Who does not wear a helmet ?

[prendrefeu]

...you need to balance that with the rate at which people don't see cyclists at all, and end up riding too close or hitting them altogether. Wouldn't a helmet be useful then too?

The "studies" that you are referencing are a bit tainted. They measured people who already spotted cyclists - so yes, if they already see the cyclist, perhaps they give more room if that cyclist does not wear a helmet, perhaps not. The point is that they spotted the cyclists in the first place. Unfortunately that does not account for the already high rate at which motorists don't spot cyclists at all.

Helmets are a measure of safety/insurance against a possible scenario. That scenario is just as likely to happen whether you choose to wear a helmet or not.

[roca rule]

the way that i see it a helmet will protect you if you land sideways at moderate speeds, it also somehow protects your face. high speed impacts are somthing else woutherland (wrong spelling) was wearing a helmet wasn't he? i have also fallen off my bike while descending @33mph and no helmet and hit head first, but somehow slid off the side and my shoulder took all the damage (torn ac); would the helmet had saved me. if a driver hits you at high speed the impact might break your neck. i do think that modern helmets need to be redisigned because today's helmets make your head be the first impact patch.

[mattiTWOROADS]

Of course there are cases that a helmet won't help one bit... and I'm sure there is one urban legend or two floating around that cites a case of the helmet causing more damage.

I think someone said it before... helmets are exactly like seat belts. Does wearing a seat belt ACTUALLY make us drive faster and more recklessly??? And as for visibility and public's perception. A. - get a bright yellow helmet if you feel you need to and B. a careless driver that would or does cause a vehicle vs. bike accident is likely going to cause said accident whether or not you're wearing your helmet.

To a degree, I agree "to each their own", but there is also the issue of health care costs here in this backasswards country I'm in and I know I'm paying a little extra for every head trauma that is more severe than it would have been with a helmet.
- social responsibility IS something to consider ... I couldn't care less about what one person wants to do to themselves or how they want to act (not that I'm saying not wearing a helmet is evil - I'm not that aggro about it), but I don't want to be dragged into it - physically or financially.

- just something else to think about when not wearing a helmet.

[astranoc]

To a degree, I agree "to each their own", but there is also the issue of health care costs here in this backasswards country I'm in and I know I'm paying a little extra for every head trauma that is more severe than it would have been with a helmet.

I think you 're taking it now in another level. Let's ban cigarettes, alcohol and mcdonalds while you are it. You don't mind paying them? Do you wear a helmet when you are coming out of a shower? Or when the footpath is icy? See? It's easy to jump from one side to the other.

As I said before, pure and simple common sense is all we need in this life.

[mattiTWOROADS]

"I think you 're taking it now in another level. Let's ban cigarettes, alcohol and mcdonalds while you are it. You don't mind paying them? Do you wear a helmet when you are coming out of a shower? Or when the footpath is icy? See? It's easy to jump from one side to the other.

As I said before, pure and simple common sense is all we need in this life."


Chill... like I said... I'm not aggro about it. It's just something to consider that really hadn't been brought up for debate yet in terms of potential indirect influence. And I DO believe it's a valid debate - and one that has certainly been raised in the case of everything you mentioned.

And besides, my point wasn't really that by you not wearing a helmet, I can't afford health insurance. My point was one of social responsibility. If something was to happen in a group ride - how are others going to react / feel / deal with the situation? Same can be said of simply riding recklessly or with improperly working equipment, etc.. All I intended to bring up is the fact that all actions can potentially affect others - directly and indirectly. So the attitude that some have of "this is what I do so deal with it" is inconsiderate, rude, and frankly narcissistic.

Frankly, I don't really give two sh!ts about whether the people I ride with wear a helmet or not. I'll help in the case of an incident either way.

I just know it saved my life so I won't get on a bike without one any more.

But I couldn't agree more that common sense is paramount - BAN McDonalds!

