Full disclosure: I haven't been a big bike rider in a few years and when I was it was mountain biking and I did wear a helmet, mostly because I wasn't very good :)
But snide comments about the perceived moral superiority aired by the helmet proponents, as long as there isn't a law that you must wear a helmet (only 17 and under are required, correct?), what is the downside of wearing one? I am sure both sides could show lies, damn lies, and statistics to back up the view that helmets help/don't help, but if you're against helmets because you believe they're not effective, what's the downside of someone wearing one? Looking dumb? :)
When I mountain-biked, I _did_ wear one, because mountain biking at anything more than trivial speed _is_ dangerous.
The problem with wearing one on the road is it convinces all those soccer moms that biking is dangerous. "Safety in numbers" works big-time for biking, so anything which keeps potential cyclists off the road is bad for those who remain on the road. If the helmet doesn't buy you any safety (it apparently doesn't), AND it's uncomfortable (hot), AND it makes cycling look dangerous, I think the balance of evidence suggests you'd be better off NOT wearing it, but I don't go around trying to convince helmet-wearers to take theirs off.
While you're lobbying for protective chest hair, can we get an ammendment for protective back hair? I am the safest guy in the world, and I have the back hair to prove it.
OK OK The real reason I wear a helmet is because I'm bald. No protective hairs up there.
And biking is dangerous. Soccer mom's don't need a helmeted rider to prove this. That's such a lame argument and isn't supported by any facts. The guy riding at night on the wrong side of the road is enough proof to most people.
Mike, I take it that your helmet position is that there is no detectible decrease in bicycle fatalities when cyclists wear helmets. However, do you also assert that given a bicycle accident, that helmets do not mitigate injury? If you assert the later, then I would have to disagree.
From reading many of your article links, it seems that many of the articles assert the former, and do not assert the later.
From my own personal experience, I have had 4 bicycle crashes involving my head, 2 with helmets and 2 without. The two accidents with helmets gave me cracked helmets, headaches, and a sore neck. The two without helmets gave me loss-of consciousness (one for 15 minutes), concussion, sprained neck, stitches in scalp, stitches in ear, and two visits to the emergency room. I have similar anecdotes from friends. I definitely believe wearing a helmet mitigates bicycling accident injuries.
I would assert given the data you present that we don't have any grounds to judge either way based on your experience, since your 4 accidents were likely not close enough to 'identical' to be used against each other. (That's the rub here - in order to 'prove' that your helmet saved you in any given accident, you would need to reset everything to normal, and then engage in the same exact accident without a helmet - oh, and do it 20 times, too, to get rid of random variations).
So ANY person who claims that their helmet did or didn't save them in any given accident or accidents is going beyond the bounds of what the data actually support.
On the other hand, the populational data (head injuries versus helmet usage) is so huge that if helmets had a non-trivial effect on head injuries, it would be seen in the graph.
That being said, I wear mine when I go mountain-biking. Sure. But there's no rational reason to wear one when road cycling, unless you also wear one in your car (where your risk of a head injury is higher; and where the negative effects of a helmet are less).
Oh, and of course, the other thing is that your riding style might have something to do with it as well. I can't believe that four head injuries on the road don't say anything about how you're riding, compared to my zero (or the zero of the grannies in Amsterdam who ride their whole lives without helmets).
Mike, I don't compare my 4 head accidents against each other, but I do assert that had I been wearing a helmet in either of my lidless accidents, my injuries would have been lessened. Given a helmet, my scalp and ear scars would not have happened. Additionally I have lots of anecdotes of other riders who have had lessened injuries thanks to helmets, including one friend's helmeted head, who I RAN OVER while riding, and came away uninjured. (Riding in big bike packs leads to many more crashes than riding solo!)
I am only talking about bicycle head impacts here, I have loads of non-head injury stories too.
Riding style might come into play. Then too, so may group rides versus solo rides - I have very few solo injury stories. Then too so may miles on the bike - I've been riding on 2 wheels for 38 years now, road, mountain, commuter, triathlon, trick-bikes, you name it.
