Can we talk seriously about No Helmet?

[Silvie]

In Holland almost no one wears helmets and everyone knows we're the nr 1 Bike Country in the world. Traffic accidents with cars happen much more often than with bikes. Everyone I know bikes and I've never heard of anyone who ever fell on his/her head (my dad fell off his bike once when he was drunk though :D).

[AlmostIndependent]

(my dad fell off his bike once when he was drunk though :D).

I tried to ride my bike the very first time I got drunk. Suffice to say I have never mixed bicycles and alcohol again.

[Silvie]

Lol you should come to Holland. Everyone goes to bars by bike all the time, as drunk driving is obviously not allowed. We're experts in drunk riding ;)

[MadeInMansfield]

I cycle to work everyday and have always worn a helmet (it's a massive snowboarding helmet which makes me look like a character from Mario Cart). I don't know about whether it will protect me if I'm hit by a bus, but I do know it does a very good job of protecting my head from the low hanging trees and branches on my way in.

I also usually wear gloves to spare my tender hands from the brambles and nettles I plough through along my route - I usually ride on a canal towpath so there's only so far I can move over to avoid the foliage without falling in the water.

[Albert]

Look again at this video (posted already in another section) from a country which knows a thing or two about cycling. Do you see many helmets there? I'd estimate at ca 5-10%. So can we finally conclude that they are not needed for low speed commuting?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYajXN4pPHI

[GuitarStv]

The need for wearing a helmet drastically changes if you are commuting at low speeds over short, relatively flat distances where cycling traffic is predominantly segregated from automobile traffic.  It also changes drastically depending on your skill on a bike.  I'd recommend anyone who is learning to ride wear a helmet.  They're more likely to fall no matter what distance/speed they go.

My commute is 11 miles each way, which necessitates a slightly faster pace.  I have several very steep hills on the commute where you pick up a lot of speed.  My commute has about a half mile of painted on road bike lanes, and the rest is sharing lanes with vehicular traffic, with posted speed limits of about 50-60 kph . . . which means most traffic is doing 70.

I wear a helmet for my rides.  Not because I'm a bad cyclist, not because I often wipe out . . . it just seems prudent.  I'm not convinced it'll save my life if something really bad were to happen, but figure it's better than nothing.  Given a different situation, maybe it wouldn't be necessary to wear one.  (FWIW, a helmet also rocks because it keeps sun out of my eyes and blocks some of the rain/snow from covering my glasses in crappy weather.)

[Insanity]

I've hit my head twice while riding a bike, so I don't take a chance.   The first time was trying to do BMX tricks (okay, so that isn't necessarily riding as in commuting)..  The second was hitting a section of a bike path that was in repair.  Front tire caught the far end of the patch and I was leaning forward too much at the time.  I flipped and nailed the pavement with the top of my head.  Definitely gave myself a concussion.   Yes, I was younger and didn't compensate correctly.

[Mr.Macinstache]

Quick, someone create a law before this trend gets out of hand!

[Daleth]

There already is a law--it's called child neglect. You better believe that if that little girl gets seriously hurt doing that, he will have social workers crawling up his ass, and possibly whacking him with misdemeanor charges and/or trying to get the child removed from the home.

[Insanity]

There already is a law--it's called child neglect. You better believe that if that little girl gets seriously hurt doing that, he will have social workers crawling up his ass, and possibly whacking him with misdemeanor charges and/or trying to get the child removed from the home.

This mentality is sickening.  life isn't about living risk free.

[Luck better Skill]

There already is a law--it's called child neglect. You better believe that if that little girl gets seriously hurt doing that, he will have social workers crawling up his ass, and possibly whacking him with misdemeanor charges and/or trying to get the child removed from the home.

This mentality is sickening.  life isn't about living risk free.

  Agreed.  I do not need an SUV to feel safe on the highway nor Kevlar body armor to go outside.

[GuitarStv]

Damned right!  And if I want to hang my child by the feet out of the driver's side window of a car doing 70 on the freeway, no nanny state should be able to tell me that's unsafe!  Life isn't about living risk free!


:P

[Mr.Macinstache]

Damned right!  And if I want to hang my child by the feet out of the driver's side window of a car doing 70 on the freeway, no nanny state should be able to tell me that's unsafe!  Life isn't about living risk free!


:P

Kids riding without a helmet = kids riding in the back of a pickup truck. Seems legit.

[hybrid]

Look again at this video (posted already in another section) from a country which knows a thing or two about cycling. Do you see many helmets there? I'd estimate at ca 5-10%. So can we finally conclude that they are not needed for low speed commuting?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYajXN4pPHI

What exactly are we supposed to conclude from that?  This to me is akin to "Watch this video and see how many people talk on their cell phones while driving - surely they wouldn't be doing it if it wasn't safe".

