisions in/around traffic will also involve inherent risks and injuries a helmet can do nothing for. 

With that said, helmets have been proven to reduce population attributable risk to low speed (relative term) head injuries for almost all age groups...the epidemiologic literature is there and too numerous to cite here...


----------



## Mark McM (Jun 18, 2005)

bahueh said:


> With that said, helmets have been proven to reduce population attributable risk to low speed (relative term) head injuries for almost all age groups...the epidemiologic literature is there and too numerous to cite here...


Actually, after having looked for it, I have found that there really isn't any literature supporting the reduction in the number and severity of head injuries attributable to helmets. There have been a few limited population case controlled studies, but this type of study is notorious for it's subjectivity due to having to control for too many variables (a good example is the famous Thompson/Rivara study, the source for the often quoted figure that "helmets can prevent 85% of head injuries" - independent review of this study has cited numerous errors in their data analysis, such as ignoring that the helmet wearing population in the study also suffered 72% fewer lower body injuries vs. the non-helmet wearing population). None of the results of these limited population case controlled studies has been shown to extend to larger populations.

A number of other variables have been shown to have a higher correlation to reductions in number of cycling injuries and deaths than helmets have. These include the number of cyclists (the more cyclists in a given area, the lower the per capita injuries and deaths), and the numbers of pedestrian injuries and deaths (not that there is a cause and affect between cyclist and pedestrian deaths, but both seem to be influenced equally by motor vehicle behavior).

If you're up for it, a good read on available literature on cycling helmets can be found at http://www.cyclehelmets.org.


----------



## bahueh (May 11, 2004)

*I knew it...*



Mark McM said:


> Actually, after having looked for it, I have found that there really isn't any literature supporting the reduction in the number and severity of head injuries attributable to helmets. There have been a few limited population case controlled studies, but this type of study is notorious for it's subjectivity due to having to control for too many variables (a good example is the famous Thompson/Rivara study, the source for the often quoted figure that "helmets can prevent 85% of head injuries" - independent review of this study has cited numerous errors in their data analysis, such as ignoring that the helmet wearing population in the study also suffered 72% fewer lower body injuries vs. the non-helmet wearing population). None of the results of these limited population case controlled studies has been shown to extend to larger populations.
> 
> A number of other variables have been shown to have a higher correlation to reductions in number of cycling injuries and deaths than helmets have. These include the number of cyclists (the more cyclists in a given area, the lower the per capita injuries and deaths), and the numbers of pedestrian injuries and deaths (not that there is a cause and affect between cyclist and pedestrian deaths, but both seem to be influenced equally by motor vehicle behavior).
> 
> If you're up for it, a good read on available literature on cycling helmets can be found at http://www.cyclehelmets.org.


you are a lawyer!! underpowered case-control studies which are well done are actually quite convincing...sadly, however, they are not prevalent and usually flawed methodologically...same with case series...its the same argument lent by the tobacco industry against lung cancer or the silicone implant companies against silicon implants back in the '80's. public health action was still warranted (even though no scientific proof lies behind silicon poisoning...just weird case studies). epidemiologic data can be argued against and usually is...due to inherent complexities and Hill's causal criteria, which are never comprehensive. 

most of the literature I refer to is correlation studies between a reduction in ER visits by children and adults with traumatic brain injuries following implementation of regulated helmet use (mostly for children). Yes, true, your law background can argue that correlation does not equal causation and you are correct (that's what you're wanting someone to say, yes?). 

however, use medical libraries a bit more and stay away from nonprofit organizations with a message and agenda who design their "comprehensive libraries" around their mandates..
try PubMed at first...we can go from there..sadly not many from this country...
There is research for and against, just like any other public health movement...

Arguments for:
PMID: 9345988 
PMID: 8437084
PMID: 14580814 (from Boston)
PMID: 12415066 
PMID: 10487351
PMID: 9183470

my point being: the research is there...your point being: the counter research is there. 
my experience: helmet saved my bacon. your experience: you don't know if a helmet saved yours (you could argue divine intervention...and probably would to win a case). 

my opinion: I'd rather have scars on a helmet than scars on my head. 
but hey, the Fassa cap is still a fav.


----------



## Mark McM (Jun 18, 2005)

*Cycling safety and helmet usage*



danl1 said:


> My guess is Mark is pulling your chain. If I recall, he most often claims to be an engineering-type, though I suspect he's really an LBS wrench. He's not arguing that you shouldn't wear a helmet, simply that it's not sufficiently proven that you should.
> 
> Such as it is, his logic is solid - one can't prove that a helmet saved a life in a particular wreck. It's more true in certain motorcycle accidents, 'cause if you crack them, you've made a serious impact. These foam-and-pop-bottle things we wear are useful, but exactly how much is hard to prove.