Your chest hair story does not sound so ludicrous to me. Sure, it might be going too far to claim that it saved your life, but it does not sound strange to me that sliding on your chest hairs might have saved some skin. My dogs are a good example of this. I get cut everytime we go hiking. They with their thick hair get no cuts at all.
I won't even disagree with your scalp and ear comments. It's quite likely that a helmet, in that one crash, would have helped save you from minor cosmetic injuries.
But so would a cloth cap, like some European riders wear.
The reason I bring up "riding style" is that when I was riding my bike for transportation, the Shoal Creek racers would roll their eyes at me when I'd do it without a helmet; but, frankly, they were in a lot more danger of a head injury (with helmet) than I was without.
MIEK, There is no statistical correlation between helmet promoters and idiotic morons who don't understand statistics. You don't have any grounds to judge either way based on your experience. In order to 'prove' that helmet promoters are idiotic morons, you would need to reset everything to normal, and do it 20 times, too, to get rid of random variations. In fact, if statistics don't show it, it does not exist!
Full disclosure: I haven't been a big bike rider in a few years and when I was it was mountain biking and I did wear a helmet, mostly because I wasn't very good :)
But snide comments about the perceived moral superiority aired by the helmet proponents, as long as there isn't a law that you must wear a helmet (only 17 and under are required, correct?), what is the downside of wearing one? I am sure both sides could show lies, damn lies, and statistics to back up the view that helmets help/don't help, but if you're against helmets because you believe they're not effective, what's the downside of someone wearing one? Looking dumb? :)
Posted by: Paul Young | November 30, 2005 12:41 AM
When I mountain-biked, I _did_ wear one, because mountain biking at anything more than trivial speed _is_ dangerous.
The problem with wearing one on the road is it convinces all those soccer moms that biking is dangerous. "Safety in numbers" works big-time for biking, so anything which keeps potential cyclists off the road is bad for those who remain on the road. If the helmet doesn't buy you any safety (it apparently doesn't), AND it's uncomfortable (hot), AND it makes cycling look dangerous, I think the balance of evidence suggests you'd be better off NOT wearing it, but I don't go around trying to convince helmet-wearers to take theirs off.
Posted by: M1EK | November 30, 2005 07:45 AM
While you're lobbying for protective chest hair, can we get an ammendment for protective back hair? I am the safest guy in the world, and I have the back hair to prove it.
Posted by: Spillmann | November 30, 2005 11:50 AM
Yeah, but you have to ride your bike backwards. That's going to require some interesting mirror action.
Posted by: M1EK | November 30, 2005 11:52 AM
OK OK The real reason I wear a helmet is because I'm bald. No protective hairs up there.
And biking is dangerous. Soccer mom's don't need a helmeted rider to prove this. That's such a lame argument and isn't supported by any facts. The guy riding at night on the wrong side of the road is enough proof to most people.
Posted by: Monty H | November 30, 2005 02:01 PM
The statistics show that even with those wrong-way no-lights guy in the mix, bicycling is still safer than driving. Sorry.
And wearing a helmet because you're bald does, in my new theory, make a heck of a lot of sense. Good work!
Posted by: M1EK | November 30, 2005 02:17 PM
Mike, I take it that your helmet position is that there is no detectible decrease in bicycle fatalities when cyclists wear helmets. However, do you also assert that given a bicycle accident, that helmets do not mitigate injury? If you assert the later, then I would have to disagree.
From reading many of your article links, it seems that many of the articles assert the former, and do not assert the later.
From my own personal experience, I have had 4 bicycle crashes involving my head, 2 with helmets and 2 without. The two accidents with helmets gave me cracked helmets, headaches, and a sore neck. The two without helmets gave me loss-of consciousness (one for 15 minutes), concussion, sprained neck, stitches in scalp, stitches in ear, and two visits to the emergency room. I have similar anecdotes from friends. I definitely believe wearing a helmet mitigates bicycling accident injuries.
