# Why do I HAVE to wear helmet?



## northoceanbeach (Sep 29, 2007)

When did everyone start wearing helmets? Why do I have to wear a helmet to go on a group ride?

What business is it of anyone else? How does it affect the safety of other riders? I don't want to wear a helmet, so why do I get rejected from rides?

Wasnt it not long ago that they rode the tour de France without them? They're somehow still alive. Then it became a rule, probably to sell helmets.

Kids use to be able to just go out and ride a bike and have fun and be 2 feet off the ground, and now they have to wear helmets. It's pathetic. No one can have fun anymore, everyone's just obsessed with safety.


----------



## Ventruck (Mar 9, 2009)




----------



## TiCoyote (Jun 28, 2005)

Sometimes, others need to force you to practice common sense... apparently.


----------



## tednugent (Apr 26, 2010)

northoceanbeach said:


> When did everyone start wearing helmets? Why do I have to wear a helmet to go on a group ride?


Because if you get a head injury, you're gonna sue. People don't want to be liable for litigation.



> What business is it of anyone else? How does it affect the safety of other riders? I don't want to wear a helmet, so why do I get rejected from rides?


Because if you get a head injury, you're gonna sue. People don't want to be liable for litigation.



> Wasnt it not long ago that they rode the tour de France without them? They're somehow still alive. Then it became a rule, probably to sell helmets.


Capitalism at its best.

Plus, with bikes and riders geting lighter, more aero, thus faster.... crashes from higher speeds can happen. And capitalism at its best




> Kids use to be able to just go out and ride a bike and have fun and be 2 feet off the ground, and now they have to wear helmets. It's pathetic. No one can have fun anymore, everyone's just obsessed with safety.


Everyone doesn't want to get sued.


----------



## Bill2 (Oct 14, 2007)

Part of UN plot to enslave us all.


----------



## RJP Diver (Jul 2, 2010)

northoceanbeach said:


> Then it became a rule, probably to sell helmets.


Yeah, it's part of the vast military-industrial-helmet complex!

:thumbsup:


----------



## MerlinAma (Oct 11, 2005)

Without a helmet, you just aren't part of the tribe.


----------



## Gumbyman (May 3, 2011)

*It is because ...*

On a group ride we do not want to have to scoop your brains off the pavement. We have a ride to finished and it is just easier to make sure you are OK and call your spouse to come pick you up...Much more likely to happen if you are wearing a helmet.


----------



## Hughsdad (Jan 21, 2011)

northoceanbeach said:


> When did everyone start wearing helmets? Why do I have to wear a helmet to go on a group ride?
> 
> What business is it of anyone else? How does it affect the safety of other riders? I don't want to wear a helmet, so why do I get rejected from rides?
> 
> ...


I'm pretty confident it's not a helmet manufacturer's conspiracy. 

You can't have fun with a helmet on your head? I think I probably have more fun, aware that I'm that much safer.

True, kids used to just go out and ride. I was one of them. I fell off my bike when I was about 7 or 8 and hit my head pretty hard. I was lucky: it could have gone another way. 

And not all of the Tour riders that didn't wear helmets are alive - see the Velo danger issue - just as not all the kids who didn't wear helmets are either.


----------



## Packersfantaz (Nov 28, 2012)

To the OP, why not wear a helmet? What is the true downside to it? 

Uncomfortable, there are many makes and models, I doubt everyone is uncomfortable. 

"My choice or right not to wear one", to an extent yes, but while rights are granted in the US via the Constitution, those rights are not absolute (this is a whole different discussion). While legally you may or may not have the right to go without a helmet in your area, club have the right to create whatever restriction they want as long as it does not violate any discriminatory polices/laws. Therefore your choice by not wanting a helmet means your choice is also not to participate in said group ride. 

Obviously there are benefits to a helmet, the question are you willing to accept the risks no matter how small for a very small reward of not wearing one? Wearing one doesn't slow someone down, generally doesn't affect vision or hearing, so no negative there. So what is the gain of not having it?


----------



## 1948D18 (Jun 1, 2012)

Because if you don't wear one you may be like the Scarecrow in the Wizard of Oz "If I only had a brain!"


----------



## Packersfantaz (Nov 28, 2012)

Bill2 said:


> Part of UN plot to enslave us all.


Off topic a bit here, but a few years ago when the H1N1 flu virus was big, our company was a nationwide provider of the vaccine, some guy came in with all the info how it was Obama's way to thin the population in the US, and in 20 years all those who got it would die. It was fun trying to get him out of our business without causing too much of a scene.


----------



## Hughsdad (Jan 21, 2011)

northoceanbeach said:


> Kids use to be able to just go out and ride a bike and have fun and be 2 feet off the ground, and now they have to wear helmets. It's pathetic. No one can have fun anymore, everyone's just obsessed with safety.


I'm sorry, I can't let this go. Decrying making an adult wear a helmet is one thing - presumably you are able to make a mature, well-reasoned decision - although I think there are strong arguments for helmet requirements on group rides and other organized events. But suggesting that kids should not have to wear them is just irresponsible.


----------



## Packersfantaz (Nov 28, 2012)

Hughsdad said:


> I'm sorry, I can't let this go. Decrying making an adult wear a helmet is one thing - presumably you are able to make a mature, well-reasoned decision - although I think there are strong arguments for helmet requirements on group rides and other organized events. But suggesting that kids should not have to wear them is just irresponsible.


I think you are absolutly right and I think part of the reason so many adults debate helmets now. When I grew helmets definitly not mandatory and my parents never thought twice about letting me go out with one. I look back now between riding on the side of the street to jumping/racing my BMX bike with my friends and wonder how many times we dodged a bullet over a small cost item. Now I am not willing to play with my daughter's future by saying they can go without a helmet, it is mandatory, and if they don't know better as they get it older it isn't a big deal. 

Too many people seem to think growing up taking risks are necessary in life, while I agree to an extent, some risks aren't worth it and really do not pose a great reward long term. I won't go without one now, will it prevent all injuries, no, but I can't risk my family's financial future that a preventable TBI causes by not wearing a helmet that costs less than $100.


----------



## JCavilia (Sep 12, 2005)

> Wasnt it not long ago that they rode the tour de France without them? They're somehow still alive


Not all of them. The helmet requirement in pro racing was instituted after Fabio Casartelli died on the Col de Portet d'Aspet in 1995.

Warning: Graphic picture at link.
https://curiosando708090.altervista.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/incidente_mortale_di_Fabio_Casartelli_nella_discesa_del_Port_d_Aspet_1992_.jpg


----------



## AndrwSwitch (May 28, 2009)

It's taken a while for helmets to do anything.

Modern helmets are light, breathe well, and have a credible ability to mitigate impact in a crash. I now have the opportunity to put something on my head that will help in the case of something that yeah, I think is fairly unlikely, but is very high-consequence if it happens. I always wear gloves in part to mitigate something that happens pretty frequently if I crash my bike, so it also seems like it would be a strange choice not to address the highest-consequence thing. Off-road, I've taken gauges out of a couple helmets, so I figure that while I can't prove that I'd have had a nasty cut or bang to my head, I'm okay with that ignorance.

Also, a few of my teammates have broken helmets and even had concussions over the last year. We're a big team, but still - it's some anecdotal evidence that banging one's head really does happen. You can also watch some of the old racing videos. It's kind of shocking how often the medic car deals with riders who hit their heads some time during a fall. They don't necessarily get their bells rung, but sometimes they do, and as the above poster points out - they haven't all survived.


----------



## northoceanbeach (Sep 29, 2007)

People drown surfing all the time, when are we going to have to wear life jackets?

Isn't cycling fast downhill inherently dangerous? Why not outlaw going above 15? That would safety, if that's the aim. Why just a helmet? Why not mandatory neck braces or full body armor like they wear downhill?

Maybe sometimes a helmet? But if I'm just cruising the flat river trail, do I really need a helmet?


----------



## tednugent (Apr 26, 2010)

northoceanbeach said:


> People drown surfing all the time, when are we going to have to wear life jackets?
> 
> Isn't cycling fast downhill inherently dangerous? Why not outlaw going above 15? That would safety, if that's the aim. Why just a helmet? Why not mandatory neck braces or full body armor like they wear downhill?
> 
> Maybe sometimes a helmet? But if I'm just cruising the flat river trail, do I really need a helmet?


YOur're an adult.... your choice. If you crack your head open... then please don't sue people.

I crashed recently and went over my bars..... guess what? If I didn't have a helmet, I'd probably still be in the hospital right now...


----------



## Doc_D (Mar 16, 2006)

Personally I wish you wouldn't wear a helmet. Please don't wear seatbelts either. And for god sake don't take heed of the surgeon general's warning on tobacco products.

Say hello to Darwin for me.


----------



## BikesOfALesserGod (Jul 22, 2012)

Just don't join clubs or events that require a helmet. Problem solved.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

JCavilia said:


> Not all of them. The helmet requirement in pro racing was instituted after Fabio Casartelli died on the Col de Portet d'Aspet in 1995.
> 
> Warning: Graphic picture at link.
> https://curiosando708090.altervista.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/incidente_mortale_di_Fabio_Casartelli_nella_discesa_del_Port_d_Aspet_1992_.jpg


no it was after Kivilev in 2003. Not sure the rule has limited the number of deaths in pro cycling. 
in other news, many of casertallis team mates continued to ride without helmets.


----------



## RJP Diver (Jul 2, 2010)

northoceanbeach said:


> But if I'm just cruising the flat river trail, do I really need a helmet?





BikesOfALesserGod said:


> Just don't join clubs or events that require a helmet. Problem solved.


:thumbsup:


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

The libertarian idiocy of the OP is astounding.


----------



## tihsepa (Nov 27, 2008)

I wont ride with anyone not wearing a lid. Primarly because I would be in trouble foor not hepling when you crash andpop your mellon. Personally, I could care less if you wear a helmet. Just dont block the road with your brains. (or lack there of)


----------



## b4ssy (Nov 26, 2012)

Most clubs have rules. If you want to join the club you have to abide by the rules.

If not, don't join the club.


----------



## Herbie (Nov 12, 2010)

Like most things your rights do not exist in a vacuum. Your right to not wear a helmet does not give you the right to ride with others or in their events, if they do not want to ride with you. 

As others have pointed out, you don't have to wear a helmet. However I think you should get one with a visor and wear it backwards or sideways like the kids and their ball caps. You can start a protest and style at the same time


----------



## danl1 (Jul 23, 2005)

northoceanbeach said:


> People drown surfing all the time, when are we going to have to wear life jackets?
> 
> Isn't cycling fast downhill inherently dangerous? Why not outlaw going above 15? That would safety, if that's the aim. Why just a helmet? Why not mandatory neck braces or full body armor like they wear downhill?
> 
> Maybe sometimes a helmet? But if I'm just cruising the flat river trail, do I really need a helmet?


The only serious accident I've had in 30 years of adult cycling was on a long, flat, straight trail, without another human within a mile. Reached for a bottle, missed the cage when putting it back and dropped it under my rear wheel. No big deal - the rear wheel just hopped over a few inches. Just enough to drop it off the pavement. And when it tried to climb back on, physics took over and I went Superman.

"Landed" by hitting a tree with my head and neck, about 2' up from the ground. In a way, the helmet was a problem - it was one of the old cloth-covered beer coolers, and the way it snagged snapped my neck pretty hard. I ended up not being able to ride a road bike for a couple of years without excruciating neck pain. But that was lucky. A couple inches to the other side, and not wearing a helmet, and being dead would have been the 'lucky' outcome. 

You don't have to wear a helmet. If society is lucky, it will get you killed before you have a chance to pass your stupidity on to your children. 

Full disclosure: I don't wear a helmet every single time. And I don't really give a damn if you do or not. Just fill out the organ donor form when getting your license. 

Unless you are on my insurance plan. In that case, you are just a selfish half-witted moron, and every one of us is likely to end up paying for your 'right' to be a self-absorbed ignorant ass.

Oh, and about body armor: Equipment should be suitable for conditions. On a road bike, you don't have a heck of a lot of rocks and branches to hit and pierce your body, and while road rash is nasty, it's not especially deadly. The reduced mobility would likely end up making crashes more likely on the road. 

Based on the reaction so far, you might be surprised to hear that speed does increase risk, and there are speed limits. You know those big signs on the road with numbers on them? That's what those are for.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

danl1 said:


> Full disclosure: I don't wear a helmet every single time.
> 
> 
> Unless you are on my insurance plan. In that case, you are just a selfish half-witted moron, and every one of us is likely to end up paying for your 'right' to be a self-absorbed ignorant ass.


just curious. do you then consider yourself a half-witted moron and a self-absorbed ignorant ass?


----------



## pianopiano (Jun 4, 2005)

At the end of the day, people who choose to wear a helmet while riding a bicycle are the people who understand that there is something inside of their skull which is worth protecting.


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Mar 20, 2010)

Packersfantaz said:


> and wonder how many times we dodged a bullet over a small cost item


Interesting analogy. In the U.S. you have a significantly greater chance of being shot than suffering TBI from riding a bike.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

InfiniteLoop said:


> Interesting analogy. In the U.S. you have a significantly greater chance of being shot than suffering TBI from riding a bike.


So, instead of helmets, we should all be wearing bulletproof vests.


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Mar 20, 2010)

danl1 said:


> "Landed" by hitting a tree with my head and neck, about 2' up from the ground.


Random or freak accidents happen. I saw a woman walking through a restaurant slip and hit her head - she was out for about 5 minutes, not sure if she suffered any perm damage. A friend bent over to pick something up and when he stood he hit his head on a cabinet door that he was working on - he was in the hospital for 4 days, no perm damage. Guy on here the other day was riding up a hill in SF and was t-boned by a guy riding down the hill making a right turn (same could have happened if the guy riding up the hill was walking, running, or skating). My neighbor was out running and was hit by a car and then hit his head on a power company xformer. Just this past Friday a kid in our nearby grammer school fell off a swing and was knocked out for a minute or so. 

Stuff happens. If head injury is highly likely (football, hockey, BMX, motocross, road-racing or training rides on the road) then helmets may well be warranted, in other instances (walking on a sidewalk, running on the shoulder?, walking through a cafe, playing on a swing, riding on a cycle track to a cafe) they are simply not that warranted. And then there's a bunch of stuff in the middle - like riding in a car.


----------



## eniveld (Dec 6, 2012)

northoceanbeach said:


> When did everyone start wearing helmets? Why do I have to wear a helmet to go on a group ride?
> 
> What business is it of anyone else? How does it affect the safety of other riders? I don't want to wear a helmet, so why do I get rejected from rides?
> 
> ...


Here's your reason. Imagine this conversation with your daughter:.

Child: "Mommy, you don't ride with a helmet so I don't see why I should?"
You: You're right my child, go off and ride without one.

...two weeks later...

Doctor: Ms Reckless, I'm sorry to tell you your daughter is dead from the brain injuries she sustained in that bike crash. Her death and maybe serious injury could have been prevented if she were wearing a helmet. Why didn't you make her wear one?

