just curious, how many of u pps dont wear helmets

riddle me this

do you want people to indicate if they do wear a helmet as well?

me

me :(

sometimes. i have a complex system of rationalizations that determines whether or not i wear one.

^^^^
this

i wear one all the time (that i'm on my bike, that is). i would rather look like a dork than have someone change my adult diapers.

i would wear one all the time if i was in chicago.

(see previous post)

i wear one all the time (that i'm on my bike, that is). i would rather look like a dork than have someone change my adult diapers.

This, basically. I also would rather avoid having my wife have to spend the rest of her life feeding and washing me.

Plus a friend's brother had a closed head injury biking with no helmet, ended up causing her no small amount of stress as he lost all ability to hold a job and make any sort of rational decisions, to the point that he died doing something really stupid. Seeing her during month that he was missing before his body washed up on shore pretty much cemented the "wear a fucking helmet" concept.

why not just not ride a bike at all - u can still die or get yr brain hurt w/a helmet u know

ok maybe i won't leave the house at all.

yeah being in chicago, i just don't feel like MASSIVE (or even minor) HEAD INJURY is a chance i'm willing to take. there is no way i could afford the medical bills if i were to get hit and seriously injured. that would mean losing my job, going into massive debt...i'll take whatever precautions i can take to avoid that scenario.

"i'll take whatever precautions a precaution i can take to avoid that scenario."

so what is your point
even if it's not perfect, that's no reason not to wear one
sanity over vanity!

im taking issue w/the overheated tone and faulty logic of all such adult diapers and friends brother posts

you are still absolutely taking those same risks - just at a somewhat decreased rate

why dont u wear one jsghohbl

u 2 kewl 4 a helmet?

yah obv

ur mane billowin' in tha wind like the golden fleece of yore ;_;

who cares about my faulty logic and overheated tone
i am a dork in a helmet

one year i did wear one for a while until i left it somewhere - tho its somewhat academic since i dont really ride my bike too much anymore - i used to ride it everywhere :(

YOU GONNA DIE, JO!

hay hay hay slow down - i will never die

we're all gonna die eventually
i would just rather not go out like that

yah but what if yr only two options were to go out like that or eaten alive by army ants

I know you can still die in tons of other ways when biking, but given broken limbs or abrasions versus head injuries, why not? It really doesn't bother me to do so, and it's like wearing a seatbelt in a car for me now - it feels weird not to wear one.

we should talk abt ghost bikes - do they have those other place besides nyc - sends a chill down a dudes spine for sure

drain bamaged dude. wear you helmet.

fortunately, we have so many more options for going out that i don't think i will be forced to make that exciting and difficult choice

i see a ghost bike every tues/thurs on my way home from work. it was a little girl.

one of these on a route i take in highlands ranch. dont know if its still there.

ghost bikes alllllll over chicago :-/

haven't seen any in mpls, tho.

i wear a helmet all the time, pretty much, but i *forgot* one the other day and riding without it was glorious. but jhshoeaha is right, basically---the big difference between you and a feeding tube is getting hit, not what you're wearing on your head. that being said, i've witnessed one accident that ended in a cracked helmet that would have otherwise been an open head injury, and had a friend go to the hospital with a cracked skull because he was w/o helmet.

I've seen a ghost bike in D.C. and I'm sure it's done in west coast cities like portland/sf/seattle. Sucks.

I wear a helmet for all the reasons stated. I have no illusions that it makes me safe, but anything to mitigate the risk is a good thing. I also wear a truly dorky fluorescent yellow safety vest. Hopefully if cars can see me, I'll never have to use my helmet (although I've fallen on my ass several times without the involvement of any cars)

I don't wear a helmet on principle. Haven't done since I was 16.

I don't wear a helmet. It's a style issue.

i should wear one but i don't ¯\(º_o)/¯

I wear a helmet. I'd feel so dumb if i fell off and hit my head riding without one, and even if they're not designed for high speeds I still reckon I'd be a lot better off.

What principle, caek?

the principle is you can't tell him what to do. you're not his dad.