Seems like your logic goes along the lines of lots of people do it therefore it must not be a big deal.  Well, most people didn't wear seat belts at one time either.

[Russ]

I smacked my head into a tree mountain biking today. Woulda been pretty bad without a helmet. I will continue to not wear a helmet for leisurely rides where I perceive little risk.

Just wanted to offer a different perspective on the "I hit my head once..." stories ;-)

[Mr.Macinstache]

There already is a law--it's called child neglect. You better believe that if that little girl gets seriously hurt doing that, he will have social workers crawling up his ass, and possibly whacking him with misdemeanor charges and/or trying to get the child removed from the home.

I guess you didn't hear about that poor 2yr old little girl. She was taken away because someone narc'd on her parents for smoking pot. She was abused and killed by her foster parents.

[Luck better Skill]

  Let me play devil's advocate.

  If we pass a helmet law what type of helmet will it be?  Being most motorist hate sharing the road with bicycles we might get a football concussion helmet like Aaron Rogers wears.  They cost several hundred dollars.  Society gets away with seat-belt laws cause people love cars.  If you are trying to reduce bicycling pass helmet laws.  If you want more people to bicycle make it easier not harder.

[Mr.Macinstache]

  Let me play devil's advocate.

  If we pass a helmet law what type of helmet will it be?  Being most motorist hate sharing the road with bicycles we might get a football concussion helmet like Aaron Rogers wears.  They cost several hundred dollars.  Society gets away with seat-belt laws cause people love cars.  If you are trying to reduce bicycling pass helmet laws. If you want more people to bicycle make it easier not harder.

Dedicated biking lanes!

[GuitarStv]

  Let me play devil's advocate.

  If we pass a helmet law what type of helmet will it be?  Being most motorist hate sharing the road with bicycles we might get a football concussion helmet like Aaron Rogers wears.  They cost several hundred dollars.  Society gets away with seat-belt laws cause people love cars.  If you are trying to reduce bicycling pass helmet laws.  If you want more people to bicycle make it easier not harder.

. . . Typically the laws passed require bicycle helmets, not football helmets.  :P  if you can find one example in the world of helmet laws that require football helmets for cycling, I will concede that you have a great point.

[Luck better Skill]

  Let me play devil's advocate.

  If we pass a helmet law what type of helmet will it be?  Being most motorist hate sharing the road with bicycles we might get a football concussion helmet like Aaron Rogers wears.  They cost several hundred dollars.  Society gets away with seat-belt laws cause people love cars.  If you are trying to reduce bicycling pass helmet laws.  If you want more people to bicycle make it easier not harder.

. . . Typically the laws passed require bicycle helmets, not football helmets.  :P  if you can find one example in the world of helmet laws that require football helmets for cycling, I will concede that you have a great point.

LOL, true no one has football style helmet laws, but it only takes a few Congressmen willing to take bribes, um campaign donations, so we could get a horrible law.  After all the USA has it own unique health care laws.

[Luck better Skill]

The problem with a helmet law is the same as the jaywalking law.  When was the last time that was enforced?

I would like to propose a workable solution that is more likely to get helmets on bicycles.  Get popular support for helmets.  Use the Cartoon character Frazz, Hollywood Stars, Football players to promote wearing a helmet.

[arebelspy]

The problem with a helmet law is the same as the jaywalking law.  When was the last time that was enforced?

I have seen both enforced in the last few years.

I would like to propose a workable solution that is more likely to get helmets on bicycles.  Get popular support for helmets.  Use the Cartoon character Frazz, Hollywood Stars, Football players to promote wearing a helmet.

I'm not sure 1) how the current state is a problem, or 2) what you are proposing would even do.

I'd rather we promote bike use in general (and build bike lanes and such) if we're going to spend money on any sort of campaign around bikes.  Promoting helmet use when almost no one rides bikes?  Pass. 

(I say this as someone who always wears a helmet, always encourages others to do so, but would be against any laws forcing someone to do so, and - obviously - against wasting money to get people to do so when it's not a problem yet.  Eventually, if everyone were biking, I'd be up for promoting helmet use in schools, say at assemblies.  The promoting would be done at schools, not the wearing.)

[Luck better Skill]

The problem with a helmet law is the same as the jaywalking law.  When was the last time that was enforced?

I have seen both enforced in the last few years.

I would like to propose a workable solution that is more likely to get helmets on bicycles.  Get popular support for helmets.  Use the Cartoon character Frazz, Hollywood Stars, Football players to promote wearing a helmet.

I'm not sure 1) how the current state is a problem, or 2) what you are proposing would even do.