You: Because I just wanted her to have fun. It's pathetic she had to wear a helmet. She's better off having had a bit of fun and being dead, then not having had fun at all.

Is that you?


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

because nothing ruins a good fast club ride than having to stop and call 9-1-1
you want to ride w/ out a helmet? fine. Do it alone.
Sure the pros used to do it (ride w/out) but then again they are pros and still one of them DIED

There are too types of people who learn from experience the value of a helmet

those that had them on and felt their head bounce off the pavement. After sorting themselves out and seeing the fractures in the helmet say "good thing I had this on"

and those that learn by not having a helmet on

I only have 1 brain, I'll do my best to preserve it


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

eniveld said:


> Here's your reason. Imagine this conversation with your daughter:.
> 
> Child: "Mommy, you don't ride with a helmet so I don't see why I should?"
> You: You're right my child, go off and ride without one.
> ...


so I take it you advocate helmet use from the kids wake up until they go to bed? 
no running without a helmet. 
no walking the dog without a helmet. 
no shower without a helmet. 
because "what if"


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

atpjunkie said:


> Sure the pros used to do it (ride w/out) but then again they are pros and still one of them DIED


more than one died. 
then again helmets did not stop that. did it?


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

den bakker said:


> so I take it you advocate helmet use from the kids wake up until they go to bed?
> no running without a helmet.
> no walking the dog without a helmet.
> no shower without a helmet.
> because "what if"


Yeah. You AMERICANS are all alike.


----------



## eniveld (Dec 6, 2012)

den bakker said:


> so I take it you advocate helmet use from the kids wake up until they go to bed?
> no running without a helmet.
> no walking the dog without a helmet.
> no shower without a helmet.
> because "what if"


The reason I would not advocate for any of your clearly ridiculous scenarios is that there is no evidence wearing a helmet would be worth it. Want to pony up with some actual facts to support your position rather than arguing that way? Here's some from me:


Fatalities

In those up to 19 years old, head injuries were linked to 62.6 percent of bicycle-related fatalities, according to the Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute. Out of all head-injury related deaths in the United States, an estimated 7 percent are bicycle-related. If motorcyclists wore helmets regularly, an estimated 1,644 lives would be saved each year, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Indirect Costs

Helmet safety can cost not only you, the cyclist, but also taxpayers who support medical insurance costs and claims. This results in indirect costs due to cyclists not wearing a helmet totaling $2.3 billion, according to KIVITV.com. The direct costs total $81 million to Americans annually. Part of this is because motorcycle accident victims often require longer hospital stays, according to the Michigan State Police. Even for those whose injuries are not fatal, effects of a head injury can include headaches, dizziness, memory loss and loss of brain function.


Read more: Statistics For Helmet Safety | LIVESTRONG.COM


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

eniveld said:


> The reason I would not advocate for any of your clearly ridiculous scenarios is that there is no evidence wearing a helmet would be worth it. Want to pony up with some actual facts to support your position rather than arguing that way? Here's some from me:
> 
> 
> Fatalities
> ...


why is it mixing motorcyclists and cyclists all the time? of course most deaths are due to head injuries. the question is if a helmet would have saved them. 


"Helmets

Head injuries going up with increased helmet usage. Between 1991 and 2001 two things happened: helmet use among cyclists soared, and head injuries soared along with it. Head injuries among cyclists went up by 10% on a simple basis, but when we factor in the dramatic decrease in the number of cyclists during that period, head injuries effectively went up by 51%. (New York Times, 2001) Incidentally, from this we can figure that there was a 27% reduction in cycling. (e.g., 1000 injuries + 10% = 1100 injuries; 1100 injuries ÷ 1.51 = 728 injuries; 1000 to 728 is a ~27% reduction.)

Head injuries didn't go up because helmets turned would-be fatalities into simple injuries. One reader complained that the reason that head injuries went up as helmet use went up was that fewer cyclists died as a result of wearing helmets, and those who didn't die were simply injured instead, making the head injury stats go up. It's a nice theory, but it's dead wrong. Cyclist fatalities have shot straight up with increased helmet use, just as cycling injuries have. Cyclist deaths went from 843 to 728 from 1991 to 2001. (Traffic Safety Facts 2001, PDF, p. 17) However, as per the NYT article above, the number of people biking went down 27% during this period, so we would expect the 843 deaths in 1991 to shrink to 615 deaths in 2001 even without increased helmet use. But as helmet use surged, deaths didn't drop to 615, they actually went to 728. That's effectively an 18% increase in the number of cycling deaths as helmet use surged. And for those who complain that we can't look at specific years because of year-to-year variance, let's compare the five-year-average number of deaths from 1987-1991 and 1997-2001. That gives us 879 to 750 deaths, or an effective increase in biking deaths of 17% as helmet use surged.

Helmet use went from 18% in 1991 to 50% in 2008. (Consumer Product Safety Commission, 1999)

Helmet use and opinion survey. (NHTSA, 2008)

The Bicycle Helmet Research Foundation has lots of information about helmet efficacy.
"
helmets seem to be a rather small part of the story.


----------



## eniveld (Dec 6, 2012)

den bakker said:


> That's effectively an 18% increase in the number of cycling deaths as helmet use surged.
> helmets seem to be a rather small part of the story.


Thank you so much for that, I really appreciate it. From the quotes you presented it seriously seems to me that there is a conspiracy a foot to prevent bicyclists from knowing the truth: Wearing a helmet is more dangerous than not wearing a helmet. That seems quite stunning to me so I want to ask if I got that right?


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

eniveld said:


> Thank you so much for that, I really appreciate it. From the quotes you presented it seriously seems to me that there is a conspiracy a foot to prevent bicyclists from knowing the truth: Wearing a helmet is more dangerous than not wearing a helmet. That seems quite stunning to me so I want to ask if I got that right?


you can interpret the text as you want, all I said was there seems to be more to the story than helmets. 
however, if people think it's safe to join a fast group ride with a helmet but not without, then yes the dice may be loaded.


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

*Moderators Note*

Multiple infractions issued, next are posting vacation. Knock off the insults everyone.


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

I have personally been in some bad crashes and am reasonably sure if I hadn't been wearing helmets I would be living in a wheelchair and eating through a straw, if living at all. Several of my friends would tell you the same thing. So, wear a helmet or don't. Forever is a long time to wish you had.


----------



## northoceanbeach (Sep 29, 2007)

den bakker said:


> just curious. do you then consider yourself a half-witted moron and a self-absorbed ignorant ass?


 Is it ok to insult me an name call?


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

northoceanbeach said:


> Is it ok to insult me an name call?


who did I quote?


----------



## northoceanbeach (Sep 29, 2007)

den bakker said:


> who did I quote?


Im sorry not you, the guy who said I was a halfwitted moron


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

A number of years ago, while not wearing a helmet, I crashed on my shoulder and head. I thought that I had a concussion but I quit seeing double when I cleaned the blood off of my glasses.
I ended up with a broken collar bone and some blood on my face and head.

A few years after that, while wearing a helmet, I crashed on my shoulder and head. This time I tore and separated my shoulder and broke the helmet.

The impacts were roughly the same, and besides for a minor head wound without the helmet and a broken helmet with the helmet, I suffered shoulder injuries in both accidents.

To make a long story short, I honestly believe that just because I broke my helmet that doesn't mean that it saved my life. 
It did save me a little bloodshed, and that can't be discounted, but I think that We, as a whole, put too much emphasis on the life saving properties of a cycling helmet.

As a side note, I was never berated for not wearing shoulder protection while riding my bike. And a shoulder injury, I would guess, is probably far more likely than a severe head injury.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (May 28, 2009)

I do think people frequently overstate it when they say that helmets have saved their lives. Helmets are designed to break on impact. While a traumatic brain injury is high-consequence, I also think it's relatively unlikely - you're probably right about the consequences of your more recent injury had you not been wearing a helmet.

Too many people see them as some kind of a talisman. Worse yet, they see it as a talisman and also ride more dangerously. Really, it's just something that mitigates a particular kind of impact. For me, that's a good reason to wear one. I don't know if you've stuck with wearing helmets or not. As long as you're not on a ride with me that I may be liable for, it's really not even my business. 

I finally hurt my shoulder this summer. In a sense, I'm surprised it's taken me so long. Although I did once break my arm falling off a bike. It's pretty hard to do anything about that type of accident since the load is being transmitted in a way our bodies are designed to carry load - it's just too much. But what are you going to do? Wear closed-cell foam palm guards? How would you control your bike? Maybe the compression suits that people wear for MTB downhill would help, but given how comfortable people believe they are and the relative frequency and severity of other bone injuries in cycling, it doesn't seem worthwhile.


----------



## Trek2.3 (Sep 13, 2009)

You wear a helmet to avoid this:









The time waiting for the ambulance will make the group more unhappy than having a "helmet wearing" dork cycling with them. Taking a day off to attend your funeral will mess up their training schedule. To be courteous to your limited-purpose "friends" you'll want to wear a helmet.

I'm a paramedic, I AM THE ONE who will get stuck with trying to prevent your dying in my arms. THAT'S an imposition on me. So, I don't want you riding with me or any group I'm in. I'm sure the Docs feel the same.

If you try to beat a train to a level crossing and fail, the helmet won't help. But otherwise it will help lessen injury, HELP not prevent. A helmet will not work miracles.

P. S. There are 3 threads currently running on this issue. If you think you are immortal, don't wear a helmet. And ride alone. YOUR CHOICE.


----------



## Trek2.3 (Sep 13, 2009)

Every time someone whines "_Why do I have to wear a helmet_" I'm going to post this photo. Until you get sick of it.


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

AndrwSwitch said:


> I don't know if you've stuck with wearing helmets or not.


My wife says I have to.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

Trek2.3 said:


> Every time someone whines "_Why do I have to wear a helmet_" I'm going to post this photo. Until you get sick of it.


are you also going to post pictures of the pro riders that died wearing a helmet?


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

Trek2.3 said:


> Every time someone whines "_Why do I have to wear a helmet_" I'm going to post this photo. Until you get sick of it.


Are Trek good bikes?

Sick of that yet?


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Man, I'm sorry that I used to think that guitarists complained too much. Don't y'all have some doping to discuss, bait to personal attacks, and condescending to do?


----------



## Trek2.3 (Sep 13, 2009)

Are Specialized good bikes? Do they sell them at Wal-Mart?


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

Lots of people in the Dominican Republic ride motorbikes without helmets. The Santo Domingo hospital where my sister in law works has an entire wing devoted to traumatic brain injury. It's really not that hard to figure out. 

Individuals will survive specific crashes without head injuries. That doesn't mean that, statistically speaking, wearing a helmet is not by far the smartest thing to do. 

Do you hear pros complain about having to wear helmets?


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

Fireform said:


> Do you hear pros complain about having to wear helmets?


yes we do remember that debate back in 2003-2004 and again when it was mandatory on climbs as well. 
why do you talk about motorcycle helmets? do you use one of those on your bicycle?
edited: speaking of pros: do you say a statistical decrease in the number of deaths after the introduction of mandatory helmets?


----------



## LookDave (Sep 29, 2007)

northoceanbeach said:


> When did everyone start wearing helmets? Why do I have to wear a helmet to go on a group ride?
> 
> What business is it of anyone else? How does it affect the safety of other riders? I don't want to wear a helmet, so why do I get rejected from rides?


All above arguments, personal experiences, baiting, insults, etc. aside, it's simple. You have the right to ride without a helmet. But an organization has the right not to accept increased liability associated with your decision. None of us has the legal right to force an organization to accept increased liability associated with our personal decisions. Organization may or may not choose to accept that perceived liability, but it's fundamentally the organization's choice, not yours or mine. And a critical point, we're talking organization responses to likely outcomes with juries and lawsuits. These are of course governed by which contesting "facts" and "experts" juries choose to "buy". In that realm, helmets "make sense" to the average person/average juror.

I strongly believe that a helmet saved me from a serious frontal lobe brain injury. As some have pointed out, there is no way to know that for certain. But given the gouge out of the front plastic and foam of that helmet, it's a reasonable belief on my part. And it's that "reasonable belief" that governs what juries may decide when the "experts" argue the "facts".


----------



## PbOkole (Feb 10, 2004)

JCavilia said:


> Not all of them. The helmet requirement in pro racing was instituted after Fabio Casartelli died on the Col de Portet d'Aspet in 1995.
> 
> Warning: Graphic picture at link.
> https://curiosando708090.altervista.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/incidente_mortale_di_Fabio_Casartelli_nella_discesa_del_Port_d_Aspet_1992_.jpg


No it wasn't. It was after Andre Kivilev was killed in 2003. In Casartelli's accident, no helmet would have saved him. If you are going to preach, get your facts straight.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

PbOkole said:


> No it wasn't. It was after Andre Kivilev was killed in 2003. *In Casartelli's accident, no helmet would have saved him.* If you are going to preach, get your facts straight.


I'd like to see sources on that. We _know_ that Wouter Weylandt's death wouldn't have been prevented since was actually wearing one.


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

LookDave said:


> All above arguments, personal experiences, baiting, insults, etc. aside, it's simple. You have the right to ride without a helmet. But an organization has the right not to accept increased liability associated with your decision. None of us has the legal right to force an organization to accept increased liability associated with our personal decisions. Organization may or may not choose to accept that perceived liability, but it's fundamentally the organization's choice, not yours or mine. And a critical point, we're talking organization responses to likely outcomes with juries and lawsuits. These are of course governed by which contesting "facts" and "experts" juries choose to "buy". In that realm, helmets "make sense" to the average person/average juror.


This is probably one of the truest posts here.


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

den bakker said:


> yes we do remember that debate back in 2003-2004 and again when it was mandatory on climbs as well.
> why do you talk about motorcycle helmets? do you use one of those on your bicycle?
> edited: speaking of pros: do you say a statistical decrease in the number of deaths after the introduction of mandatory helmets?


There's not a statistical decrease in the number of deaths among the pros, but that's not relevant. First of all, deaths are rare in any case, so you're dealing with the least useful kind of statistics--those of small numbers. Second, the fields at major pro races are much larger than they were before helmets came into use, so there are correspondingly more crashes than there used to be. A better question would be, has the use of helmets reduced the occurrence of traumatic brain injury on a per-crash basis? I'd be interested to see THAT data. My own experience would lead me to expect a clear answer.

On the question of whether pros complain about having to wear helmets, the answer is no. Or, hell no: Cadel Evans crashed helmet - YouTube


----------



## PbOkole (Feb 10, 2004)

Trek2.3 said:


> You wear a helmet to avoid this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


At the time of this crash, it was WIDELY reported that a helmet would have made no difference in Fabio surviving the accident. By posting alarmist photos you are making cycling out to be a high risk activity and ultimately hurting cycling as people are afraid to try it. 
If you want to wear a helmet, by all means do so. I wear one but don't feel it ultimately serves the cause of cycling advocacy to try to scare people into wearing a foam cooler on their heads. In the end, rider and driver education will save a lot more lives than people riding around with a sense of invincibility because they think their helmets will save their lives unconditionally.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

PbOkole said:


> At the time of this crash, it was WIDELY reported that a helmet would have made no difference in Fabio surviving the accident.


