Helmetless bicyclists.

[Ladibug]

Can anyone explain this to me? I'm not trying to be preachy. I believe people should be able to do what they want. (although, I still think biking without a helmet is pretty stupid. I had my own viscious bike accident and I kissed my helmet 'cause it saved my life)

Why are there so many people riding around without them? Why does it seem like a high percentage of them are hipster kids or bike messengers? Is it just cooler to wear a little bike hat and take your chances? I just don't get it.

[ParanoidDepression]

it has something to do with confidence in your ability to ride. If you feel really skilled on your bike the chances for crashing are slim.

The other day I was fucking around on my brothers BMX bike, tried popping a wheelie and flipped over really fast. I still managed to avoid touching my head to the ground just becuase I was consciuos of not getting hurt. Helmets help but what fun is life if there isn't an element of danger?

[Ladibug]

What if you get hit by a car? I mean, even the most skilled cyclists still get crunched now and then. Skill or not, you can't always avoid that.

I guess I'm not meant to get it. Thank you for clearing it up a little though.

[Gomezticator]

It's a matter of perspective. You've been taught: helmet good, no helmet bad.

Bike helmets are a VERY recent phenomenon, and the statistics used to cite their record of safety haven't been fully investigated nor has anyone really tried to verify that it's all true. And most of those studies are funded by, SURPRISE, the companies that produce bike helmets. I need to dig them up, but there are reports from other research that show the amount of protection from a bike helmet is surprisingly minimal. Even if that's absolutely wrong, look at common sense: I mean, if a car hits you, it a fucking 3000 pound car moving pretty quickly, hitting your puny ass and your puny ass bike. Even with a helmet on, your head will hit the ground at a high speed and come to a sudden, complete stop. The internal brain damage is still going to happen even if a helmet protects the top of your head from direct impact. The ONLY thing a bike helmet protects you from is a direct blow to the top of your head.

All of that 'protection' so you can look like a fool and become a bigger target for surly motorists. I got harrassed far more when I wore my helmet than when I didn't, and I rode for years.

Also, and this is from a friend of mine who was a cop, and trained as a bike cop: if you drop most helmets, just once, and it hits the ground, anywhere, for any reason, the impact decalibrates the helmet and it is useless. If you get hit in a crash, it will offer no protection. So if you dropped your $30 helmet, you need to throw it away and buy another $30 helmet.

Thus by your logic, we need to ride bikes in padded suits.

[bobsyouruncle]

So if you dropped your $30 helmet, you need to throw it away and buy another $30 helmet.


...and the contents of your head aren't worth $60 to you?

I disagree with the no-helmet folks on so many counts it's hard to know where to start.

First off, I "decommissioned" a bike helmet last weekend by hitting it repeatedly with a hammer - the flat end of a claw hammer to be precise. The helmet was six years old and had been in one low-speed wreck, so I assumed its protection was compromised and wanted to make sure that no one would take it out of the trash and try to use it. To be honest, I also wanted to see how sturdy they are.

And let me tell you, bike helmets take a licking and keep on ticking. It took four or five full-force smacks before the styrofoam cracked all the way through, and I got tired of hitting it before I could make it actually come to pieces. If I was ever going to hit the pavement head-first, I'd much rather have a helmet - even one that was at less than full strength - than go in bareheaded.

Here's the thing: no matter how good you are at riding a bike, you can't beat physics and you can't beat the law of averages. More to the point, you can be as careful as you want, but you can't control the asshats in cars and they can be surprising clever about taking you by surprise.

If you put in enough miles, someday you'll go down, and if you crash enough times, eventually you'll hit your head. When that happens, I want to be wearing a helmet. I'd be surprised if any of the no-helmet folks felt differently - you just disagree on the inevitability of a head-first fall.

That's pretty much the "it won't happen to me" argument that teenagers use to justify risky behavior like unprotected sex, flirting with alcohol poisoning, and reckless driving. Most people come to understand the fallacy of this attitude as they get older. You are not an individual fucking snowflake, to mis-quote Fight Club.

I've ridden a fair amount - I tour whenever I can, and I've ridden in hazardous places like Bangkok, Hanoi, Chinese turnpikes and Seattle. I'm as careful as I can be and in my life I've had just two wrecks in which I hit my head (one unavoidable, one because I admittedly f****ed up). I walked away from both (rode away, in fact) and I figure I saved at least one concussion/trip to an ER. Totally worth it, and Gomezticator, I can pretty much guarantee that if you ever do fall and smack your melon, you'll wish you had a helmet too.