It's a damn good principle too. "Fuck you, I won't tidy my bedroom!"

That's the principle by which I get angry when people tell me to wear one, but I'm prefectly happy to explain it when people ask me why.

If you're in an accident then no question, you'd rather be wearing a helmet. But I think (and slightly dubious sciece backs me up here) that helmet use by cyclists as a group increases the number of accidents cyclists are involved in.

I think we've been through this elsewhere though.

plz explain the science behind that so i can continue putting off buying a helmet

Theory goes thus: helmet laws/social pressure to wear helmets reduces the number of cyclists on the road, which makes drivers less used to them, which makes the cyclists more vulnerable. http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/321/7276/1582

Also this http://www.bath.ac.uk/news/articles/archive/overtaking110906.html (although that kind of accident, which is many inexperienced cyclist's greatest fear, is actually extremely rare)

LOL @ walking helmet

caek, the Bath guy's study is so massively unscientific in its nature (there's no mention of how far from the kerb the dude was, as well as being carried out by someone with an agenda, as well as being a massively small sample size (er, 1), that it can be effectively ignored.

the Bath guy's study is so massively unscientific in its nature

of course it is, he's a psychologist :)

seriously: as a non-cyclist, i find this debate oddly fascinating. but i'm wary of getting into cycle-related arguments with mark, of course ;)

(nb for the hard of thinking: psychologist comment is self-deprecating joke at my expense, natch.)

I agree that the Bath study is an anecdote, not some data.

I'm still not wearing a helmet though.

I've said it before but i'm pretty sure I'd be a vegetable/dead if I hadn't worn a helmet when i was hit three years ago.
Landed on the back of my head about 5 or 6 metres from the impact, back of the helmet completely destroyed.

Still got that helmet somewhere I think. I'll try to track it down and post pix.

I remember the actual impact and flying through the air, but not landing on the ground.

so i always wear a helmet yes

broken helmets are good illustrations of the wisdom of wearing a helmet. The helmet broke, ergo the skull did not.

The efficacy of helmets have been called into question by some, which seems a little silly to me. Yes, they don't protect the head in all types of accidents, and perhaps they give the rider a false sense of security. Nonetheless, it's pretty hard to come up with some kind of logical/rational argument against helmet wearing. If I didn't wear a helmet, I'd simply say, "I don't want to wear one, so I don't." That's a perfectly reasonable position to take.

>>>broken helmets are good illustrations of the wisdom of wearing a helmet. The helmet broke, ergo the skull did not.

yeah that's what I was getting at.

If I didn't wear a helmet, I'd simply say, "I don't want to wear one, so I don't."

Glad we got that one settled.

If I'm in an accident, I'd rather be wearing one than not. Sure. (Although there's a relatively limited range of scenarios in which they are much use.)

What I'm saying is that by wearing helmets as a group, cyclists increase the number of accidents involving cyclists.

Yeah I think I read something along the same lines a few years ago maybe??

I think the article or whatever it was used the Netherlands as proof, they had lower bike accidents etc

Probably me ranting when this board first started : )

lol maybe, but I thought it was a whiles ago tho

yah, the study I always cite is that slightly cranky BMJ one I linked to upthread

not so much against wearing one but i haven't done so since i learned to ride at age 7 or whatever it was. just sold my p.o.s. and got a new bike so i'll be on the road more often. wilter's helmet pic might convince me. i've had some pretty idiotic close calls recently due to recklessnes on my part (including one with a light rail train)

Wow who would have thought there'd be bravado on one of these threads?

I wear one, I've seen too many ppl crash into trees, rocks, gullies, and cars not to.

A lot of it is a cultural difference. No one wears a helmet in Europe. That's not bravado.

when youve seen so much it changes yr definition of bravado FOREVER

I think the reason is that you guys have never fought total war on your continent.

yeah the only helmets over here have SPIKES on them

i fight total war every day

http://i33.tinypic.com/2uij3a9.jpg

it turns out it doesn't look that bad..