By whom?


----------



## Mapei (Feb 3, 2004)

Let me add to the anecdotes. Most of you know about my recent crash. I was hit from behind by a vehicle on a stretch of reasonably trafficked two lane rural road frequented by bicyclists. I was hit at a spot on the road where the vehicle that hit me had at least 1200 feet of clear visibility to my poor heinie before the collision occurred.

I will not counsel you on the advisability of wearing a helmet. But I can say that I have yet to encounter a single medical professional (and I've encountered countless of them in the last three and one half months) that hasn't told me I would certainly be dead now if I hadn't been wearing a helmet.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

Fireform said:


> There's not a statistical decrease in the number of deaths among the pros, but that's not relevant. First of all, deaths are rare in any case, so you're dealing with the least useful kind of statistics--those of small numbers. Second, the fields at major pro races are much larger than they were before helmets came into use, so there are correspondingly more crashes than there used to be. A better question would be, has the use of helmets reduced the occurrence of traumatic brain injury on a per-crash basis? I'd be interested to see THAT data. My own experience would lead me to expect a clear answer.
> 
> On the question of whether pros complain about having to wear helmets, the answer is no. Or, hell no: Cadel Evans crashed helmet - YouTube



tour de france: 
1995: 21 teams, 9 riders per team
2013: 22 team, 9 riders per team. 
yeah much larger indeed 

we agree on one thing: death due to crash is extremely rare. 

thanks for the specialized ad.


----------



## PbOkole (Feb 10, 2004)

spade2you said:


> I'd like to see sources on that. We _know_ that Wouter Weylandt's death wouldn't have been prevented since was actually wearing one.


His head hit a cement curb at 40+ miles per hour. If you think that any little piece of foam is going to help then you are dillusional. I am not going to dig around all the way back to 1995 to satisfy your curiosity but many doctors spoke out at the time and the consensus was that helmet use/non-use was not a factor.

I wear a helmet and have had at least one accident where it probably helped. I don't go around crying that everybody needs to wear one because I think that cycling should be promoted as a safe and enjoyable mode of transportation. Rider and driver education and infrastructure improvement will save a lot more lives than everyone riding around with a piece of foam on their heads. Posting "blood on the highway" horror photos serves no good in the world of cycling safety advocacy.


----------



## PbOkole (Feb 10, 2004)

spade2you said:


> By whom?


 You can google as well as I can.


----------



## eniveld (Dec 6, 2012)

spade2you said:


> By whom?


Here you go - the poster is correct. This was widely reported, but you need to read the whole quote to get the whole story:

"When Motorola rider Fabio Casartelli died in a mountain crash during the Tour de France last month, the Tour's senior doctor said a helmet wouldn't have saved him because the fatal blow was to a part of the head that a helmet doesn't cover. 

However, the forensic doctor who examined the body told The Sunday Times of London that the impact was to the top of the skull, and with a hard helmet, "some injuries could have been avoided." 

Wearing a helmet reduces a cyclist's risk of head injury by 85 percent, according to a study reported in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1989. "

Source: http://www.helmets.org/worcestr.htm


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

I never heard the Tour doctor report. Did it get to the specific region of the skull that was hit? Helmets may have changed since then.


----------



## PbOkole (Feb 10, 2004)

spade2you said:


> I never heard the Tour doctor report. Did it get to the specific region of the skull that was hit? Helmets may have changed since then.


First it was reported that he hit his face, then later reported the base of his skull. In both instances it was said to be an area where a helmet would not cover. To be fair, there are probably as many reports after the fact that say a helmet would have possibly helped.

My point is simple. Running around shrilly screaming that you will die or be horribly maimed if you don't wear a helmet does not promote cycling in a way that will put butts on saddles. Helmet advocacy sells helmets but the jury is still out on how many lives they save. I prefer cycling advocacy to promote education and infrastructure improvement over scare tactics.
Cycling really is not as dangerous as a lot of folks seem to think.


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

PbOkole said:


> Cycling really is not as dangerous as a lot of folks seem to think.


If you say so.


----------



## Guest (Dec 9, 2012)

LookDave said:


> All above arguments, personal experiences, baiting, insults, etc. aside, it's simple. You have the right to ride without a helmet. But an organization has the right not to accept increased liability associated with your decision. None of us has the legal right to force an organization to accept increased liability associated with our personal decisions. Organization may or may not choose to accept that perceived liability, but it's fundamentally the organization's choice, not yours or mine. And a critical point, we're talking organization responses to likely outcomes with juries and lawsuits. These are of course governed by which contesting "facts" and "experts" juries choose to "buy". In that realm, helmets "make sense" to the average person/average juror.
> 
> I strongly believe that a helmet saved me from a serious frontal lobe brain injury. As some have pointed out, there is no way to know that for certain. But given the gouge out of the front plastic and foam of that helmet, it's a reasonable belief on my part. And it's that "reasonable belief" that governs what juries may decide when the "experts" argue the "facts".


/thread

I wear helmets nearly all the time on rides. I think their effectiveness is vastly less than most people think. The problem is if I am involved in a serious accident, I don't want the fact that I wasn't wearing a helmet being used against me in court. Same can be said about listening to music at low volume on headphones and several other recent debates.


----------



## eniveld (Dec 6, 2012)

PbOkole said:


> ...Cycling really is not as dangerous as a lot of folks seem to think...


Great comment. I have been biking constantly for decades and have yet to have a serious injury from a crash, but then again, I don't race. And I've had blows outs and crossed wheels at high speed. I know one story is not a statistic. But I personally feel safer riding a bike than I do in a car. I can't say this is logical or based on statistics. Just my own sense from my own personal experience.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

I hadn't bothered to check anything deeper and more official. Didn't see too much point since it's not like we could change the end result of what happened. 

After several years as a racer and having spent too many years in a trauma hospital, I'd rather not press my luck, mostly due to Murphy's Law. Same reason I carry a spare tube. 

My general point with helmets is that the overall risk never really diminishes. Most of the forum members ride a lot, which means their experience and handling is much better than your average hybrid rider on a MUT. Unfortunately, due to the sheer amount of time we spend on the bike, there's about the same cumulative risk. 

Outside of actual racing and group rides, I've encountered deer, dogs, gravel after rain storms, black ice, the occasional Fred who freaks out as I pass him, punctures, the occasional *******, walnuts, turtles, and I once killed a squirrel with my mountain bike. My TT route has a few spots where gravel and an extreme cross wind can be sketchy. 

For many years, there was a guy on my main route who never used a helmet. He got hit this year and considered himself extremely lucky that he only had a mild concussion. He now wears a helmet.


----------



## Guest (Dec 9, 2012)

eniveld said:


> Great comment. I have been biking constantly for decades and have yet to have a serious injury from a crash, but then again, I don't race. And I've had blows outs and crossed wheels at high speed. I know one story is not a statistic. But I personally feel safer riding a bike than I do in a car. I can't say this is logical or based on statistics. Just my own sense from my own personal experience.


The most serious accidents I've had (broken hand, severe heel bruise), and the majority of my close calls have ocurred riding by myself at relatively moderate speeds on relatively "safe" side streets. Unfortunately the "safe" roads (often designated as bike paths) in my area tend to be riddled with sketchy potholes, black sand, and limited visibility intersections where there's usually no traffic, but when there is they often aren't very alert.

Based on my experience I can say I feel safer riding on major streets (which many cyclists are afraid of due to heavier traffic) because the road quality is better, visibility is better, and even though there are more cars passing through, there's often more viable "escape routes" for taking evasive action to avoid accidents as well.


----------



## eniveld (Dec 6, 2012)

spade2you said:


> Outside of actual racing and group rides, I've encountered deer, dogs, gravel after rain storms, black ice, the occasional Fred who freaks out as I pass him, punctures, the occasional *******, walnuts, turtles, and I once killed a squirrel with my mountain bike. My TT route has a few spots where gravel and an extreme cross wind can be sketchy.QUOTE]
> 
> You remind me of one of my most memorable crashes which happened as I was descending the legendary "Mountain Charlie" road in the Santa Cruz Mountains, and a deer jumped out and started pacing me on the right, as the road was turning right, at probably a good 30mph or so. We bumped up next to each other and I actually tried to jump on the deer's neck/back so I could sort of ride it to safety (too many years of horseback riding probably), but I ended up flying over the deer and tumbling down the hill. Escaped with just some road rash. Makes me smile to remember that. Thanks.


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

Any organizer of a group ride is going to insist on helmets because he doesn't want to lose everything he owns when he's sued by some rider who came on his ride with no helmet and wound up in a wheelchair. So, if you don't want to wear a helmet, don't wear one. If you want to be a nonconformist that's fine, but don't turn around and expect other groups to conform to you.


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

eniveld said:


> spade2you said:
> 
> 
> > Outside of actual racing and group rides, I've encountered deer, dogs, gravel after rain storms, black ice, the occasional Fred who freaks out as I pass him, punctures, the occasional *******, walnuts, turtles, and I once killed a squirrel with my mountain bike. My TT route has a few spots where gravel and an extreme cross wind can be sketchy.QUOTE]
> ...


----------



## danl1 (Jul 23, 2005)

den bakker said:


> just curious. do you then consider yourself a half-witted moron and a self-absorbed ignorant ass?


Quite often, yes.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Fireform said:


> Any organizer of a group ride is going to insist on helmets because he doesn't want to lose everything he owns when he's sued by some rider who came on his ride with no helmet and wound up in a wheelchair. So, if you don't want to wear a helmet, don't wear one. *If you want to be a nonconformist that's fine*, but don't turn around and expect other groups to conform to you.


Despite arguing otherwise, 99.99999% of the helmet debate is due to a fear of conformity and dislike of authority. If helmets were banned, the anti-helmet crowd would also be crying foul. That's just their nature.


----------



## rkdvsm (Jul 15, 2006)

Wear a helmet, but also ride with lights at night, slow down around pedestrians, and use a bell instead of shouting "On your left!" like an idiot.

Helmets protect your head, but the other stuff prevent accidents from happening in the first place. Interestingly enough, the bell, lights, and yielding to peds are required by law while helmet is optional, although important.


----------



## mpre53 (Oct 25, 2011)

Oh boy. Another helmet thread. Been like, what, an hour since the last one? :lol:

I ain't reading all this ****. I see from the tile that the OP is whining about having to wear a helmet in some group ride. Did he use the phrase "it violates my constitutional rights" in it? Or has anyone else chimed in with it?


----------



## TiCoyote (Jun 28, 2005)

I don't know about you guys, but I wear a helmet ALL the time. Whether I'm riding or not. I also line it with aluminum foil. It stops the CIA from reading my mind. I also wear knee pads, shin guards, an armadillo, goggles, a mouth guard, a cup, a condom, and a sports bra.


----------



## YamaDan (Aug 28, 2012)

I have a friend who will not wear a helmet because his head gets "hot." We'll I wont ride with him because I don't want to witness him get seriously hurt.

Several years back, a good friend of mine was riding on the boardwalk, about 5 mph, had a silly slow fall, and hit her head. Basil skull fracture. Had to wear one of those fun full head gear helmets for two months after she got out of the hospital. It almost killed her. The fracture was above her ear, and she has permatley lost hearing in that ear.

The only time I've ever broke a helmet, was on a technical climb, hit a rock weird with a pedal and launched.

I make my kids wear their helmets anytime they ride the bikes or scooters, they're used to them , and they like them.

I must admit, I'm a little surprised by this thread, helmets have come so far, they're light, fit well, and there's a gazillion different models to choose from. Aside from creating controversey, why would someone not wear one?

As for the OP's inital arguements...

Car's didn't used to have seat belts, kids weren't in car seats, and you could bring a nail file on a commericial airline...times change, go find a bridge, and get over it.


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

The son of a childhood friend of mine graduated #1 in his college class and was about to start at a top med school when he took his skateboard out on a late night snack run. He hit a hole in the road and fell going maybe 10 mph, hit his temple on the curb and was dead when paramedics arrived. If he'd been wearing a helmet he'd be a 2nd year med student right now. Was he on a bike? No. But tell me that can't happen to a cyclist.


----------



## bigbill (Feb 15, 2005)

I raced throughout my 20's and 30's and was in plenty of crashes, had stitches, broken arm and fingers, and lost skin, but never hit my head in a road race or crit. I was commuting home from work and not really going that fast when I crashed and broke my helmet when I high sided and slammed into the pavement. All by myself. I choose to wear a helmet but I'd be lying if I said I never rode without one.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

We probably could spend a lot of time to helmets saving our asses or how the lack of one resulted in something bad.

A guy in my aunt's rich-ass neighborhood was on his hybrid with his daughter and hit some sort of pothole. I think he spent something like 6 months learning to walk again. 

I was trying to jump some curbs in junior high to impress the cool kids. Hit my face pretty hard. When I was in grade school, I was biking with a friend. He crashed hard and hit his head. I think he got a concussion, but we didn't tell his mom because we didn't get in trouble. 

I don't care what my son's friends say or think. He doesn't need to learn those mistakes the hard way.


----------



## YamaDan (Aug 28, 2012)

PS, I have another friend whos 6 year old son was riding his bike without his helmet, a jeep came around the corner and stopped as he glanced of the front bumper, he was knocked off his bike, and his unprotected head hit the ground. He is gone. Had he had a helmet on, he would still be alive today, and be turning 7.


----------



## stanseven (Nov 9, 2011)

I'm all for independence and individual rights. But if you choose not to wear a helmet, keep the consequences to you personally. Don't bring lawsuits if you crash and don't expect hospitals and doctors to fix you up for free because you don't have insurance (or not enough)


----------



## northoceanbeach (Sep 29, 2007)

I'm terrified to even ride a bike at all since everyone anyone on here's ever known is either dead or in the hospital.


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

northoceanbeach said:


> I'm terrified to even ride a bike at all since everyone anyone on here's ever known is either dead or in the hospital.


Gosh, that's too bad.


----------



## northoceanbeach (Sep 29, 2007)

I didn't mean to come across as opposed to helmets on fast group rides in a peloton, just the casual friends rides where you are riding with people and there is no central organization.

I understand that since people that ride are also the type of peoPle that sue, you have to


----------



## tomk96 (Sep 24, 2007)

spade2you said:


> walnuts


i read this as walrus. i like walrus better.


----------



## tomk96 (Sep 24, 2007)

at a group ride, somebody forgot his helmet. you can't ride with the group without one. luckily another person had a spare. 10 minutes later, the guy who forgot his helmet was laying on the ground with a busted borrowed helmet. he rode back to his car and went home. the other got to keep riding. people don't want you ruining their ride because you won't wear a helmet. 

i've also come across a guy semi conscious on a trail who crashed with no helmet. at the time, i didn't carry a cellphone. i had to ride back to the car to call an ambulance for him. 

stuff happens. don't ride with one if you don't want, but don't come here b!tching because you are left out on a group ride.