My long-winded two cents.

And Gomezticator, though I have a pretty good idea of what you meant to say and admire your neologism, "decalibrate" is not, technically, a word.

[Ladibug]

"The ONLY thing a bike helmet protects you from is a direct blow to the top of your head"

I disagree. Firmly. During my bike accident, I was going downhill at 25 mph, I hit my head squarely on the side, right above the temple (which I believe is the most dangerous spot). I ended up with a concussion, road rash, and a pretty sprained shoulder. When they looked at my helmet in the emergency room there was a crack right where it impacted. If I hadn't been wearing the helmet, my head would have probably cracked right there.

Helmets are designed to take one crash. Mine did exactly what it was supposed to do. I paid $25 for mine and I happily plunked down another $50 for one ('cause I wanted a cuter one). Given that I've been biking for about 10 years (this includes commuting through downtown almost every day, countless triathlons and races, AND biking through Tokyo and several other international cities) and I've had one crash, I'm pretty happy about the $75 I've spent.

No matter how "skilled" you are, you're going to go down eventually, and everyone's going to think you're pretty stupid for not wearing a helmet. They're not going to be thinking about how "skilled" you are.

I'd rather look stupid with my helmet on now than be drooling and using my chin to power my wheelchair.

[Gomezticator]

I disagree. Firmly. During my bike accident, I was going downhill at 25 mph, I hit my head squarely on the side, right above the temple (which I believe is the most dangerous spot). I ended up with a concussion, road rash, and a pretty sprained shoulder. When they looked at my helmet in the emergency room there was a crack right where it impacted. If I hadn't been wearing the helmet, my head would have probably cracked right there.


Why the hell were you going downhill at 25 mph? Either squeeze the brakes or walk it down if the hill's that steep, especially if you're on a road with cars. Yikes, that's seriously dangerous. Slow down. I don't go nearly that fast, ever.

Maybe it's not the helmet but the dangerous and excessively fast riding of most bicyclists that's the issue. I see many bicyclists just fly down the road without any regard to their surroundings. No wonder you guys feel you need helmets. You know how some cops will look at a speeder during a traffic stop and tell them, "Slow down. This isn't NASCAR." Well, slow down: you're not Lance Armstrong and the streets of Seattle are not the Tour De France. I'd rather look stupid cautiously putt-putting along at 6-10 mph than go three times as fast and end up all broken on the concrete like yourself. Plus, notice how the helmet didn't protect the rest of you. If somebody had t-boned you while you're going 25 mph, or you turned wrong and hit a pole or something, you would have ended up in a wheelchair, helmet or no helmet.

Since you're at a loss, I'll share the lack of perspective and say I find it strange as to how our society went decades with bicycles but without bicycle helmets and didn't see a significant number of head injuries, then suddenly everyone feels that they MUST wear a helmet or they'll die. I mean, it's not like football where you're constantly getting hit in the head. It's not even like motorcycling, where you're traveling 35-60 mph and you definitely need whatever protection you can slap on.

Oh, and Bob, 'decalibrate' was the term my colleague used. He probably threw it out there because the actual term used slipped his mind.

[bobsyouruncle]

Gotta laugh - here I was thinking that I'm the cautious one and Gomezticator is the foolhardy loon, and in fact it's the other way around.

Yeah, I ride as fast as I can most of the time. If I'm riding in city streets with cars, I'd rather keep up with them than force them to pass me. I like racing city buses, and if there are enough stops, I can usually beat them. If you don't feel like puking when you get to where you're going, where's the fun?

"It's not even like motorcycling, where you're traveling 35-60 mph and you definitely need whatever protection you can slap on."

I'd have to disagree with you there. Hitting 35 on my bike on a steepish downhill is an everyday thing, and with a tuck and hammering on the pedals, I max out somewhere between 40 and 45 (depends on what I ate for lunch - burritos apparently increase the pull of gravity quite a lot).

Anyway, I don't think that traveling 6-10 mph makes you all that much safer from getting hit by a car, though it certainly does reduce the potential harm from collision with a stationary object. And if, as you say, "I'd rather look stupid cautiously putt-putting along at 6-10 mph than go three times as fast and end up all broken," then why did the dork factor of wearing a helmut put you off? ("All of that 'protection' so you can look like a fool")

Actually, debating the hazards of riding a bike with helmet and in a law abiding fashion is kind of giggle-inducing because I've found a hobby far more nutso than bike commuting at medium-high rates of speed. This summer I took up downhill skateboarding...if you think 35 on a bike is dangerous, you should try it on a longboard :eek: I put on knee, elbow, and wrist guards AND a helmet before I'll even pick up the damn thing.