The missing bit was kind of dangling off after it happened.

how about a helmet for my taint

peeps in east asia don't use helmets much either, but they've also experienced total war, so your theory still stands. we had the civil war but bikes hadn't been invented yet, so it doesn't count for much.

You can find some pretty gnarly pictures of helmet breaks on biking message boards. I've seen helmets split into four and such, with the guy having not-too-serious injuries.

lol get into the lycra

xp

I reckon I could have survived wilter's picture

well wilter survived wilter's picture (thankfully).

there's a smaller chunk taken out of the other side too.

another reason I survived is that I was luckily bounced away from the car (got scars from the grill of the car on my left leg still) rather than falling down under it.

the only time i have been straight hit by a car i was not wearing a helmet

and now i am learning science so i figure i'm ok

when youve seen so much it changes yr definition of bravado FOREVER

No, it's basically still foolhardy attitudes like "why not just not ride a bike at all - u can still die or get yr brain hurt w/a helmet u know".

dan "understanding context" m

I wear one, but then I'm the kind of person who can't feel comfortable even in a parked car unless I'm wearing my seatbelt.

xp wtfever dude, you admitted you don't ride a bike so you're pretty much just trolling

uh i said i dont ride my bike that much anymore - but that i used to ride it all the time - ive definitely rode thousands of miles w/o a helmet

A couple of recent blogposts (warning: one of these features the helmet-with-long-hair guy) that make up my feelings on the subject:
http://www.copenhagenize.com/2008/08/helmets-clever-dutch-and-arrogant-danes.html <copenhagenize.com is a really interesting blog on cycling, not just in Copenhagen, mainly on encouraging cycling in cities. Copenhagen's well ahead of most cities in this, but it's quite a recent development (less than 30 years)
http://www.howwedrive.com/2008/10/01/to-wear-or-not-to-wear-and-is-that-even-the-right-question-ian-walker-on-cycle-helmets/ I've just got this book, looks interesting.

another reason I survived is that I was luckily bounced away from the car (got scars from the grill of the car on my left leg still) rather than falling down under it.

― wilter,

If you had fallen under the car the helmet wouldn't make hardly any difference. Another example, in London a lot of cycling fatalities are caused by cyclists getting crushed by wagons turning left.

lol url clever-dutch-and-arrogant-danes.html

"At lower speeds it is impossible to crash and hit your head."

well, from now its 10kph or less always. it'll take 3 hrs to get to work, but i really dont want to wear a helmet.

Children under 14 are not at all at risk of head injury on bikes, so there is no need for them to wear one.

o_O

I didn't realize there was such animosity between helmet wearers and non-wearers. I usually don't wear mine becaue I'm young and invincible, but I don't resent those who have the foresight and discipline to do so.

feels like when i do wear my helmet, car drivers do pass closer and/or are more agressive, as if i'm actually protected by a magic suit that will somehow save me from injury
maybe there is more humanity to relate to in the non-helmeted cyclist
so yeah, i am currently all fuck-it abt helmets on my particular head when city riding

i live in canada's europe tho

I'm with NasenFlutin', in that I don't wear one, as said above, but I certainly don't begrudge anyone else wearing one and am happy whichever way others decide to go on the helmet issue, just as long as they don't hassle me about my choice.

i'd rather someone ride a bike helmetless a few blocks than drive the same distance

i wear one most of the time, and usually take it off for the last quarter mile or so of my rides - just to feel that cool wind-a-blowin' thru my hair. but i think i read somewhere that car drivers have no less reason for wearing helmets than cyclists, but because cycling is perceived as the more dangerous activity, helmet laws get passed for bikes, not cars. (sorry, don't remember the source, or the data it relied on).

lol thatd be awesome if people in cars had to wear helmets

http://www.tampabays10.com/pub/safer_tampabay/bicycle-helmet-proper-usage.jpg

are there actually helmet laws for BICYCLES anywhere? that'd be dumb.

once my front wheel flew out of its fork and i went straight down, right on my head - went via ambulance to port chester hospital. since then - always a helmet. the lovely emma B refuses to wear one - even here in london!