----------



## Packersfantaz (Nov 28, 2012)

PbOkole said:


> My point is simple. Running around shrilly screaming that you will die or be horribly maimed if you don't wear a helmet does not promote cycling in a way that will put butts on saddles. Helmet advocacy sells helmets but the jury is still out on how many lives they save. I prefer cycling advocacy to promote education and infrastructure improvement over scare tactics.
> Cycling really is not as dangerous as a lot of folks seem to think.


I don't think the discussion is no helmet fine by one side, but others saying no helmet your clock is ticking. Many people even the ones saying a helmet is the best option agree that a helmet will not prevent all, nor could you prevent all. This is the case with any sport, someone I work with was out running in winter, took off a layer of clothing, went back running to the trail and knock himself out cold on a branch. Helmet is necessary simply because it is rare in running to have something like this happen. Bike accidents on the other hand are unpredictable and many times involve flying forward or to the side. Keeping the head from getting hit is difficult. My point in another post was about risk/reward of wearing or not wearing one. What is gained by not wearing it? What does it limit by wearing it? Won't stop road rash or a broken bone, but can reduce the head injury. 

The brain is a funny thing, what may cause a slight headache to one can cause a concussion/loss of conciousness/vertigo to another. I only say make your decision based on what and who it will affect in the case of an accident that could have been preventable.


----------



## Guest (Dec 10, 2012)

stanseven said:


> I'm all for independence and individual rights. But if you choose not to wear a helmet, keep the consequences to you personally. Don't bring lawsuits if you crash and don't expect hospitals and doctors to fix you up for free because you don't have insurance (or not enough)


This logic could easily be used to ban anyone but multimillionaires from road cycling altogether.


----------



## northoceanbeach (Sep 29, 2007)

There's a pretty good web site I found called cyclehelmets.org


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)




----------



## kmunny19 (Aug 13, 2008)

robdamanii said:


> The libertarian idiocy of the OP is astounding.


and furthermore, we could win the war on drugs by legalizing heroin.


----------



## mlin (Aug 5, 2008)

Of the 700 cycling deaths per year, like 500+ were cyclists not wearing helmets.

My crash this year involved running over a squirrel lengthwise, hearing the bones cracking under my front tire, hearing a few thumps as the squirrel rolled into my forks a few times, followed by 45 minutes of nothingness.

I gained consciousness 45 minutes later in the front seat of someones truck with EMT shining light in my eyes. I was "conscious" but suffered a concussion for that 45 minutes.

A witness saw me flip right over my handlebar and land on my helmet. Net effect is a damaged helmet, bloody and bruised face, but only a broken pinky. The helmet saved me.


----------



## rti27 (Dec 7, 2012)

Damn Fred


----------



## mlin (Aug 5, 2008)

dcgriz said:


> It looks like this group will let you ride with them if you don't have a helmet
> 
> View attachment 270047


Damn, gonna have to check for skid marks and smell the saddle before I borrow one of their bikes.


----------



## db853 (Jun 27, 2009)

You can fix most injuries except a head injury.


----------



## Bill2 (Oct 14, 2007)

> What is gained by not wearing it? What does it limit by wearing it?


It musses my flowing mane.


----------



## looigi (Nov 24, 2010)

Bill2 said:


> It musses my flowing mane.


I wish...


----------



## gumbafish (Jan 11, 2011)

TiCoyote said:


> I don't know about you guys, but I wear a helmet ALL the time. Whether I'm riding or not. I also line it with aluminum foil. It stops the CIA from reading my mind. I also wear knee pads, shin guards, an armadillo, goggles, a mouth guard, a cup, a condom, and a sports bra.


You must live by me because there is kind of a strange guy I see riding fairly often with either football or hockey shoulderpads on.


----------



## cstocke (Mar 29, 2012)

Just do it. The one time you dont you will regret it.


----------



## LostViking (Jul 18, 2008)

*Head over Heels*

OP - Ride organizers are trying to aviod being sued - hence the insistance on helmets.
My five-year-old daughter wears a helmet when she rides and guess what - she still has fun.

A lttle story: Was on a Century ride earlier this year right after a major storm had hit our area. I had just caught up to two guys in front of me.
As we were passing through some woods, I saw this chunk of wood in the middle of the road and started to swing to the left assuming the guy infront of me was about to veer off as well. Instead the guy must have been day-dreaming and he hits it head-on and flies off his bike landing head and shoulders first - I narrowly avoid getting caught up as I had already begun to move aside. Guy's helmet is all scratched up and his jersey and shorts are ripped.

I'm first aid trained so I ask him some questions to see how he is doing. His head is fine (not a scratch) and all he got were some war wounds on his shoulder and legs to brag about later. I call the SAG wagon and he gets picked-up. Lucky guy.

Somehow I doubt this story would have been the same had he not been wearing a helmet.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

*If the foregoing isn't enough, how about this:*

My epiphany came after waking up in a hospital six days after smacking into a brick wall. They weren't at all sure I would come back.

I was tooling along a bike path. Another rider hit me at an intersection. I think he suffered more anguish than I at the time. Back then, 1987, helmets were still kind of fred like. The pros and their wannabes didn't think helmets were cool. But like bigbill says, the time you bang your head on concrete is when you least expect it.

Since that horrific 6 day coma, I've religiously worn a helmet routinely, no matter how short the distance. It's now automatic, like dressing appropriately and taking your spare tube and frame pump. In the last 15 years I've also gone through four helmets. Got knocked out for 2 minutes slipping on a water main valve cover on a freshly asphalted street. That helmet was already cracked, but it still prevented major damage. Went down hard on wet leaves a few years ago. Another time, momentarily distracted by a riding buddy, went over the handlebars stopped in my tracks by a twig caught in the front wheel. That one hurt! And a month ago, went a bit wide into a ditch to avoid an oncoming cyclist, and toppled over onto concrete. Broke the helmet pretty bad, but didn't lose consciousness or get dizzy or have headaches afterwards.

Helmets work quite well. Bare skulls don't work worth sh!t. Wear a helmet, always, 'cause sooner or later Lady Luck will catch up to you when you least expect it. :shocked:.

As far as style, riders NOT wearing helmets are fred like now, IMO. Helmets look cool. They cool the head really well, IME better than not wearing one. They're so light you quickly forget them. They also keep whatever other head covering from flying off.


----------



## Ridgetop (Mar 1, 2005)

I want to do a study. I need 10 volunteers. Five to wear helmets. Five not to wear helmets. Then I'm going to hit you over the head with a cricket bat and study the results.

What does this have to do with this thread. Nothing. I just want to hit people in the head with a cricket bat.


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Mar 20, 2010)

mlin said:


> Of the 700 cycling deaths per year, like 500+ were cyclists not wearing helmets.


Of the same deaths I think it safe to say that 500+ were not wearing a Jason Mraz shirt. Nor were 500+ likely wearing a bullet proof vest. Nor were 500+ likely wearing cycling gloves. Nor did they have clipless pedals. Correlation is not cause.

Now, see if you can find a useful statistic.


----------



## Ridgetop (Mar 1, 2005)

PS: To the OP. Don't worry, none of that group wants to ride with you anyway.


----------



## Donn12 (Apr 10, 2012)

Would the OP wear a helmet if it was made by Uggs? What if the OP could get I at a wholesale price?


----------



## superg (May 9, 2010)

I believe many cyclists get a too great feeling of security when they put a helmet on and that leads to risky behavior and broken bones. To each their own.


----------



## Sean.B (Jul 20, 2012)

I understand where OP is coming from. When I rode mtb a group leader said "no helmet visors are allowed on my rides" because he crashed and his broke off and cut his nose. Another group leader wouldnt allow full faces because it limited your view, that and he didnt aprove of DH guys either, had to "earn your turns"...

Anyway point being a lot of group leaders I've rode with take their "job" far to seriously, it's a joke. 

But you should still wear a helmet.


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

Solution? Lead your own helmet-optional ride.


----------



## Guest (Dec 11, 2012)

superg said:


> I believe many cyclists get a too great feeling of security when they put a helmet on and that leads to risky behavior and broken bones. To each their own.


This is kind of like the argument that they should replace airbags in car steering wheels with sharp pointy objects so that people would drive more carefully.


----------



## northoceanbeach (Sep 29, 2007)

Thank you, I am not talking about races, training rides or mt biking. But just casual not shop sponsored rides. The specific incident that sparked this was I was at the trail, I just moved here, and I starte talking I a group of maybe 15 riders about riding in the area. They were going to a cafe and back. I don't ask to join but the guy I was talking to said I would ask you to join us but you don't have a helmet.

Maybe I missed out and they missed out, we both could have met new people and talked about riding in different parts of the country.

I didn't show up to a team training event with no helmet. I could understand that more.


----------



## YamaDan (Aug 28, 2012)

Set a good example, wear your helmet when you're on a ride.


----------



## VKW (Jul 26, 2009)

Deleted. Re-posted at end of thread.


----------



## Warpdatframe (Dec 9, 2012)

They don't want you riding with them because **** happens in a group and they don't want someone cracking their head on a friendly group ride.


----------



## VKW (Jul 26, 2009)

Deleted.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

VKW said:


> When I was 12, I was riding downhill with my friend and decided that I wanted to race her. I told her that I would do it with no hands to give her an advantage. I had no helmet. The last thing I remember before waking up on a kind neighbor's couch was the front wheel wobbles. My friend and the kind neighbor said that my bike wobbled and I fell right on my head. My glasses flew/skid two houses down. I had a splitting headache, a gigantic bump, a hairline fracture to my skull, temporary reduced hearing, 1 week at the hospital, 1 week of home rest, and thousands of dollars of bills to my parents who did not have medical insurance for us.
> 
> Anyways, after I healed, I still had a resistance to a helmet. My stupid reasons were that it was not cool and uncomfortable. And I stopped riding for years since my parents never let me go out without one.
> 
> ...


sounds like holding on to the handlebar would have been safer than a helmet :thumbsup: 
It's interesting that riding close enough that a friend can "bump" you is perfectly ok but not wearing a helmet is just crazy and dangerous. we do things on purpose that puts us in much increased "danger" and then try to justify it by putting a 200g lid on.


----------



## VKW (Jul 26, 2009)

When I was 12, I was riding downhill with my friend and decided that I wanted to race her. I told her that I would do it with no hands to give her an advantage. I had no helmet. The last thing I remember before waking up on a kind neighbor's couch was the front wheel wobbles. My friend and the kind neighbor said that my bike wobbled and I fell right on my head. My glasses flew/skid two houses down. I had a splitting headache, a gigantic bump, a bald spot now where the bump was, a hairline fracture to my skull, temporary reduced hearing, 1 week at the hospital, 1 week of home rest, and thousands of dollars of bills to my parents who did not have medical insurance for us.

Anyways, after I healed, I still had a resistance to a helmet. My stupid reasons were that it was not cool and uncomfortable. And I stopped riding for years since my parents never let me go out without one.

I finally got back into biking when I turned 23 and have matured enough to understand that anything can happen. I always wear a helmet and you can find pretty comfortable ones now. Plus as an adult, no one who understands safety will make fun of you for it. I am now 30, I have not had a road bike accident, only mtb (lower speeds) ...lots of injuries but never any to my head due to the helmet.

Another reason to wear a helmet is if you injured yourself or if some friends accidentally bumped into you causing you to fall....would you want them to go through the experience of worrying about your injury or death or for them to feel they were responsible if they caused it? They may not sue you, but it also is a consideration to your friends. I hope this helps you reconsider your position.


----------



## VKW (Jul 26, 2009)

den bakker said:


> sounds like holding on to the handlebar would have been safer than a helmet :thumbsup:


Haha yup! I was a dumb kid back then and wanted to show off!


----------



## wagg (Aug 11, 2012)

I thinks it's hilarious that we rode without helmets for years with no body saying a word but as soon as a law is passed you're labled an idiot for not wearing one. Or people have to be careful to avoid the "brains you've spilled on the road". In all honesty, who on this forum knows/ knows of someone who has suffered a life threatening injury from choosing not to wear a helmet. Or has had to avoid spilled brains. I've had some good spills in the 30 years I've been riding and have never come close to hitting my head. I've scuffed my legs and hands up, maybe leg pads and gloves should be mandatory.

cheers, wagg "the devil's advocate"


----------



## Stephen Saunders (Sep 6, 2012)

I can't wear a helmet. At least for not very long. I would LOVE to wear a helmet. I own three. I suffer from compression headaches. And yes, for you nay sayers, they do exist. Its a real thing. I can't wear a gimme cap, a touque, a cowboy hat, a visor or anything that constricts my head in the slightest. It sucks. I WANT to wear a helmet. Heck, I think a jaunty hat would be cool. However, after about 10 minutes of wearing a hat I get splitting nightmarish headaches. Don't care if you believe it. Its true. So I can't wear a helmet. You DO NOT have to wear a helmet to ride, unless you are in a group with rules. I do not get to compete or check out group riding due to my issue. Actually, that seems fair to me. They do not want any litigation from an unhelmeted rider. So to tie it all up. If you are a lone rider, or put together a group of non-helmeted riders, you have no problem. If you join a group, you have to follow the rules. As for me, I'd love to wear a helmet. But more importantly, I want to ride so I do so carefully and not as fast as I would if I had a helmet. Ok, maybe I cheat on that last one a bit but boy does it make me nervous!


----------



## Stephen Saunders (Sep 6, 2012)

I'll add, without a helmet I've had a lot of crashes, (specially crossing RR tracks in the rain) and mostly I've suffered hip abrasions or clavical breaks. Not to discount the head injury, I just haven't had one, but I have extensive training in protecting my head in falls. (theatrical fighter, and martial artist) I was lucky. It only takes ONE bad crash to change your life forever. If you can wear a helmet, wear one. If it does not give you a massive headache where you double over in nausea, wear one. Why not? I think they look cool and sort of make you part of the road bike "club". I envy you.
I WILL SAY THOUGH.......If you are just rolling through your friendly neighborhood, getting some wind in your hair and not pushing it, why not fly free? Pick and choose your helmet time and understand it is your responsibility to know when you need it or not. Really, though, just enjoy the ride.


----------



## HelmetDiscussion (Dec 11, 2012)

wagg said:


> I thinks it's hilarious that we rode without helmets for years with no body saying a word but as soon as a law is passed you're labled an idiot for not wearing one. Or people have to be careful to avoid the "brains you've spilled on the road". In all honesty, who on this forum knows/ knows of someone who has suffered a life threatening injury from choosing not to wear a helmet. Or has had to avoid spilled brains. I've had some good spills in the 30 years I've been riding and have never come close to hitting my head. I've scuffed my legs and hands up, maybe leg pads and gloves should be mandatory.
> 
> cheers, wagg "the devil's advocate"



Since we are playing devils advocate lets break this down. 

"I thinks it's hilarious that we rode without helmets for years with no body saying a word but as soon as a law is passed you're labled an idiot for not wearing one."