Anyway, I still think there will come a day when even at your cautious 6-10 mph you'll wish you were wearing a helmet. And as for me, I'm in the market for motocross gear to wear while longboarding, so your comment really wasn't that far off the mark. "Thus by your logic, we need to ride bikes in padded suits."

[Ladibug]

I was in a BIKE RACE. The point being to go as fast as you possible can. 25 mph was actually holding back. dumbass

[Gomezticator]

Splendid, ladibug. If I was in a bike race, obviously I'd wear a helmet, because riding at that speed, yes, you should be wearing a helmet.

But I don't do bike races and neither do most people. However, some people still feel they need to ride like they're in one, even when they're on the streets. I maintain that that's the danger, and not a lack of oversized head protection. How many injury accidents are a product of careless riding or not watching for oncoming traffic?

Both commenters below have one thing in common that's causing the point I'm making to fly over their heads like so much scenery on their bikes: their speed. Granted, ladibug, you compete in races, and I agree that racing bicyclists must wear a helmet given their high speeds. In fact, if you're going to go daredevil-fast, you should wear a helmet. The rest of us who are putting along are probably in not much more danger than pedestrians as long as we watch for traffic.

I'll stick to the sidewalks in heavy traffic and go slow, because I don't want to clip pedestrians. I'll use whatever trails available to bypass traffic as much as possible. I won't go too fast (and no, Bob, cruising on your bike doesn't make you a lightning rod for motorists the way wearing a bright blue dome on your head does). You want to call me a pussy? Great. Real stand up on your part. I also don't get into accidents. Maybe it's my caution that leads me to feel I don't need a helmet. Maybe, on the flip side, it's wearing a helmet that encourages more bicyclists to throw caution to the wind.

Back to the point originally posed: If you feel you need to wear a helmet, fine. But understand that it's a choice mandated by the choices you make (your high speeds), and some of us who don't do so certainly have our reasons.

[lostboy]

...I find it strange as to how our society went decades with bicycles but without bicycle helmets and didn't see a significant number of head injuries...
Really? (http://www.highwaysafety.org/research/fatality_facts/bicycles.html)

My 5-minute Google didn't produce a stand-alone reference directly and solidly refuting your assertion, but it certainly didn't turn up any support for it, either.

How about this hypothesis: We went decades with bicycles but without widespread availability of computers for public health statistical analysis and the corresponding public availability of data before people noticed that bicyclist head injuries were a major problem and bicycle helmets starting getting popular. Support or refute?

Both commenters below have one thing in common that's causing the point I'm making to fly over their heads like so much scenery on their bikes: their speed.
It seemed to me that bobsyouruncle not only got the point but rebutted it by pointing out the apparent discrepancy between your offense at the dork factor of wearing a helmet but not at the dork factor of riding a bicycle barely above walking speeds, defeating half the purpose of using a bicycle.

That said, I'm usually a fan of your blunt but articulate posts, and I appreciate the opportunity to engage you here.

[Gomezticator]

Thanks, lostboy. Some points....

Walking speed is about 3 mph, and that's if you're walking briskly. Going 6-10 mph on a bicycle may seem pointless: you could just run, right? What's wrong with running 4-6 miles to work every day? Certainly, you could if you're in good shape. But running is much more difficult and exhausting than riding a bike. Riding 4-6 miles at 6-10 mph is much easier and more practical than running 4-6 miles at the same speed.

Also, a car can go up to 120 mph. Many can go faster. That doesn't mean it's safe or a good idea to go that fast. Do we find it silly if a car goes 20-25 mph, even though that's rather slow for a car? Do we decry driving a car that slowly when you could ride a bicycle that fast instead? I'd think not.

It may be putt-putt slow compared to how fast you can go, but it's still rather effective.

How about this hypothesis: We went decades with bicycles but without widespread availability of computers for public health statistical analysis and the corresponding public availability of data before people noticed that bicyclist head injuries were a major problem and bicycle helmets starting getting popular. Support or refute?

Could be. We may never know, though one point to consider is the reactionary nature of society. If there was a rash of bicycle injuries and deaths, would that have not prompted action back in the 50's and 60's? It's worth researching further.

This is worth looking into further. Good stuff you found. Some thoughts and questions to ask in light of this data....