xp lots! http://www.iihs.org/laws/HelmetUseCurrent.aspx

I think this is the most studied one: http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/roadsafety/bicycles/

There's an article in September 2008's Pediatrics Trends in Pediatric and Adult Bicycling Deaths Before and After Passage of a Bicycle Helmet Law, gah it's easier just to paste the headings here:

OBJECTIVES. The goals were to examine bicycle-related mortality rates in Ontario, Canada, from 1991 to 2002 among bicyclists 1 to 15 years of age and 16 years of age through adulthood and to determine the effect of legislation (introduced in October 1995 for bicyclists <18 years of age) on mortality rates.

METHODS. The average numbers of deaths per year and mortality rates per 100000 person-years for the prelegislation and postlegislation periods, and the percentage changes, were calculated for each of the 2 age groups (1–15 years and ≥16 years). Differences before and after legislation in the 2 age groups were modeled in a time series analysis.

RESULTS. There were 362 bicycle-related deaths in the 12-year period (1–15 years: 107 deaths; ≥16 years: 255 deaths). For bicyclists 1 to 15 years of age, the average number of deaths per year decreased 52%, the mortality rate per 100000 person-years decreased 55%, and the time series analysis demonstrated a significant reduction in deaths after legislation. The estimated change in the number of deaths per month was –0.59 deaths per month. For bicyclists ≥16 years of age, there were only slight changes in the average number of deaths per year and the mortality rate per 100000 person-years, and the time series analysis demonstrated no significant change in deaths after legislation.

CONCLUSIONS. The bicycle-related mortality rate in children 1 to 15 years of age has decreased significantly, which may be attributable in part to helmet legislation. A similar reduction for bicyclists 16 years of age through adulthood was not identified. These findings support promotion of helmet use, enforcement of the existing law, and extension of the law to adult bicyclists.

Australia has mandatory cycle helmet wearing, which when introduced saw a massive decrease in cycle usage, although this Pediatrics article 'did not identify a systematic reduction in children's rates of bicycling (cyclists per hour)'.

Also this: http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/12/4/231?ijkey=57501d4bab44ff0d4d4f6c5d82a7c1a12b72b8bf&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha

you get fined for not wearing a helmet in new zealand

x-post, it was too busy telling me off for bad BBcode to tell me about caek's posts.

For bicyclists 1 to 15 years of age, the average number of deaths per year decreased 52%, the mortality rate per 100000 person-years decreased 55%, and the time series analysis demonstrated a significant reduction in deaths after legislation.

Does the study address what happened to the number of cyclists? The core of the anti- argument is that of course helmets reduce the number of deaths, because they reduce the number of cyclists.

http://www.sha.state.md.us/exploremd/bicyclists/oppe/bikehelmet.asp

^ 4 tha kidz

sorry caek, my wording's a bit unclear there. That report says they 'did not identify a systematic reduction in children's rates of bicycling (cyclists per hour)', but I'm not going to read through the whole article now to work it out properly.

Does the study address what happened to the number of cyclists? The core of the anti- argument is that of course helmets reduce the number of deaths, because they reduce the number of cyclists.

― caek, Friday, October 17, 2008 11:01 AM (37 minutes ago) [IP: 163.1.74.1] Bookmark

well, it says mortality *rate* went down in addition to average number of deaths. however, it only seemed significant for kiddos.

also, caek: I wasn't thinking of kids when I asked about legislation, i guess. you'll notice there are no laws saying that adults ought to wear helmets, and it should probably stay that way.

well, it says mortality *rate* went down in addition to average number of deaths. however, it only seemed significant for kiddos.

I think by "rate" they mean total deaths per year, rather than deaths per 100,000 cyclists or whatever.