First of all, the whole "We never did it then, why start now" argument doesn't make much sense. For starters, thats like saying, hopefully without being too crude, "humans didn't use condoms for thousands of years, why should we use them". Never mind that pregnancies used to come at like age 15 or 16 and STI's were very common place. Not to mention that cycling popularity in pure numbers has increased dramatically and so has widespread medical information and statistics keeping. I'm guessing that in 1950 there weren't very good records on crashes, deaths and injuries related to bicycling.

"In all honesty, who on this forum knows/ knows of someone who has suffered a life threatening injury from choosing not to wear a helmet."

In all honesty, if it weren't for helmets I am quite sure I would not to be able to type this reply, which i will expand on in a moment.

"Or has had to avoid spilled brains. I've had some good spills in the 30 years I've been riding and have never come close to hitting my head."

I'm not even sure how this is possible, to be quite honest. How can 30 years of crashing not even lead to your head grazing the ground. But if that's true I will give you that point.

"maybe leg pads and gloves should be mandatory."

That's not quite the same thing. Boiled down to basic facts, legs and hands are not necessary to sustain life and/or cognizant rational thought. I don't think anyone on a group ride would have a problem treating you with a broken hand. That might be a different story after you hit your head and can't think for yourself or even react to those who are trying to help you.


Now a little bit about myself and my own anecdotal evidence. 

Road biking and racing is actually fairly new to me. I've spent about three or four years racing mountain bikes of all disciplines. I am aware that this isn't exactly what we're talking about but its related. I raced cross country, downhill, 4x, dual slalom, enduro events, etc. In that time I've broken 4 XC helmets, a mountain bike specific full face helmet and 2 DOT approved motocross full face helmets. I have never even gotten so much as a concussion. On the mountain bike full face and one of the DOT helmets I broke the chin bar and had that not been there I wold have required major reconstructive surgery and had my jaw wired shut for months. Now the rest of my body didn't make it out so smoothly but thats a discussion for a different day.


----------



## Ripton (Apr 21, 2011)

eniveld said:


> ...the Tour's senior doctor said a helmet wouldn't have saved him because the fatal blow was to a part of the head that a helmet doesn't cover.
> 
> However, the forensic doctor who examined the body told The Sunday Times of London that the impact was to the top of the skull, and with a hard helmet, "some injuries could have been avoided."


By hard helmet, I'm assuming that they mean something more substantial than the foam and plastic skin helmets most of us entrust our lives to.

Reference has been made to motorcycle head injury statistics improving with helmet wear compared to the statistics surrounding bicycle helmet wear and head injuries but how many of you would be happy to wear a motorcycle helmet when riding your bike? 

I wear a helmet every time I go out on my road bike but I am in no way convinced that, in a lot of situations, it would offer all the protection I would need. For impacts with immovable road furniture and oncoming vehicles, I'm sure a full face motorcycle helmet would give me better protection over a bike helmet.


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

northoceanbeach said:


> Thank you, I am not talking about races, training rides or mt biking. But just casual not shop sponsored rides. The specific incident that sparked this was I was at the trail, I just moved here, and I starte talking I a group of maybe 15 riders about riding in the area. They were going to a cafe and back. I don't ask to join but the guy I was talking to said I would ask you to join us but you don't have a helmet.
> 
> Maybe I missed out and they missed out, we both could have met new people and talked about riding in different parts of the country.
> 
> I didn't show up to a team training event with no helmet. I could understand that more.


It's like Conformity has become the new Liberal way.


----------



## Bill2 (Oct 14, 2007)

velodog said:


> It's like Conformity has become the new Liberal way.


Like I said, it's part of the UN plot to enslave us all.


----------



## jiznake (Jan 24, 2012)

northoceanbeach said:


> Kids use to be able to just go out and ride a bike and have fun and be 2 feet off the ground, and now they have to wear helmets. It's pathetic. No one can have fun anymore, everyone's just obsessed with safety.


I always wore a helmet when I was a kid. I never minded. Still had plenty of fun on my bike.


----------



## jiznake (Jan 24, 2012)

piano said:


> At the end of the day, people who choose to wear a helmet while riding a bicycle are the people who understand that there is something inside of their skull which is worth protecting.


Well said.


----------



## BostonG (Apr 13, 2010)

*And what about this seat belt BS being mandatory!?*

We didn’t wear seat belts when I was a kid and I turned out just fine. And that was way back before there were airbags.

But in terms of helmets I have a different view because I didn’t wear a helmet once and I died because of it! Well, I learned my lesson and I now wear a helmet.

Edit: and if anyone can direct me to the best noise cancelling earphones to use while biking I would appreciate it. I can't stand it when the traffic noise interfers with my music - totally kills my motivation.


----------



## SauronHimself (Nov 21, 2012)

Group rides will require them to waive liability in the event you crash. Other than that, if you want to go helmet-free by yourself, please do. Natural selection will take its course, and we certainly appreciate your willingness not to poison the future gene pool.


----------



## ThreePointO (Dec 11, 2012)

Don't forget your knee and elbow guards.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Just remember that a guy who pointed out that RBR was crash prone had a bad crash with a week after his post/jab. Then again, some of you guys are being turds, so have at it the hard way. :thumbsup:


----------



## gumbafish (Jan 11, 2011)

I feel like some of the I don't wear a helmet and I'm fine arguements are like hearing from 90 year old guys that smoked their whole lives and were fine. Sure its possible you could never wear a helmet and not get a severe head injury or smoke your whole life and not get cancer but it doesn't mean that chosing to do so doesn't increase the chances of each...

It's all about statistics and while I understand that a helmet isn't a magic totem that will assure my safety I also understand that I am more likely to be ok in the event something should happen. If you want to take those risks fine, just don't expect me to be sympathetic when it doesn't turn out the way you hoped.

And to the extremists that then suggest I should wear a helmet when walking because I could fall then too...I don't know about you but I walk pretty damn fast but I can't walk 20-30mph.


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Mar 20, 2010)

spade2you said:


> Just remember that a guy who pointed out that RBR was crash prone had a bad crash with a week after his post/jab. Then again, some of you guys are being turds, so have at it the hard way. :thumbsup:


HOWEVER, helmet or no helmet would have made no difference.


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Mar 20, 2010)

HelmetDiscussion said:


> In all honesty, if it weren't for helmets I am quite sure I would not to be able to type this reply, which i will expand on in a moment.


Seemingly half the people on this forum have been saved by their helmet and would not be here were it not for their helmet. I raced throughout the 70's. We rarely wore helmets (leather hairnets) on training rides but did during most races. I was also active in our local bike club and rarely if ever saw a helmet on any of those rides. Yet, most of us survived (and survived a gob of crashes). How did we survive but apparently half the people who ride bikes today wouldn't? Why are there any dutch left in the world?

You also correctly pointed out that in your crash you were off-road. A much different and much more dangerous activity than riding to the local brothel or cafe. Helmets are clearly a good idea for off-road, BMX, any kind of racing, and fitness/training rides that include moderately trafficked public roads. Helmets are good for American football & hockey, not so necessary for beach volleyball or running local errands.


----------



## Addict07 (Jun 23, 2011)

As a racer, I have crashed numerous times where I have been happy I had a helmet on...but my worst crash ever (seperated shoulder, broken collar bone, 3 broken ribs, helmet broken in 7 pieces) came on an easy little group ride when some noob checked up on his brakes for no reason and put 3 of us in the hospital. 

As someone who grew up in the 70's and 80's and never had to wear a helmet as a kid, I always struggled with being "forced" to wear a helmet, whether by mandate or peer pressure...but no longer.


----------



## Mapei (Feb 3, 2004)

If, as I'm heading down the road, I see you on the ground, hurting from a crash, I will call the authorities and get you professional help. I will not wag my finger. Whether you're wearing a helmet or you're totally in the nude.


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

Addict07 said:


> As a racer, I have crashed numerous times where I have been happy I had a helmet on...but my worst crash ever (seperated shoulder, broken collar bone, 3 broken ribs, helmet broken in 7 pieces) came on an easy little group ride when some noob checked up on his brakes for no reason and put 3 of us in the hospital.
> 
> As someone who grew up in the 70's and 80's and never had to wear a helmet as a kid, I always struggled with being "forced" to wear a helmet, whether by mandate or peer pressure...but no longer.


This says it best.


----------



## timeless (Jun 2, 2007)

wagg said:


> I thinks it's hilarious that we rode without helmets for years with no body saying a word but as soon as a law is passed you're labled an idiot for not wearing one. Or people have to be careful to avoid the "brains you've spilled on the road". In all honesty, who on this forum knows/ knows of someone who has suffered a life threatening injury from choosing not to wear a helmet. Or has had to avoid spilled brains. I've had some good spills in the 30 years I've been riding and have never come close to hitting my head. I've scuffed my legs and hands up, maybe leg pads and gloves should be mandatory.
> 
> cheers, wagg "the devil's advocate"


oh we were idiots then as well. I used to ride with out a helmet when I was younger and did a lot of well stupid stuff that I should of had one on for. That being said I have 2 helmets that have met there deaths from crashes and that in my book is money well spent. I hardly ever ride any more with out a helmet. The helmet might not be worn on a quite test ride but that is about it. As soon as I start putting miles down or go off road on my mountain bike a helmet goes on.


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

Mapei said:


> If, as I'm heading down the road, I see you on the ground, hurting from a crash, I will call the authorities and get you professional help. I will not wag my finger. Whether you're wearing a helmet or you're totally in the nude.


That's all any of us can ask.

I will say on a slightly humerous note that after being hit by an automobile a number of years ago a woman stopped and got me out of the middle of the street, told the kid that hit me where to park his car, called an ambulance and saw to my bike.

After she did all of that she looked at me and said, while wagging her finger at me, "you've got the shoes, the shorts and the jersey, where's your helmet?".
All that I could think to say was "sorry Ma".

I found out that she worked in the hospital that I was brought to and to this day I'm sorry that I didn't send her flowers for what she did for me.


----------



## TheOtherBob (Nov 16, 2012)

wagg said:


> I thinks it's hilarious that we rode without helmets for years with no body saying a word but as soon as a law is passed you're labled an idiot for not wearing one. Or people have to be careful to avoid the "brains you've spilled on the road". In all honesty, who on this forum knows/ knows of someone who has suffered a life threatening injury from choosing not to wear a helmet. Or has had to avoid spilled brains. I've had some good spills in the 30 years I've been riding and have never come close to hitting my head. I've scuffed my legs and hands up, maybe leg pads and gloves should be mandatory.
> 
> cheers, wagg "the devil's advocate"


This isn't terribly surprising, because we're dealing with different sample sizes. Take just the people you know, and it may very easily be the case that none has suffered an accident where a helmet would have helped. You've been a lucky group. But go on here, and suddenly your sample size gets much larger -- and you start to see people who've been in 4, 5, or 6 accidents where a helmet was vital, or know multiple people who've died for lack of one.

Across the entire universe, it turns out that these variations even out somewhat -- but that on the whole it's significantly safer to wear a helmet. Since groups don't want to deal with someone getting badly hurt on their rides, they look at those statistics and do what makes sense for them -- require helmets. No big shock, really.


----------



## Bill2 (Oct 14, 2007)

> A much different and much more dangerous activity than riding to the local brothel or cafe.


Always good to wear your "helmet" when riding at the local brothel.


----------



## Camilo (Jun 23, 2007)

TheOtherBob said:


> This isn't terribly surprising, because we're dealing with different sample sizes. Take just the people you know, and it may very easily be the case that none has suffered an accident where a helmet would have helped. You've been a lucky group. But go on here, and suddenly your sample size gets much larger -- and you start to see people who've been in 4, 5, or 6 accidents where a helmet was vital, or know multiple people who've died for lack of one.
> 
> Across the entire universe, it turns out that these variations even out somewhat -- but that on the whole it's significantly safer to wear a helmet. Since groups don't want to deal with someone getting badly hurt on their rides, they look at those statistics and do what makes sense for them -- require helmets. No big shock, really.


You righty mention sample sizes and the fact that just because some of us have certain experiences among the people we know doesn't make that experience general to the whole population. 

BTW: my experience is that I've never, ever seen someone go down and "saved" by their helmet, in fact the only person I know who died from simply falling down on a bike - no collision - was wearing a helmet ... but I don't claim anything other than it's my personal experience. I've found that in these discussions, people who feel they have been "saved" by their helmet use it as definite proof that helmets are essential for everyone and those that don't use them are idiots or organ donors. Not saying you'd say that because you seem to be interested in discussion, not hyperbole.

But then you say "but on the whole, it's significantly safer to wear a helmet". 

OK, since you're familiar with sample sizes, statistics, etc., upon what do you base that statement? Is it actual, valid studies with good controls and analysis - or just what most helmet advocates feel is just common sense?


----------



## Mikebike125 (Sep 13, 2012)

Simple common Sense


----------



## LostViking (Jul 18, 2008)

Fireform said:


> Solution? Lead your own helmet-optional ride.


I seriously like this idea. 

No one is forced to ride in a helmets-on event - totally voluntary - the organizer could add that everyone has to wear pink - if you don't want to - don't ride.

Set up your own mandatory No-Helmets Ride (or try finding one in your area!) - safety weenies who insist on wearing thier helmets can find another ride - best free of them anyway (they probably think you should ride with lights on in low-light conditions as well!).

Democracy at work! :thumbsup:


----------



## LostViking (Jul 18, 2008)

spade2you said:


> Man, I'm sorry that I used to think that guitarists complained too much. Don't y'all have some doping to discuss, bait to personal attacks, and condescending to do?


You too funny, Spade! :thumbsup:


----------



## gumbafish (Jan 11, 2011)

> OK, since you're familiar with sample sizes, statistics, etc., upon what do you base that statement? Is it actual, valid studies with good controls and analysis - or just what most helmet advocates feel is just common sense?


This is the second most cited article on web of science when you search for bicycle helmet, the first most cited is a previous study by the same authors...

Thompson D.C., Rivara, F.P., Thompson, R.S. (1996). Effectiveness of bicycle safety helmets in preventing head injuries- A case-control study. Journal of the American Medical Association. 276(24):1968-1973.

"Abstract:
: Objectives.-To examine the protective effectiveness of bicycle helmets in 4 different age groups of bicyclists, in crashes involving motor vehicles, and by helmet type and certification standards. 

Research Design.-Prospective case-control study 

Setting.-Emergency departments (EDs) in 7 Seattle, Wash, area hospitals between March 1, 1992, and August 31, 1994. 

Participants.-Case subjects were all bicyclists treated in EDs for head injuries, all who were hospitalized, and all who died at the scene. Control subjects were bicyclists treated for nonhead injuries. 

Main Results.-There were 3390 injured bicyclists in the study; 29% of cases and 56% of controls were helmeted. Risk of head injury in helmeted vs unhelmeted cyclists adjusted for age and motor vehicle involvement indicate a protective effect of 69% to 74% for helmets for 3 different categories of head injury: any head injury (odds ratio [OR], 0.31; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.26-0.37), brain injury (OR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.25-0.48), or severe brain injury (OR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.14-0.48). Adjusted ORs for each of 4 age groups (<6 y, 6-12 y, 13-19 y, and greater than or equal to 20 years) indicate similar revels of helmet protection by age (OR range, 0.27-0.40). Helmets were equally effective in crashes involving motor vehicles (OR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.20-0.48) and those not involving motor vehicles (OR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.20-0.39). There was no effect modification by age or motor vehicle involvement (P=.7 and P=.3). No significant differences were found for the protective effect of hard-shell, thin-shell, or no-shell helmets (P=.5). 