[roca rule]

@ matti
we should also sleep outdoors, excersise less become 100% carnivores, but that would be unhealthy too. just like aero wheels could help us ride faster, they are also harder to control on crosswinds. i find that wearing helmets have its disadvantages and the two biggest ones are (at least in hot temperatures)
1 the sweat that would naturally dry off with out a helmet tends to run into my eyes at the least expected moment, and that might cause an accident.
2 the hotter your head gets the more difficult it is to react promptly.
3 at least in the case of my helmet there is more wind turbulence noise and i need to look back more to be more aware of my surroundings which might distract me from from the road ahead, for this reason i value eye protection more than helmets.

to the people that compare helmets to safety belts are wrong. helmets are helmets.

[Miller76]

Is it better to have a gun and not need it, or to need a gun and not have it...

I hope your helmet is the one piece of kit you never need to use....

Be safe out there!!!

[mattiTWOROADS]

Roca...

?


I never said they didn't have disadvantages or that we should all ride like under 10 mph (preferably with training wheels) or that if we clip into a bike without a helmet, we'll all spontaneously burst into flames like a tibetan monk.

I'll say it again - I'm not aggro about it...

I wear a helmet ... so what.
you don't ... so what.



(and you're damned straight that if a newbie shows up to a fast tight group ride never having ridden in a group before in blustery conditions with deep wheels... I'm gonna be pissed because chances are, somethings going to happen.)

[Liggero]

defending not wearing helmet is stupid. I never wear a helmet city riding, but i live in the netherlands, we have separate bike lanes. for road or mountain bike i always wear it.

I also find that gloves are a must wear always, and it happens to me that in the rare ocassion i wore no gloves, I had a front flat and landed on my hands. Last year i had no helmet for one day and i fell on the side of the road. nothing happened to me luckyly, but you know, Murphy's Law became a Law for some reasons.

[stella-azzurra]

(and you're damned straight that if a newbie shows up to a fast tight group ride never having ridden in a group before in blustery conditions with deep wheels... I'm gonna be pissed because chances are, somethings going to happen.)

It would be surprising if the newbie was to stay with the "tight fast group ride" in the first place but if you are that paranoid ride at the front.

[Wingnut]

Helmets are a measure of safety/insurance against a possible scenario. That scenario is just as likely to happen whether you choose to wear a helmet or not.

[wath]

I wear a helmet with a yellow hat under that still makes me visible to drivers.

It's saved my face from gravel on occasion and saved my nose from pavement on another. Both were low speed accidents that weren't my fault. Shit happens that you don't plan on, though.

I look way "cooler" without it on but its not a worthwhile trade off to me. Risking my life to look less nerdy? I'll take the helmet.

[spud]

I guess I'm not surprised this turned into a spitting contest.

Fact is, the best arguments the anti helmet league can come up with are
1) they think the tradeoff of potential marginal improvement in visibility vs the added protection against a random (or other) mishap is a good one
2) civil liberty

People who argue the first are simply missing the appropriate values for the equation. The visibility angle is a theory. The decreased rate of deceleration of your head hitting the pavement while wearing a helmet is a fact. Hit your head hard with a helmet on and you may be screwed. Hit your head hard without a helmet on, and you are definitely screwed. Ask an ER doctor.

People who argue the second have other axes to grind

[Rodrego Hernandez]

I wear a helmet as it prevents bear attacks.

[BobSantini]

Helmet saved me once. I'm a believer.

It's odd how the civil liberties crew get so motivated to argue heatedly against such a trivial impost. I'm talking about mandatory helmet rules. They make arguments that range from assertions that you are safer without them to the rather esoteric argument claiming that the dork factor of helmet wearing keeps kids out of cycling thus lowering the number of cyclists thus increasing the mean hazard from drivers. The argument is that once you have a critical mass of cyclists they become an accepted part of the driving milieu and are treated civilly rather than as pests. It's not without an element of truth but its hardly sporting to put peoples lives on the line to achieve that critical mass and even then there will still be occasions when a helmet can save your life. IMHO they are wrong.