This isn't a bad summary of my feelings on the subject (except for engineering part - since getting a BS and MS in engineering 16 years ago, I have been working on component and product design). Can a helmet reduce the severity of a head injury? Maybe it can. It's just hard to tell from the literature and data that the increase in helmet usage has made much of a difference in head injury rates

I am not actually anti-helmet at all. But what I don't understand is what appears be the blind faith that some put into helmet efficacy. It is to the point that some seem to take any questioning of helmet affectiveness at all to be some kind of heresy. Given the lack of strong population data on helmet effectiveness, a small amount of skepticism should not only be natural, but also as a motivation to increase our pursuit of cycling safety in other directions as well. Sometimes I wonder how much of a decrease in injuries and deaths there would be if we spent half as much time teaching cyclists (and motorists) safe traffic skills as we spend on preaching helmet usage. It almost seems that strapping a helmet on everyone's heads before sending them out into traffic is a cheap stop-gap measure.



danl1 said:


> Curiously enough, the only semi-serious accident I've had to date was actually made worse by wearing a helmet. Dropped my wheel off a bike path, it got lodged trying to ramp itself back up, and physics took over - I launched. Landed flat on my back, still clipped in, with my shoulder slammed into a small-diameter tree. The added 'mushroom' of the helmet (this was back in the 80's, and it was one of those big-ol' softshell things) slammed my head to the side, and I dealt with the resulting neck injury for a few years.


Interestingly, there are some studies that show that helmets increase the likelihood of neck injuries. While on one hand, a helmet increase the effective size of the head, so this result might be anticipated, but on the other hand, the increased risk appears to be small, so by itself it might not be enough to discourage helmet usage.


----------



## Mark McM (Jun 18, 2005)

*I don't know why I'm even bothering to respond*



bahueh said:


> you are a lawyer!!


I'm sorry, you are incorrect. I am not now, nor have I ever been, a lawyer, nor have I been employed in any part of the legal profession.




> Arguments for:
> PMID: 9345988


This study had no comparison between helmeted and non helmeted riders


> PMID: 8437084


No riders in this study wore helmets


> PMID: 12415066
> PMID: 10487351


These studies, on the effectiveness of mandatory helmet laws don't make seem to take into account that the number of cyclists also decrease when mandatory helmet laws go into affect.


> PMID: 9183470


Study shows contradictory data between Sweden and Australia & US.



bahueh said:


> my point being: the research is there...your point being: the counter research is there.
> my experience: helmet saved my bacon. your experience: you don't know if a helmet saved yours (you could argue divine intervention...and probably would to win a case).


No, we can be absolutely positive that my lack of brain injury in the head-on bicycle/auto collision described above could be attributed to a helmet. Why? Because I wasn't wearing one at the time (this accident occured in 1980, when bicycle helmets were a relatively rarity). However, it is interesting that you assumed that I was wearing one. Perhaps you have a preconcieved notion of bicycle helmet efficacy, and this bias lead you to to the belief that crashes of such severity can only be survived while wearing a piece of styrofoam on one's head?


----------



## bahueh (May 11, 2004)

*as I stated before..*



Mark McM said:


> I'm sorry, you are incorrect. I am not now, nor have I ever been, a lawyer, nor have I been employed in any part of the legal profession.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


you want someone to tell you you're right...

My only preconceived notion is that I believe the large splits and scraps on the two Giro helmets sitting in my garage would have been left on my skull had I not been wearing them...but of course, you are correct, it hasn't been "proven" that pavement can do that to bone. Therein lie the problems with ethics in medical research...if only we could get more people to volunteer TWICE to eat asphalt off a bike so we could measure the effects.


----------



## asterisk (Oct 21, 2003)

.....


----------



## bahueh (May 11, 2004)

*I like it..*



asterisk said:


> .....


----------



## BianchiJoe (Jul 22, 2005)

TylerDurden said:


> Directed at Bianchi Joe:
> according to what you cited, the important energy is the vertical/potential energy, so if a car speeds you up somehow, it's still the same distance to the ground. that's a pretty cool site, thanks for the link. There's still obviously a lot of chance involved, I agree with you there too, labs of course cannot recreate all possible crash scenarios.


Right - and there's no question that riding with a helmet offers you protection that a cycling cap doesn't. But it seems to me that an accident that's bad enough to kill you without a helmet is bad enough to kill you _with_ a helmet. And I think that, intuitively at least, being thrown to the pavement by a car will have a worse impact than simply falling off your bike, even if the distance is the same. But the helmet site seems to report otherwise. Ah well.


----------



## oldfolksmashers (Apr 13, 2006)

I personally go with a matching On-One beanie when the weather is cool out, but stick with bare head or a cycling cap when it's warm, depending on how HOLY GOD IM RIDING A FIXIE i'm feeling that day. The cycling cap really brings out the metro-cool of the fixie.


----------