*Conclusions.-Bicycle helmets, regardless of type, provide substantial protection against head injuries for cyclists or all ages involved in crashes, including crashes involving motor vehicles. *"

Boom goes the dynamite


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

gumbafish said:


> This is the second most cited article on web of science when you search for bicycle helmet, the first most cited is a previous study by the same authors...
> 
> Thompson D.C., Rivara, F.P., Thompson, R.S. (1996). Effectiveness of bicycle safety helmets in preventing head injuries- A case-control study. Journal of the American Medical Association. 276(24):1968-1973.
> 
> ...


discuss: 
Effectiveness of bicycle safety helmets in preventing head injuries: a case-control study


----------



## gumbafish (Jan 11, 2011)

I referenced one of the top cited peer reviewed articles from a top journal in it's field and you referenced an anonymously written website. Discuss...


----------



## zero85ZEN (Oct 11, 2002)

*This thread made me think of this:*

From this site: http://www.helmets.org/briefs.htm


Racer Andrei Kivilev Dies of Head Injuries

March 12, 2003
Kazakh bicycle racer Andrei Kivilev died on March 12th, one day after crashing near the French town of St-Etienne during the Paris-Nice road race. His team doctor, Jean-Jacques Menuet, was quoted in the press as believing that a helmet would probably have saved Kivilev's life. The most recent death in European pro cycling before Kivilev was Spain's Manuel Sanroma, who crashed in the 1999 Tour of Catalonia. Before that, many still remember the death of Fabio Casartelli in the 1995 Tour de France. As always, there is discussion of requiring European pro riders to wear a helmet as racers in the US are required to do. The Swiss-based International Cycling Union (UCI) has issued a statement noting that European riders rejected a mandatory helmet rule in 1991. Cycling News has a nice photo of the 29 year old Kivilev up on their Web page. Web accounts express sympathy for his wife Natalia and their six month old son.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

gumbafish said:


> I referenced one of the top cited peer reviewed articles from a top journal in it's field and you referenced an anonymously written website. Discuss...


do you care about a nick on the head needing a few stitches or serious damage? because if it's the latter apparently the article has a sample of 62. Do you want to make strong conclusions on that sample? 
No one doubts helmets help, the question is if they are really that effective in preventing people ending up in a vegetative state in case of a bad crash.


----------



## gumbafish (Jan 11, 2011)

Yes for severe brain injury the sample size was 62 but for brain injury it was 203 and so on for the degrees of injury... so its not exactly accurate to describe it as a nick on the head. My point was that they have been shown to be statistically significant in reducing head injuries and that it is not just 'common sense' or a wives tale.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

gumbafish said:


> Yes for severe brain injury the sample size was 62 but for brain injury it was 203 and so on for the degrees of injury... so its not exactly accurate to describe it as a nick on the head. My point was that they have been shown to be statistically significant in reducing head injuries and that it is not just 'common sense' or a wives tale.


a nick with a razor blade is a head injury. 
let me give you the visuals brought up in this thread: 
"On a group ride we do not want to have to scoop your brains off the pavement. " 
" Because if you don't wear one you may be like the Scarecrow in the Wizard of Oz "If I only had a brain!" "
" If I didn't have a helmet, I'd probably still be in the hospital right now..."
"I wont ride with anyone not wearing a lid. Primarly because I would be in trouble foor not hepling when you crash andpop your mellon. "
just from the first 24 responses. It does not seem to be concerned with a bleeding head wound or even concussions, although for the latter it was mentioned.


----------



## gumbafish (Jan 11, 2011)

Perhaps but I am not resorting to hyperbole. Also out of curiosity did you even read the article or did you just read that web page synopsis of it?

Their definition of head injury

"Head Injury.—This definition included superficial lacerations, abrasions and bruises on the scalp, forehead, and ears, as well as skull fractures, concussion, cerebral contusions and lacerations, and all intracranial hemorrhages (subarachnoid,
subdural, epidural, and intracerebral)"

So yes while it includes some rather benign injuries I would hardly call skull fractures and the like so harmless.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

gumbafish said:


> Perhaps but I am not resorting to hyperbole. Also out of curiosity did you even read the article or did you just read that web page synopsis of it?
> 
> Their definition of head injury
> 
> ...


And as pointed out, once all the, relatively, benign stuff was taken away things became a lot more sketchy. It's everything and the kitchen sink in the conclusion, most of the weight is on the, well, trivial stuff.


----------



## Cableguy (Jun 6, 2010)

den bakker said:


> No one doubts helmets help, the question is if they are really that effective in preventing people ending up in a vegetative state in case of a bad crash.


Does it really matter?

It is not uncommon to find a seasoned cyclist who has gone down and afterwards noted a big gash in their helmet... we could argue over how badly that gash would translate to their head if the helmet had not been there, but most people including myself are content in calling it an open and shut case right there. I've been in one crash that resulted in my helmet being split open... it's technically possible that without the helmet my head would have managed but why exactly would I gamble with that? Wearing a helmet isn't a big deal.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

den bakker said:


> a nick with a razor blade is a head injury.


...and they say I'm the troll.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

Cableguy said:


> Does it really matter?
> 
> It is not uncommon to find a seasoned cyclist who has gone down and afterwards noted a big gash in their helmet... we could argue over how badly that gash would translate to their head if the helmet had not been there, but most people including myself are content in calling it an open and shut case right there. I've been in one crash that resulted in my helmet being split open... it's technically possible that without the helmet my head would have managed but why exactly would I gamble with that? Wearing a helmet isn't a big deal.


it matters when people change their behaviour based on wearing a helmet. if you think group rides are just too dangerous without a helmet, the helmet is not the issue. So if I engage in activity I otherwise would not do but it's "safer" now because of a helmet then yes people are fooling themselves.


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

spade2you said:


> ...and they say I'm the troll.


Maybe you're both trolls. Never overlook the obvious.


----------



## gumbafish (Jan 11, 2011)

Maimaris, C., Summer, C.L., Browning, C., Palmer, C.R. (1994). Injury patterns in cyclists attending an accident and emergency department: a comparison of helmet wearers and non-wearers. BMJ. 308(6943):1537-1540.

There if it makes you feel better...

"We did not regard simple scalp abrasions,
lacerations, or contusions not associated with loss of
consciousness or postconcussion symptoms as head
injuries."

"Conclusion-The findings suggest an increased
risk of sustaining head injury in a bicycle accident
when a motor vehicle is involved and confirm protective
effect of helmet wearing for any bicycle accident."


----------



## Cableguy (Jun 6, 2010)

den bakker said:


> it matters when people change their behaviour based on wearing a helmet. if you think group rides are just too dangerous without a helmet, the helmet is not the issue. So if I engage in activity I otherwise would not do but it's "safer" now because of a helmet then yes people are fooling themselves.


I don't get it, you agree helmets make a difference and provide increased safety yet for some reason think it's a problem that someone could possibly decide to not ride a bike over one. I don't understand how this could be a problem, or why it matters.


----------



## PaxRomana (Jan 16, 2012)

Rick Moranis disapproves of this thread.


----------



## cantride55 (Sep 19, 2008)

Helmets will not, can not save everyone.That is a given. Seats belts do not save every life, or airbags. I think seat belts protect a lot of people that would have been atleast seriously injuried or killed. Do yourselves a favour, visit a locked down T.B.I. unit, see for yourselves what brain injuries are like. Ask your children if they would mind you not being able to remember their names. Inquiry with your health insurance the duration of care they will provide for your t.b.i., and what happens to you when it runs out? If you still don't want to wear one great, your choice. The sad, part of this 'discussion" is that the position "it only happens to other people" is true, the only thing that changes is the person speaking at the time.
It puzzles me how "we'll" spend money on home/ health/ car insurance, because the "what if" scares us. Can we afford to replace our valuable "stuff"? Yet we question wearing a helmet which may protect our most precious "stuff", our memories.
But then again, it only happens to other people.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

Cableguy said:


> I don't get it, you agree helmets make a difference and provide increased safety yet for some reason think it's a problem that someone could possibly decide to not ride a bike over one. I don't understand how this could be a problem, or why it matters.


if you refuse to engage in e.g. fast group rides without a helmet because that is just too dangerous but then think it's ok with a helmet you have an increased risk hitting the deck. and an increased risk at an increased speed.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

PaxRomana said:


> Rick Moranis disapproves of this thread.


No. Not _that!_


----------



## gumbafish (Jan 11, 2011)

den bakker said:


> if you refuse to engage in e.g. fast group rides without a helmet because that is just too dangerous but then think it's ok with a helmet you have an increased risk hitting the deck. and an increased risk at an increased speed.


I think you are confused, the OP was not allowed by other riders to go on a group ride because he was not wearing a helmet whereas you seem to have interpreted this as he choose not to go on a group ride because he does not wear a helmet...


----------



## northoceanbeach (Sep 29, 2007)

Aldo8100 said:


> Certain two facts on this post unequivocally the best we have all had.Head injuries are the leading cause of death in bicycle crashes. About 300 children die in bike accidents each year.
> So it doesn't matter where you will be riding, or for how long-you should always wear your helmet.I agreed what's said above!!!


According to USA today 10000 children are injured by their cribs every year and 113 die.

I'm not saying we shouldn't wear helmets, I'm saying not everything you get on your bike is it necessary to wear it.


----------



## Guest (Dec 13, 2012)

gumbafish said:


> I think you are confused, the OP was not allowed by other riders to go on a group ride because he was not wearing a helmet whereas you seem to have interpreted this as he choose not to go on a group ride because he does not wear a helmet...


The OP's original post wasn't that he wasn't allowed to go on a group ride (which implies high speed / paceline type riding). But that he was disinvited from riding a short distance at relatively low speed for a post ride meal at a cafe. The latter seems a bit nitpicky IMO.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

northoceanbeach said:


> According to USA today 10000 children are injured by their cribs every year and 113 die.


So ban children and cribs. Problem solved. Man, you're a delicate flower.


----------



## gumbafish (Jan 11, 2011)

Photonfreak I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that somehow you are referencing something other than I due to the thread display mode (linear vs hybrid) or something because I was talking about the person who started this thread. From the VERY FIRST post

"When did everyone start wearing helmets? Why do I have to wear a helmet to go on a group ride?

What business is it of anyone else? How does it affect the safety of other riders? I don't want to wear a helmet, so why do I get rejected from rides?

Wasnt it not long ago that they rode the tour de France without them? They're somehow still alive. Then it became a rule, probably to sell helmets.

Kids use to be able to just go out and ride a bike and have fun and be 2 feet off the ground, and now they have to wear helmets. It's pathetic. No one can have fun anymore, everyone's just obsessed with safety. "

Nowhere do I see anything to contradict my conclusion that he was referring to a group ride, now maybe you were talking about someone else or maybe he later mentioned this and I missed it but we seem to be reading two different things...


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

gumbafish said:


> Wasnt it not long ago that they rode the tour de France without them? They're somehow still alive. *Then it became a rule, probably to sell helmets.*


Yes, it wasn't Stalinist Republicans, it was Bell and Giro. They're very high up in the Helmet Nazi Party.


----------



## arai_speed (Aug 19, 2003)

gumbafish said:


> ...Nowhere do I see anything to contradict my conclusion that he was referring to a group ride, now maybe you were talking about someone else or maybe he later mentioned this and I missed it but we seem to be reading two different things...


Gumbafish, here is the link where the OP provided clarification on his orginal post.

http://forums.roadbikereview.com/ge...-i-have-wear-helmet-297277-5.html#post4219669

Quoted below for ref:

---

Thank you, I am not talking about races, training rides or mt biking. But just casual not shop sponsored rides. The specific incident that sparked this was I was at the trail, I just moved here, and I starte talking I a group of maybe 15 riders about riding in the area. They were going to a cafe and back. I don't ask to join but the guy I was talking to said I would ask you to join us but you don't have a helmet.

Maybe I missed out and they missed out, we both could have met new people and talked about riding in different parts of the country.

I didn't show up to a team training event with no helmet. I could understand that more.


----------



## gumbafish (Jan 11, 2011)

Oh, well that is stupid...but it would have made more sense to say that at the start.


----------



## nigel91 (May 16, 2012)

*Helmet yes or no?*



northoceanbeach said:


> When did everyone start wearing helmets? Why do I have to wear a helmet to go on a group ride?
> 
> What business is it of anyone else? How does it affect the safety of other riders? I don't want to wear a helmet, so why do I get rejected from rides?
> 
> ...


I started riding a mountain bike on the road without a helmet (illegal to ride without one here) 'cos I thought they looked dorky, plus I was never going over 30 km/h....I wore one if I was off road on the MTB.

A year ago I bought a carbon road bike and am now descending hills at up to 78 km/h and so wear a helmet - it would feel really strange to me now NOT to wear one even if I am just riding 4 km to work...

My way of thinking is that it should be compulsory for kids up to 16 or so, and compulsory for adults on the open road - but not in a 50 km/h area...


----------



## arai_speed (Aug 19, 2003)

gumbafish said:


> Oh, well that is stupid...but it would have made more sense to say that at the start.


I think the OP got a little b*tt hurt when the cool kids decided not to invite him on their cafe ride.


----------



## DrSmile (Jul 22, 2006)

Just to put the idiot idea to rest that helmets don't work... By a long way, the best study ever conducted on the benefits of helmet wear was a 2002 study:

Impact of mandatory helmet legislation on bicycle-related head injuries in children: a population-based study. Macpherson AK. To TM. Macarthur C. Chipman ML. Wright JG. Parkin PC. Pediatrics. 110(5):e60, 2002 Nov.

This study examined ALL Canadian child cycling injuries reported over a four year period (almost 10,000, 3500 of them head injuries) that saw the implementation of mandatory helmet use legislation in some, but not all, of the Canadian provinces. It was a unique opportunity that yielded a very robust data set. Note that in Canadian pediatrics a child is anyone under 20. The most significant figure is shown below:

View attachment 272021


The head injury rate reduction difference of 45% vs 27% was significant. The death rates were also significantly lower. As the article states it is likely that the no-legislation provinces may have received a benefit of the legislated states campaigns to help reduce their accident rate.


----------



## Oxtox (Aug 16, 2006)

the obvious answer to the helmet issue is to do what I see several rocket surgeons doing...

just clip your helmet to the handlebars so it's always there when you need it.

that way, when you find yourself involved in an accident, you can just don it on your way down to the pavement.