Posted by: Dan | November 30, 2005 02:48 PM
I would assert given the data you present that we don't have any grounds to judge either way based on your experience, since your 4 accidents were likely not close enough to 'identical' to be used against each other. (That's the rub here - in order to 'prove' that your helmet saved you in any given accident, you would need to reset everything to normal, and then engage in the same exact accident without a helmet - oh, and do it 20 times, too, to get rid of random variations).
So ANY person who claims that their helmet did or didn't save them in any given accident or accidents is going beyond the bounds of what the data actually support.
On the other hand, the populational data (head injuries versus helmet usage) is so huge that if helmets had a non-trivial effect on head injuries, it would be seen in the graph.
That being said, I wear mine when I go mountain-biking. Sure. But there's no rational reason to wear one when road cycling, unless you also wear one in your car (where your risk of a head injury is higher; and where the negative effects of a helmet are less).
Posted by: M1EK | November 30, 2005 03:02 PM
Oh, and of course, the other thing is that your riding style might have something to do with it as well. I can't believe that four head injuries on the road don't say anything about how you're riding, compared to my zero (or the zero of the grannies in Amsterdam who ride their whole lives without helmets).
Posted by: M1EK | November 30, 2005 03:04 PM
Mike, I don't compare my 4 head accidents against each other, but I do assert that had I been wearing a helmet in either of my lidless accidents, my injuries would have been lessened. Given a helmet, my scalp and ear scars would not have happened. Additionally I have lots of anecdotes of other riders who have had lessened injuries thanks to helmets, including one friend's helmeted head, who I RAN OVER while riding, and came away uninjured. (Riding in big bike packs leads to many more crashes than riding solo!)
I am only talking about bicycle head impacts here, I have loads of non-head injury stories too.
Riding style might come into play. Then too, so may group rides versus solo rides - I have very few solo injury stories. Then too so may miles on the bike - I've been riding on 2 wheels for 38 years now, road, mountain, commuter, triathlon, trick-bikes, you name it.
Your chest hair story does not sound so ludicrous to me. Sure, it might be going too far to claim that it saved your life, but it does not sound strange to me that sliding on your chest hairs might have saved some skin. My dogs are a good example of this. I get cut everytime we go hiking. They with their thick hair get no cuts at all.
Posted by: Dan | November 30, 2005 09:11 PM
I won't even disagree with your scalp and ear comments. It's quite likely that a helmet, in that one crash, would have helped save you from minor cosmetic injuries.
But so would a cloth cap, like some European riders wear.
The reason I bring up "riding style" is that when I was riding my bike for transportation, the Shoal Creek racers would roll their eyes at me when I'd do it without a helmet; but, frankly, they were in a lot more danger of a head injury (with helmet) than I was without.
Posted by: M1EK | December 1, 2005 08:37 AM
Go ahead and go helmetless. We don't need you in the gene pool.
Posted by: Some Guy | December 2, 2005 01:27 PM
Some Guy,
Thanks for the perfect confirmation that helmet promoters are a bunch of idiotic morons who don't understand statistics.
Posted by: M1EK | December 2, 2005 01:43 PM
MIEK:
No, backhair just means, I'll be forced to crash on my back.
By the way, I got this link from a mountain biking listserv today.
http://www.noginsox.com/services.html
Saddenly, they have no covers that look like an ass (asshat, get it?). Otherwise, I would get one for myself.
HAND
Posted by: Spillmann | December 2, 2005 02:34 PM
MIEK, There is no statistical correlation between helmet promoters and idiotic morons who don't understand statistics. You don't have any grounds to judge either way based on your experience. In order to 'prove' that helmet promoters are idiotic morons, you would need to reset everything to normal, and do it 20 times, too, to get rid of random variations. In fact, if statistics don't show it, it does not exist!
Posted by: yarg | December 2, 2005 04:37 PM
Yes! Another cyclist who understands that cycling is generally safe and helmets send the wrong message. Thank you.
One of these days I need to write an article outlining how to effectively fight mandatory helmet laws.
Posted by: Fritz | December 21, 2005 01:11 PM