I'd rather we promote bike use in general (and build bike lanes and such) if we're going to spend money on any sort of campaign around bikes.  Promoting helmet use when almost no one rides bikes?  Pass. 

(I say this as someone who always wears a helmet, always encourages others to do so, but would be against any laws forcing someone to do so, and - obviously - against wasting money to get people to do so when it's not a problem yet.  Eventually, if everyone were biking, I'd be up for promoting helmet use in schools, say at assemblies.  The promoting would be done at schools, not the wearing.)

  I agree.  Encourage use but no laws.  My thought on promoting was to add in to the NFL 30 minutes of activity a day adds, you ride- wear proper gear on a bike.  Designated driver campaign got lots of help when stars pushed to add a line or two in TV shows about getting a DD.

[arebelspy]

Gotcha. 

Yeah, I'd be for a campaign promoting bike use as well as a parallel expansion of bike lanes.

[Insanity]

Damned right!  And if I want to hang my child by the feet out of the driver's side window of a car doing 70 on the freeway, no nanny state should be able to tell me that's unsafe!  Life isn't about living risk free!


:P

Kids riding without a helmet = kids riding in the back of a pickup truck. Seems legit.

kids riding in the back of a pickup is even safer than the incredibly overboard hyperbole that was used.

my brother and I road in the back of my parents station wagon so many times it isn't even funny..  yet amazingly, we are both alive to talk about it.  Of course we also played on monkey bars that were over blacktop

[NinetyFour]

I wear my helmet on my daily bike commute, mostly because my hair looks ridiculous in the morning and I need to cover it up between my house and the shower at work.  So maybe my helmet mostly protects me from embarrassment.  But I have also had a couple of very close calls with cars recently.  At those times, I was also glad to have the helmet on.  And I mountain bike on some pretty crazy trails, so I definitely wear my helmet then as well.  Just makes sense to me.

[mpbaker22]

Oh my Lord.  I bike through Berkeley, MO on my way to work.  I wear a helmet when I ride, but I feel it should be a personal choice.
Berkeley, MO has a mandatory helmet law.  I just researched the fine for breaking such law.

Maximum fine consists of up to $500 and up to 90 days imprisonment.  For not wearing a helmet while cycling!

[Kira]

Oh my Lord.  I bike through Berkeley, MO on my way to work.  I wear a helmet when I ride, but I feel it should be a personal choice.
Berkeley, MO has a mandatory helmet law.  I just researched the fine for breaking such law.

Maximum fine consists of up to $500 and up to 90 days imprisonment.  For not wearing a helmet while cycling!

I would be 100% behind a law that says you are free to not wear a helmet if you can produce proof of private health insurance. If you don't have health insurance or you have Medicare/Medicaid and you get in an accident, guess who is paying for that hospital stay?

I met a gentleman once who couldn't remember how many children he had. He told me quite confidently one time that he had two, and then showed me a picture of all three. He had been in an accident with no helmet at age 18 going about 10 miles an hour. He also couldn't remember the date from one minute to the next.

[grantmeaname]

I would be 100% behind a law that says you are free to not wear a helmet if you can produce proof of private health insurance. If you don't have health insurance or you have Medicare/Medicaid and you get in an accident, guess who is paying for that hospital stay?

I think people who wear helmets shouldn't be entitled to healthcare since cars pass closer to drivers with helmets.

[Kira]

I would be 100% behind a law that says you are free to not wear a helmet if you can produce proof of private health insurance. If you don't have health insurance or you have Medicare/Medicaid and you get in an accident, guess who is paying for that hospital stay?

I think people who wear helmets shouldn't be entitled to healthcare since cars pass closer to drivers with helmets.

[Citation needed]

[Rickk]

I would be 100% behind a law that says you are free to not wear a helmet if you can produce proof of private health insurance. If you don't have health insurance or you have Medicare/Medicaid and you get in an accident, guess who is paying for that hospital stay?

I think people who wear helmets shouldn't be entitled to healthcare since cars pass closer to drivers with helmets.

[Citation needed]

http://www.bath.ac.uk/news/articles/archive/overtaking110906.html

[grantmeaname]

Snark aside, as has been brought up about a million times on this forum and the rest of the 'toobz, there are all kinds of accidents for which a helmet doesn't help; evidence that helmets may make at least some situations less safe; no real evidence that a helmet law will be enforceable, enforced, and effective; no good reason to publish a law with adverse financial effects that will fall almost entirely on the poor; and no reason to pass a law that will increase the complexity of the relevant code sections without a clear benefit for doing so.

[Kira]

I would be 100% behind a law that says you are free to not wear a helmet if you can produce proof of private health insurance. If you don't have health insurance or you have Medicare/Medicaid and you get in an accident, guess who is paying for that hospital stay?