----------



## hummina shadeeba (Oct 15, 2009)

*get good at falling..seriously*

being a good faller outweighs the benefits of a piece of styrofoam on your head. And then riding around with a bunch of knuckleheads hot on the scene for the cat 5 prem is probably the real danger. wear it then. And if your serious enough to wear an aero helmet it seems riding around at full speed without any protection is acceptable and no one will blink an eye.
My biggest obstacle to not wearing a helmet while wearing spandex is the anger I get at people knowingly telling me that I'm not doing the smart thing. The few times I go out yearly to cruise around by myself without one, and instead a nice sun visor of some sort, I always get some comment or an "o no" head nod or a look of some sort. I'd like to run into them and see who fares better. My head is good enough but my lucky left thumb is running out of lives.


----------



## nolight (Oct 12, 2012)

Most people would say helmet is to protect your head, but I think 2 of the main reasons to wear helmet for road bikers are:

1. The road bike attire is not complete without helmet, so it will feel awkward without it.
2. Car drivers may watch out for you more if you wear helmet. Road bike + helmet gives the impression of speed so cars may give way to you at junctions. Without helmet, car drivers may think you are 1 of those slow commuters and take less precaution.


----------



## Camilo (Jun 23, 2007)

DrSmile said:


> Just to put the idiot idea to rest that helmets don't work... By a long way, the best study ever conducted on the benefits of helmet wear was a 2002 study:
> 
> Impact of mandatory helmet legislation on bicycle-related head injuries in children: a population-based study. Macpherson AK. To TM. Macarthur C. Chipman ML. Wright JG. Parkin PC. Pediatrics. 110(5):e60, 2002 Nov.
> 
> ...


I wonder if they could see similar data if they were able to study people who had falls in the home with and without helmets.

To me, the question isn't whether the helmet reduces the chance of injury if you were to fall, but the question is what is the real, overall risk of being injured on a bike, regardless of helmet usage. Because, injuries happen in a lot of common activities and we wouldn't consider wearing a helmet even if it protected us were we to fall.


----------



## DrSmile (Jul 22, 2006)

Camilo said:


> I wonder if they could see similar data if they were able to study people who had falls in the home with and without helmets.
> 
> To me, the question isn't whether the helmet reduces the chance of injury if you were to fall, but the question is what is the real, overall risk of being injured on a bike, regardless of helmet usage. Because, injuries happen in a lot of common activities and we wouldn't consider wearing a helmet even if it protected us were we to fall.


Of course the article has such rudimentary information. The risk of head injury at the beginning of the study was 18 out of 100,000 per year in all provinces. After the study the risk was just under 10 out of 100,000 in the legislation provinces and just over 13 out of 100,000 in the no-legislation provinces. The 18% reduction difference amounted to approximately 700 less head injuries. Mind you these are of course only reported hospital cases, but a 1:7500 chance is by no means insignificant, plus the rate of any bicycle related injury was approximately 3 times as high, so more like 1:2500. Your yearly odds of dying walking down the street are 1:45,000 per year.


----------



## Dave Cutter (Sep 26, 2012)

spade2you said:


> Yes, it wasn't Stalinist Republicans, it was Bell and Giro. They're very high up in the Helmet Nazi Party.


I am pretty sure Stalin was a Socialist. Just say'in.

But humor aside.... I wear a helmet because my wife makes me. Back in the 60's... I don't think we even had bicycle helmets. It isn't like I'd decide to not wear a helmet... today. But as a nation we are just a bit self-centered and over protective.

In many states... like the one I live in... motorcyclists aren't required to wear helmets. And whereas that may raise the motorcycle death rate a fraction of a percent.... the world hasn't come to a end ether. The OP gets no peer pressure from me! If he doesn't think his brain should be protected... I trust he knows himself better than me.


----------



## Dave IV (Jan 20, 2009)

Gumbyman said:


> On a group ride we do not want to have to scoop your brains off the pavement. We have a ride to finished and it is just easier to make sure you are OK and call your spouse to come pick you up...Much more likely to happen if you are wearing a helmet.


This is absolutely true. I recall our group training rides in the 70s and 80s before helmets were in vogue. It was freaking carnage. We typically had to stop two or three times on every ride to scoop up our team members brains from the road. The team leaders would carry special brain bags to hold the scooped gray matter. 

The riders' spouses would hold and hug the riders at the start of every ride as if the riders were going off to war. And at the end of every ride the heart-wrenching news of "brains on the road" would be delivered to some of the unfortunate spouses. It was heartbreaking.

Let's be thankful for helmets and that the life-altering "brains on the road" notifications no longer need to be delivered to the spouses and children of those brave and courageous riders.

Hallelujah helmets!


----------



## dsquare (Dec 1, 2012)

I'm a big advocate for bike helmets. Personally, I wouldn't want a helmet-less (?) rider join us because I'd feel guilty if something happened to the rider. I crashed early this year on a descent when the rear tire blew out and I went down. I felt my head slam on the pavement. I ended up with road rash all over my left side and my helmet was cracked in 5 places. I was able to complete my ride with no head injuries. Also, I'm a cop and this past summer, a helmet-less cyclist went over a speed bump and crashed. He was probably going no faster than 10 mph, but he had both exterior & internal head injuries. He was in a coma for 3 weeks in intensive care. He regained consciousness but can't speak and is still in the hospital. I wouldn't wish this on anyone.


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

dsquare said:


> I'm a big advocate for bike helmets. Personally, I wouldn't want a helmet-less (?) rider join us because I'd feel guilty if something happened to the rider. I crashed early this year on a descent when the rear tire blew out and I went down. I felt my head slam on the pavement. I ended up with road rash all over my left side and my helmet was cracked in 5 places. I was able to complete my ride with no head injuries. Also, I'm a cop and this past summer, a helmet-less cyclist went over a speed bump and crashed. He was probably going no faster than 10 mph, but he had both exterior & internal head injuries. He was in a coma for 3 weeks in intensive care. He regained consciousness but can't speak and is still in the hospital. I wouldn't wish this on anyone.


I'm glad that you had no head injury, but I have a question.

What did you put on your head when you continued your ride after your helmet was ruined in the accident? 

I ask because you don't want to or maybe won't ride with a helmetless cyclist, yet you continued to ride once your helmet was broken. Wouldn't it have been wiser to end your ride then and there, instead of continueing on with a broken helmet. 
You had sustained injuries, the extent of which you really had no way of knowing. What if you would have crashed and bounced your head again, this time unprotected? 

It just seems to me that the worst time to ride without a helmet would be right after taking an impact to the head. And yet there you go, a helmet advocate, riding off with a useless helmet, and a possible undiagnosed head injury.


----------



## metoou2 (Mar 18, 2009)

why doesn't someone put this thread down? it would be the humane thing to do.


----------



## SauronHimself (Nov 21, 2012)

Helmets simply increase the time it takes for your bare head to contact the object you've impacted. That, in turn, decreases the acceleration your head feels. This basic physics principle is why we have crumple zones and airbags in cars. On a bike tour seven years ago I was riding with my friend Holli who ate the payment quite hard at 22mph. Her head was the first thing to hit the ground, and she ended up cracking her skull even with the helmet. I ran the numbers in my head based on how fast she was going when she hit the ground, and without wearing her helmet the acceleration on her head would've been guaranteed death. 

You have to admire the anti-helmet mentality: "I'm going to spend thousands of dollars on a bike and lightweight, aerodynamic accessories so I can go as fast as possible, but I'll be damned if I spend $100 on a safety item."


----------



## Bill2 (Oct 14, 2007)

It seems to be less about the expense and more about losing the freedom of the wind blowing through your hair.


----------



## Camilo (Jun 23, 2007)

SauronHimself said:


> ...
> You have to admire the anti-helmet mentality: "I'm going to spend thousands of dollars on a bike and lightweight, aerodynamic accessories so I can go as fast as possible, but I'll be damned if I spend $100 on a safety item."


Well, at least for me, you clearly don't understand or choose to ignore the point that some of us are trying to make. I don't think anyone thinks helmets are actually worthless. I have NEVER heard anyone say that they're too expensive. But what I have heard is people making the simple point that cycling is not so dangerous that a helmet is a critical piece of safety equipment. It's just not that dangerous. That's the point.

OH, another point - it's not "anti-helmet" mentality. It's simply "helmet not necessary" mentality. See the difference? "Anti-helmet" would actually be against use of helmets and be critical of those who use them. Really, the arguement is not "anti" but simply " not for me, not really necessary because it's not that dangerous to ride a bike. My risk assessment is reasonable, but I don't care what your level of fear is."

The only ones I've actually ever seen be critical of the other side are the pro-helmet crowd who are regularly critical of those who disagree with them, obviously can't accept that others' risk assessment is reasonable even if they don't agree, and often resort to simple-minded, offensive name calling and slurs.... "idiot"..... "stupid"...... "organ donor".. .. It's always an original sort of comment to make, and always incisive - really wins the debate. 



SauronHimself said:


> ...I ran the numbers in my head based on how fast she was going when she hit the ground, and without wearing her helmet the acceleration on her head would've been guaranteed death.


Now this is one of the most "interesting" statements I've ever seen. "ran the numbers in my head", "guaranteed death". You have to admire the pro-helmet mentality.


----------



## DrSmile (Jul 22, 2006)

Camilo said:


> Well, at least for me, you really don't understand the point that some of us are trying to make. I don't think anyone thinks helmets are worthless. I have NEVER heard anyone say that they're too expensive. But what I have heard is people making the simple point that cycling is not so dangerous that a helmet is a critical piece of safety equipment. It's just not that dangerous. That's the point.


Repeating your previous statement doesn't make it any more valid and is based on false assumptions. As I stated from the article I referenced, a child's chances of having an accident with a resulting head injury are roughly 1:7500 per year in Canada (I wouldn't expect it to be lower anywhere else). This is a significant risk by any standard. Over your entire childhood of say 10 years your odds are likely cumulative assuming equal distribution by age, so they would be about 1:750. 

The overall incidence of cycling head injuries is decreasing even in areas where helmets are not worn. Most authors attribute this to a decrease in cycling by children, which is very likely true. This does NOT make it any safer for the children that still cycle and is therefore a very misleading decrease. Similarly one should understand that the risk is not 1:7500 child cyclists. It is 1:7500 children, whether they cycle or not. Simply by getting on the bike you are likely hugely increasing your odds of getting an injury.

Lastly these statistics account only for injuries which required hospitalization. It is very likely that there were other injuries that went unreported.


----------



## SauronHimself (Nov 21, 2012)

Camilo said:


> Well, at least for me, you clearly don't understand or choose to ignore the point that some of us are trying to make. I don't think anyone thinks helmets are actually worthless. I have NEVER heard anyone say that they're too expensive. But what I have heard is people making the simple point that cycling is not so dangerous that a helmet is a critical piece of safety equipment. It's just not that dangerous. That's the point.
> 
> OH, another point - it's not "anti-helmet" mentality. It's simply "helmet not necessary" mentality. See the difference? "Anti-helmet" would actually be against use of helmets and be critical of those who use them. Really, the arguement is not "anti" but simply " not for me, not really necessary because it's not that dangerous to ride a bike. My risk assessment is reasonable, but I don't care what your level of fear is."
> 
> ...


It's unfortunate if you can't do basic calculus in your head, but I can. When one does this arithmetic daily, it becomes rather easy to do it in the head. Furthermore, there are certain points at which the acceleration exacted upon a human head will cause death, which is approximately 50G's. The 2" thick plastic shell took that down to roughly 32G's, and that is survivable if only sustained for a split second.


----------



## flatlander_48 (Nov 16, 2005)

Read up on cycling history...

Italian pro Fabio Casartelli crashed on a descent in the Pyrenees on July 18, 1995. He was an Olympic gold medalist and lost control on the descent. He died of head injuries. The cycling helmut rule was in response to this crash.




gumbafish said:


> Wasnt it not long ago that they rode the tour de France without them? They're somehow still alive. Then it became a rule, probably to sell helmets.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

metoou2 said:


> why doesn't someone put this thread down? it would be the humane thing to do.


Because too many people in interw3b forums thrive on drama and conflict. See the doping forum if my point isn't clear.


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Mar 20, 2010)

DrSmile said:


> Just to put the idiot idea to rest that helmets don't work...


Some questions. What was the cycling rate in each province during each year of the study and thus the injury rate per cyclist? What was the distribution of types of injuries in each province in each year? What accounts for the significant drop in injuries for non-legislation provinces? What accounts for the significant increase in injuries in legislation provinces and was there a transfer effect? This is an extremely limited timeframe, what has happened since (to cycling rates, rates of wearing helmets, and injury rates)?


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Say "legislation" again!!!!

View attachment 272214


----------



## PbOkole (Feb 10, 2004)

flatlander_48 said:


> Read up on cycling history...
> 
> Italian pro Fabio Casartelli crashed on a descent in the Pyrenees on July 18, 1995. He was an Olympic gold medalist and lost control on the descent. He died of head injuries. The cycling helmut rule was in response to this crash.


As I stated earlier, it was NOT Casartelli's 1995 crash that caused the mandatory helmet rule. It was Kivilev's crash in 2003. Perhaps it's you who should read up on cycling history.


----------



## DrSmile (Jul 22, 2006)

InfiniteLoop said:


> Some questions. What was the cycling rate in each province during each year of the study and thus the injury rate per cyclist? What was the distribution of types of injuries in each province in each year? What accounts for the significant drop in injuries for non-legislation provinces? What accounts for the significant increase in injuries in legislation provinces and was there a transfer effect? This is an extremely limited timeframe, what has happened since (to cycling rates, rates of wearing helmets, and injury rates)?


I addressed almost all of these questions already. Please re-read my posts. As I said this is the best study I know of and it was a unique opportunity due to the legislation being introduced. If you really want answers to questions that aren't in the study or other studies, the right thing to do would not be to suppose, but to either advocate the research be done, or actually do the research yourself. Also most studies now include the emails of the investigators, I've received excellent information by contacting the authors directly. You can do the same!


----------



## cbarne12 (Sep 8, 2011)

As I tell all my patients when I'm working with them and attempting to get them to do something for their own benefit....."Do what your mother and your wife tell you to do."


----------



## Dave Cutter (Sep 26, 2012)

spade2you said:


> Because too many people in interw3b forums thrive on drama and conflict. See the doping forum if my point isn't clear.


You make an excellent point! 

Some of these threads [mostly in the politics only side] had puzzled me. I am from a liberal family... Yet I had never known liberals to be so devoid of logic or so completely devoted to emotional reactions. But that is the way they often appear anymore.

So many of the posted reactions seem completely absence of any responsibility and almost child-like in there arguments. I hadn't even thought that the posts were merely a created conflict. Thank you for pointing out what should have been obvious to all of us.


----------



## bike2016 (Dec 20, 2012)

so you dont die...


----------



## cantride55 (Sep 19, 2008)

Watching football last weekend I saw a receiver drop a pass then take some time getting up from the ground. It sure looked like the ball hit in him in the grapes. It was then replayed on the c'mom man, the dude wasn't wearing a cup. Guess he didn't need one. He's a pro, lightening fast reactions, can't run as fast with a cup etc. I bet while he was taking a moment on the ground checking if all the parts were there, he thought about wearing one next game?
We think crashing only happens to other people but buy Lottery tickets because winning will happen to us. Wow!