How many accidents did helmet wearers survive? The totals here are only for deaths. Is there a significant spike in accidents survived by helmet wearers? ALSO, is there a significant spike in accidents, period?

Also, I notice how the helmet totals exclude an estimate of the total number of riders on the streets. Has that total declined in the last ten years? Could that better explain the decline in deaths over the last ten years? How many riders wear helmets and how many do not?

MANY of the deaths pre-90's were teenagers. That number went down sharply. Notice how the number of adult deaths have risen. Maybe the decline in deaths comes due to a possible declining popularity in bicycling among teenagers.

Another hypothesis is that decades back, many didn't ride bicycles at the speeds we ride them today. They probably rode as fast I did, rather than what we see on trails and streets today, with so many people trying to be Lance Armstrong. Are the faster speeds increasing the number of accidents?

[bobsyouruncle]

I'll stick to the sidewalks in heavy traffic

That's actually illegal where I live now (Portland, OR). By law, cyclists have the same rights and responsibilities as motor vehicles, and if you're riding in the street, you're much safer keeping up with traffic in the middle of the lane than you are hugging the shoulder as cars fly by.



Since you're at a loss, I'll share the lack of perspective and say I find it strange as to how our society went decades with bicycles but without bicycle helmets and didn't see a significant number of head injuries, then suddenly everyone feels that they MUST wear a helmet or they'll die.


And I have to call shenanigans on this. Our society also went decades with cars but without seatbelts, and then decades more without seatbelt laws. Shit, we ate fatty food for _centuries_ before making any attempt to control our cholesterol intake.

I think you can chalk up the recent trend towards wearing helmets to an increasing social awareness of public health risks, not a conspiracy by helmet manufacturers.

[Jimmy Flame]

Ummmm... Maybe I don't care if a car hits me and I'm not wearing a helmet. But then again, thats just me.

[Gaines]

Cross the border into Idaho stupid not even motorcyclists where helmets there. GO FREEDOM! BOO GOVERNMENT CONTROL!

[mjcrites]

The #1 cause of preventable tramatic brain injury in children is from bicycle accidents where the child wasn't wearing a helmet.

Um... tramatic brain injury is increasing...

[Gomezticator]

That's actually illegal where I live now (Portland, OR). By law, cyclists have the same rights and responsibilities as motor vehicles, and if you're riding in the street, you're much safer keeping up with traffic in the middle of the lane than you are hugging the shoulder as cars fly by.

So why should it be illegal? And why, as you infer, would that make riding on the sidewalk morally or inherently wrong? If I'm going slow, watching for and respecting foot traffic, it should pose far less danger for everyone than trying to ride with 3000 pound death traps. Why is having the rights of a motor vehicle, rather than creating a unique set of rights, SO important to diehard bicyclists?

And I have to call shenanigans on this. Our society also went decades with cars but without seatbelts, and then decades more without seatbelt laws. Shit, we ate fatty food for _centuries_ before making any attempt to control our cholesterol intake.

I think you can chalk up the recent trend towards wearing helmets to an increasing social awareness of public health risks, not a conspiracy by helmet manufacturers.

Citing cars is a different context, as again, they're 3000 pound death traps that can go very, very fast. The danger that necessitates seat belts is the high speed at which the passengers and driver travel, and the damage that coming to a dead halt from 30-60 mph can do to a human being. Most auto deaths today are from people thrown from their car at high speeds (like 45-70 mph high) because they weren't wearing a seat belt.

Bicycles... again, at high speeds and while racing, yes, wear a helmet. Absolutely. But if you're gonna cite a danger for someone riding slowly with or alongside traffic of getting hit by a vehicle to justify the necessitation of helmets... then we may as well necessitate helmets for pedestrians, as they cross streets and expose themselves to that same traffic and danger as well.

I think there is a danger... for some people. If you're ride recklessly without a helmet, you facilitate your own danger. Know your intentions and plan accordingly. Using your personal intentions as an excuse to mandate mandatory laws for everyone is as petty as, say, passing a blanket statewide smoking ban.

And yes, it's a good idea for children to wear helmets, as their physical makeup is smaller and relatively sensitive.

[nae4blue]

I would be slightly more interested in the safety of my neck than my skull... both are probably body parts where "if you wreck it, you're fucked."

but I know a kid who died falling down stairs and landing on his neck. I can imagine some sort of meet joe black car smashing bike fiasco where the rider flies in the air and lands on his helmet... but snaps his neck... lotta good that helmet did.