But in their defence, isn't the point of the study that the deaths for adults did not fall because the helmet law only applied to kids?

bocken, could you give me a full reference for this paper?

this is all about riding on road and in traffic. would anyone here cycle off-road, grr mtb hardcore xtreem style, without a helmet?

i should wear one but i am a total fashion plate so i don't

http://www.threeriverskiwanis.org/images/prog-bike-helmet-wrong.gif

feels like when i do wear my helmet, car drivers do pass closer and/or are more agressive, as if i'm actually protected by a magic suit that will somehow save me from injury
maybe there is more humanity to relate to in the non-helmeted cyclist
so yeah, i am currently all fuck-it abt helmets on my particular head when city riding

― terminator boyfriend (rrrobyn), Tuesday, October 14, 2008 2:04 PM (3 days ago)

i think someone did a study on this that i can't find now, that did suggest drivers drove closer to you when you're wearing a helmet. also that they ride further away from women on bikes and closer to men.

that study is discussed upthread

sry i read too fast :(

there are no laws saying that adults ought to wear helmets, and it should probably stay that way.

why? because helmets give off "hurt me" vibes? come on.

caek: PEDIATRICS Vol. 122 No. 3 September 2008, pp. 605-610 Trends in Pediatric and Adult Bicycling Deaths Before and After Passage of a Bicycle Helmet Law. Wesson et al

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/122/3/605

OK. "rate" here is deaths per 100,000 members of the population, not per 100,000 cyclists, so this study doesn't specifically address the effect of helmet legislation on amount of cycling.

But they do say:

It has been postulated that there may be an association between helmet legislation and reductions in bicycling.39–40 Such an association might lead to an apparent reduction in bicycling-related injury and mortality rates. We examined data from our longitudinal observation survey in one urban community in Ontario (in 1993–1997, 1999, and 2001) and did not identify a systematic reduction in children's rates of bicycling (cyclists per hour).14,15 In the same urban community, helmet use increased from 3.4% in 19908 to 45% in 1995 before legislation, exceeded 65% in the 2 years after the introduction of legislation,13 and reached 85% in high-income areas 6 years after the introduction of legislation.14

And reference 15 says:

One potential explanation for a decrease in head injury after helmet legislation is that children are cycling less. A time series study in Victoria, Australia, reported such a reduction in cycling after the introduction of mandatory helmet legislation.18 Another similar study, conducted in 1 health district in Canada, found no reduction in cycling postlegislation.19 To control for this, we compared the ratio of head injuries with other injuries in legislation and no-legislation provinces. If the number of bicycling children declined during the study period, then the number of children with head injuries and other related injuries should decline in a similar manner. Our study found that legislation was associated with a reduction in head injuries but not in other bicycling-related injuries. Therefore, the significant protective effect of helmet legislation on bicycle-related head injuries shown in our study was not likely because of a reduction in bicycling by children.

and reference 14:

Results—Although the number of child cyclists per hour was significantly different in different years, these differences could not be attributed to legislation. In 1996, the year after legislation came into effect, average cycling levels were higher (6.84 cyclists per hour) than in 1995, the year before legislation (4.33 cyclists per hour).

Conclusion—Contrary to the findings in Australia, the introduction of helmet legislation did not have a significant negative impact on child cycling in this community.

This is for children only, by the way. The Australian study is for all cyclists. It sounds plausible to me that adults, who have more alternative methods of transport available to them, would be more sensitive to laws like this.

why? because helmets give off "hurt me" vibes? come on.

― Tracer Hand, Saturday, October 18, 2008 7:54 PM (Yesterday) [IP: 10.152.158.5] Bookmark

wha? no, because that adults ought to be able to decide whether or not they want to wear a helmet. it's not like the risks of not wearing a helmet are mysterious or anything. if someone doesn't want to wear one, that's fine, there shouldn't be a law against that.

that

Is there a distinction between mandatory helmet laws for bicycles and motorbikes? Helmet laws for motorbikes seems like a no-brainer (haha) to me, but I wouldn't support mandatory helmet laws for adult cyclists.

I think most people would like to increase the number of people who cycle, so laws that do the opposite must be for very good reason. There is no social incentive to increase the number of motorcyclists. It doesn't improve public health or quality of life in the same way. Also, motorbikes can do like 180mph.