----------



## Camilo (Jun 23, 2007)

Dave Cutter said:


> You make an excellent point!
> 
> Some of these threads [mostly in the politics only side] had puzzled me. I am from a liberal family... Yet I had never known liberals to be so devoid of logic or so completely devoted to emotional reactions. But that is the way they often appear anymore.
> 
> So many of the posted reactions seem completely absence of any responsibility and almost child-like in there arguments. I hadn't even thought that the posts were merely a created conflict. Thank you for pointing out what should have been obvious to all of us.


This is a serious question because I really don't understand the comment. How is this discussion liberal vs. conservative? Which side are the "you must wear a helmet or you are unreasonably risky" ones" Which are the "cycling is not dangerous and helmets are unnecessary"?



cantride55 said:


> Watching football last weekend I saw a receiver drop a pass then take some time getting up from the ground. It sure looked like the ball hit in him in the grapes. It was then replayed on the c'mom man, the dude wasn't wearing a cup. Guess he didn't need one. He's a pro, lightening fast reactions, can't run as fast with a cup etc. I bet while he was taking a moment on the ground checking if all the parts were there, he thought about wearing one next game?
> We think crashing only happens to other people but buy Lottery tickets because winning will happen to us. Wow!


No I think the lesson is that he has made a reasonable assessment of the risk and need for that protection and found that while there is risk, it's not great enough to warrant the protection. A lot of people accept a reasonable level of risk even if there's something that can reduce it. Same reason I don't wear spikes on my shoes or a helmet when the parking lots are slippery and I might fall down walking across them.

Just because you are able to reduce risk from a very tiny amount to a very, very tiny amount doesn't mean you should do it. Just reasonable risk assessment.


----------



## Dave IV (Jan 20, 2009)

dsquare said:


> Also, I'm a cop and this past summer, a helmet-less cyclist went over a speed bump and crashed. He was probably going no faster than 10 mph, but he had both exterior & internal head injuries. He was in a coma for 3 weeks in intensive care. He regained consciousness but can't speak and is still in the hospital. I wouldn't wish this on anyone.


I call Shenanigans. I am jumping to the conclusion that you mentioned you are a cop, meaning you responded to this incident as a first-responder. 

I find it unlikely that someone crashed as a result of riding over a speed bump. How did you determine his speed as < 10 MPH?. I find it very difficult to believe you followed his recovery progress for over 3 weeks while he was hospitalized. I say this story is fake and I call Shenanigans!


----------



## Dave IV (Jan 20, 2009)

SauronHimself said:


> On a bike tour seven years ago I was riding with my friend Holli who ate the payment quite hard at 22mph. Her head was the first thing to hit the ground, and she ended up cracking her skull even with the helmet. I ran the numbers in my head based on how fast she was going when she hit the ground, and without wearing her helmet the acceleration on her head would've been guaranteed death. ."


Oh Crap, I need to call Shenanigans again! How, pray tell did you "run the numbers in your head"? What formulas did you use and what result did you deduce (include units of measure please) and how did you determine that the results would GUARANTEE her death. I call shenanigans!!!


----------



## dsquare (Dec 1, 2012)

Well, you're assuming I estimated the speed on my own. The speed was given by 2 witnesses. You're also assuming that we take an initial report and don't follow-up? There other facts in this case that weren't in my reply


----------



## Guest (Dec 21, 2012)

dsquare said:


> Well, you're assuming I estimated the speed on my own. The speed was given by 2 witnesses. You're also assuming that we take an initial report and don't follow-up? There other facts in this case that weren't in my reply


I think it's likely that witnesses reported speed as <10mph even if the cyclist's speed was actually significantly greater. Gross underestimation of cyclists riding speed is the root cause of many left-hook/right-hook/pulling out in front car-on-bike crashes. The last time I was involved in a bike crash which resulted in an police accident report, I found out after the fact I was going 28mph per my cycle computer and the speed cited in the report was 15.


----------



## Bill2 (Oct 14, 2007)

If you press "Last" on the page navigation controls does it end the thread?


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

dsquare said:


> Well, you're assuming I estimated the speed on my own. The speed was given by 2 witnesses. You're also assuming that we take an initial report and don't follow-up? There other facts in this case that weren't in my reply


You can have all the info you want and hand it to Dave IV on a silver platter. He'll still be a turd about it and argue.


----------



## Dave IV (Jan 20, 2009)

spade2you said:


> You can have all the info you want and hand it to Dave IV on a silver platter. He'll still be a turd about it and argue.


I asked questions. I was not rude or arrogant. Then you go start with the name-calling. Why? Why would you start name-calling. Do you have some sort of emotional issue? Do you have an anger issue? You may want to seek some professional help. I mean, really, does it make you feel better about yourself to call others names?


----------



## Dave Cutter (Sep 26, 2012)

Camilo said:


> This is a serious question because I really don't understand the comment. How is this discussion liberal vs. conservative? Which side are the "you must wear a helmet or you are unreasonably risky" ones" Which are the "cycling is not dangerous and helmets are unnecessary"?


I'd made my statement: I believe anyone that thinks their brain doesn't warrant protection... certainly knows themselves better than I could.

That... is a conservative statement. It assumes most people have intellect and creativity at least equal the general public. 

The liberal interpretation is some central body needs to make the better decisions for the lesser intelligent general public. Lately the risks associated with sports have [in liberal circles] been considered excessive and in need of regulation. If sports cause harm... which cost all of society... then certainly sports must be curtailed, limited, regulated, or banned. 

But... the point that was made is: That many people posting as having a liberal point of view are merely looking for attention or [safe] conflict in a public forum. That drama seeking... would make sense. What cyclist would advocate measures... that if logically extended... would ultimately eliminate their own sport.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Dave IV said:


> I asked questions. I was not rude or arrogant. Then you go start with the name-calling. Why? Why would you start name-calling. Do you have some sort of emotional issue? Do you have an anger issue? You may want to seek some professional help. I mean, really, does it make you feel better about yourself to call others names?


You can dish it but can't take it. Classic!


----------



## Dave IV (Jan 20, 2009)

.....


----------



## Dave IV (Jan 20, 2009)

spade2you said:


> You can dish it but can't take it. Classic!


My previous comment has nothing to do with who can "take it" and who can't. If you look at my posting history, or if you dedicate yourself to knowing my posting history as it appears you have, you will see I like a good debate. There are times when I take a position I may not have complete faith in simply to engage or further a debate. You will also see that I do not engage in name-calling.

Name-calling is immature and does nothing to further a legitimate discourse of opposing opinions. When a discussion degenerates to name-calling it typically indicates that that the name-caller can not make a legitimate argument to support his position.

Name-calling also tends to indicate that the name-caller has taken the debate personally and is offended. Let me share a secret with you. This is a public Internet forum. I am just some Internet stranger to you , just as you and nearly everyone else in here is to me. There is nothing that anyone can post in here that will effect me personally. Call me names, talk disparagingly about my heritage, tell me my mother dresses me funny...I don't care. Posting in here is simply entertainment.

So the ball is back in your court. Will it be a thoughtful response or am I just going to be an #$%^&*?


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Dave IV said:


> Will it be a thoughtful response or am I just going to be an #$%^&*?


Hey, bro. I'm not the only one who has called you out on this. You can think "it's THEM, not me" all you want, but sooner or later it might just be you.


----------



## joe99 (Nov 14, 2012)

On a summer group ride in NJ, the skies opened up and it rained for ten minutes. We continued riding. A freind of mine slipped on the metal grating of a bridge - cars skidded to stop while he went down. His helmeted head was wedged between the ground and the front tire of a car. He walked away. 
Another inch, a little more speed, the tire would have crushed him. The helmet saved him. 
Dorky, hot, ugly, uncool - safer.


----------



## Bill2 (Oct 14, 2007)

joe99 said:


> On a summer group ride in NJ, the skies opened up and it rained for ten minutes. We continued riding. A freind of mine slipped on the metal grating of a bridge - cars skidded to stop while he went down. His helmeted head was wedged between the ground and the front tire of a car. He walked away.
> Another inch, a little more speed, the tire would have crushed him. The helmet saved him.
> Dorky, hot, ugly, uncool - safer.


What's that Tea Party bumper sticker say: "Don't tread on me"


----------



## InfiniteLoop (Mar 20, 2010)

joe99 said:


> The helmet saved him.


His life? Likely not. From some abrasions or a lump on his head? Possibly. Helmets are designed to place a 'cushion' of compressible foam between your head and whatever object you contact in order to very slightly reduce the deceleration forces that could strain the jello in your head. They have extremely little structural integrity or crush strength and I don't think would provide any protection at all from a rolling vehicle tire and actually in this case, if I understand your description correctly, could prove more dangerous.


----------



## joe99 (Nov 14, 2012)

The helmet really saved him from the steel bridge roadway. His head would have been ripped up from that surface. The helmet was chewed up.


----------



## DrSmile (Jul 22, 2006)

InfiniteLoop said:


> Helmets are designed to place a 'cushion' of compressible foam between your head and whatever object you contact in order to very slightly reduce the deceleration forces that could strain the jello in your head.


Another way of looking at this is as "slightly reduced" brain damage, or "slightly reduced" death. It is in serious accidents where the helmet proves to be most effective. Your use of "slightly reduced" is also completely incorrect of course. There is no doubt of a clear effective benefit leading to reduced head injury. The press has blatantly misconstrued admissions that prior articles claiming an 85% injury reduction were flawed, as well as the admission that some rates did not decrease after helmet legislation introduction, even though the articles clearly pointed to a lack of adherence to the legislation as the cause. There are numerous new studies that prove helmet effectiveness in cycling:

Recreational helmet use as a predictor of noncranial injury. Al-Habib A. Attabib N. Hurlbert RJ. The Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery. 72(5):1356-62, 2012 May. 

"Over the 5-year period, 2,205 injuries met inclusion criteria. Cycling-related injuries were most frequent (43.5%). Alcohol consumption correlated significantly with lack of helmet use. Nonhelmeted individuals suffered significantly more noncranial injuries (85% vs. 68%, p < 0.0001) and *had twice as many severe head injuries *(Glasgow Coma Scale score <= 8) (odds ratio [OR]: 2.13, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.35-3.37) or any abnormal Glasgow Coma Scale score (OR: 1.96, 95% CI: 1.55-2.47)."

-----

Pediatric bicycle injury prevention and the effect of helmet use: the West Virginia experience. Bergenstal J. Davis SM. Sikora R. Paulson D. Whiteman C. West Virginia Medical Journal. 108(3):78-81, 2012 May-Jun. 

"The helmeted group had a concussion rate of 19.4% while concussions were noted in 37.4% of the un-helmeted group (p = 0.0509). Additionally, there was a significant difference in the rate of skull fractures seen. Skull fractures occurred in 3.2% of the helmeted and 17.4% of the un-helmeted (p = 0.0408) riders. *The rate of intra-cranial hemorrhage was 0% in helmeted riders and 17.4% in un-helmeted riders (p = 0.0079)*. Finally, perhaps the largest indicator of the effectiveness of helmets in the pediatric bicycle population is the mortality rate. While not statistically different, 100% (n = 2) of the deaths occurred in the un-helmeted group. "

-----

Bicycle helmet wearing and the risk of head, face, and neck injury: a French case--control study based on a road trauma registry. Amoros E. Chiron M. Martin JL. Thelot B. Laumon B. Injury Prevention. 18(1):27-32, 2012 Feb. 

"Over the 1998-2008 period, 13,797 cyclist casualties were identified. The injuries sustained were coded using the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) for injuries to the head (AIS1+ and AIS3+), face (AIS1+), or neck (AIS1+)... The fully adjusted ORs of helmeted versus unhelmeted cyclists are: for AIS1+ head injuries, 0.69 (95% CI 0.59 to 0.81); for AIS3+ head injuries sustained in urban areas, 0.34 (95% CI 0.15 to 0.65), those sustained in rural areas, 0.07 (95% CI 0.02 to 0.23); for AIS1+ facial injuries... CONCLUSION: This study confirms the protective effect for head and facial injuries... *The reduction of risk is greater for serious head injuries. *"

-----

Claiming a helmet is not effective at preventing head injury in cycling is blatantly lying, or cleverly misrepresenting statistical facts. Come to think of it it's usually both.


----------



## loona (Sep 28, 2012)

i have seen about 10 crashes on club and training rides. 
and each crash resulted in noticeable damage to the helmet the rider was wearing.

crash still produced blood from face and nose in most falls .

most crashes are riders following in draft and hit a rock or road debris .
(even with debris pointed out) 
and within seconds riders face, shoulder and knee is first thing that hits ground 
and glasses come flying off and tire usually pops 

off topic... i assume one day steering wheels will be removed from cars and govt gps systems will move the public around for their own safety.

probably see back-up cameras required on cars to prevent parents from being responsible enough to look before running over their kids.

or forgetting kids in hot car when in a hurry and so on.

you can't think for yourself any longer . so a tax increase-law is needed for your own safety.


----------



## Dave Cutter (Sep 26, 2012)

DrSmile said:


> .......... Claiming a helmet is not effective at preventing head injury in cycling is blatantly lying, or cleverly misrepresenting statistical facts. Come to think of it it's usually both.


Your so right! The sport of bicycling does have injuries _and some deaths_. But being sober (actually NOT drinking), cycling in a safe and careful manner, and wearing a helmet does make the sport safe enough as sports go. 

But cycling is a blood sport... never the less. Injuries... some serious, and even accidental and unexpected deaths will always be a part of cycling. Even when helmets are worn.


----------



## DrSmile (Jul 22, 2006)

Dave Cutter said:


> ... and wearing a helmet does make the sport safe enough as sports go.


I think this has also been thoroughly dis-proven. The study I listed previously (Recreational helmet use as a predictor of noncranial injury. Al-Habib A. Attabib N. Hurlbert RJ. The Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery. 72(5):1356-62, 2012 May. ) looked at "All entries in the Canadian National Trauma Registry from 2000 to 2004 and limited to injuries sustained *in recreational sports associated with helmet use.* *Cycling-related injuries were most frequent (43.5%).*

Your chances of getting hurt on a bike are higher than other sports involving helmet use. It is a statistic that is found in many studies on head injuries for children especially.


----------



## Trek2.3 (Sep 13, 2009)

It so simple. YOU do not have to wear a helmet. Ride like the wind.

What you can't do is make OTHER PEOPLE ride with you. It's their choice, not yours.

Are you too narsisstic to understand this.

I lessen my chances of having to treat you at the side of the road if you ride helmetless by yourself. That makes MY afternoon much happier. And what I care about is MY happiness, not yours.


----------



## mpre53 (Oct 25, 2011)

Elizab7eth said:


> It was fun trying to get him out of our business without causing too much of a scene.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Have a green dot, with my thanks for the chuckle. :thumbsup:


----------



## Sheepo (Nov 8, 2011)

I dont know why it is a big deal. It is your own head. 

Some clubs have insurance that wont cover helmetless riders, so expect some flack there.


----------