I think people who wear helmets shouldn't be entitled to healthcare since cars pass closer to drivers with helmets.

[Citation needed]

http://www.bath.ac.uk/news/articles/archive/overtaking110906.html

That citation is of much poorer quality than the studies showing that helmets prevent brain injury.

[Rickk]

I would be 100% behind a law that says you are free to not wear a helmet if you can produce proof of private health insurance. If you don't have health insurance or you have Medicare/Medicaid and you get in an accident, guess who is paying for that hospital stay?

I think people who wear helmets shouldn't be entitled to healthcare since cars pass closer to drivers with helmets.

[Citation needed]

http://www.bath.ac.uk/news/articles/archive/overtaking110906.html

That citation is of much poorer quality than the studies showing that helmets prevent brain injury.

Sorry - not buying the "my studies are better than your studies" argument . . . .

Perhaps you should read some books like Freakanomics which look at the unintended consequences of certain laws and recommendations.

I wear a helmet when I commute because I can reach almost 30mph on some downhill sections and hitting something at that speed would probably be helped by a helmet, but I don't feel the need to tell other people or kids to wear them when they are riding at 10 miles per hour.

I am not interested in citing all the studies, there are plenty of threads for that that will site studies on both sides. If you want a real argument - take this to the biking forums!  People there are really torqued up about this topic!

What it comes down to is if you are that pro helmet - then you should be wearing one ALL the time.  Lots of people get brain damage from accidents while walking, as well as in cars.  Wearing helmets during those activities is proven to prevent SOME of those types of injuries (race car drivers wear them don't they?).

Here are some thoughts for you: 
1) Making people wear helmets makes them stop riding bikes (yes there are studies for that as well) - this leads to more deaths due to inactivity than due to the possible accident injuries.
2) There have been deaths due to wearing a helmet (impact of head on ground gives a smooth sliding motion - helmet causes internal brain damage because of the sudden twist of brain inside of twisting head because of the way the helmet catches the ground).

So the unfortunate point is that making people wear helmets is not an easy answer . . . .

[mpbaker22]

I would be 100% behind a law that says you are free to not wear a helmet if you can produce proof of private health insurance. If you don't have health insurance or you have Medicare/Medicaid and you get in an accident, guess who is paying for that hospital stay?

I think people who wear helmets shouldn't be entitled to healthcare since cars pass closer to drivers with helmets.

[Citation needed]

http://www.bath.ac.uk/news/articles/archive/overtaking110906.html

That citation is of much poorer quality than the studies showing that helmets prevent brain injury.

So why don't you provide them?  Actually the federal government stopped citing a study showing that brain injuries decrease 85% with a helmet.  The reason, because it wasn't repeatable and the same study showed a 72% decrease in leg injuries with a helmet.

I've been emailing the councilmen/women and have had some funny interaction

"  Like I said, it is  for bikes of all kinds.  (Bikecycles, tricycles, motercycles, ect.) If you are up on the laws, and don't agree with them.  Go to the State. ( Anyone can get a head injure, fron an accident from any form of bikes.)  ( A kid, adult, ect.)"

Ms. XXXXXXX,

This statement shows further misunderstanding of the law on your part.  The state has no such mandatory helmet law.  Perhaps you are referring to the Missouri Revised Statutes Chapter/Section 302-020.  Subsection two of 302-020 references the requirement that motorcyclists wear protective headgear.  However, section 302-020 clearly only applies to motorized vehicles with specialized licensing.  To show this, it references section 302-010 for the definition of a motorcycle.  The primary requirement for the definition of a motorcycle is that the vehicle must contain a motor, something a bicycle does not (typically) have.  Therefore, this section and ensuing subsections do not fall under the regulation I am opposing.

The only mandatory helmet law in effect for someone who is riding a bicycle in Berkeley, MO is the one I previously referenced under section 210.265 of the Municipal Code of the City of Berkeley, MO.  The state cannot help me unless you feel they should institute a statewide ban on mandatory helmet laws.

[Kira]

I think what the argument boils down to is whether you are on the side of "there is a 0.01% of anything seriously bad happening to me, so why bother wearing a helmet" or the side of "I will wear a helmet to avoid being in that 0.01%".

I do see that people who can cite a terrible accident that happened to someone they know seem much more likely to say helmets are worth it. I worked with kidney and liver transplant patients for years, and am fanatical about seatbelts and helmets because, well, where do you think those organs came from? Organ donation rates dropped drastically when seatbelts became mandatory because more people were surviving those collisions, whereas before they used to just fly head first out the windshield and smash their brains open, leaving the rest of their organs intact.

[mpbaker22]

I think what the argument boils down to is whether you are on the side of "there is a 0.01% of anything seriously bad happening to me, so why bother wearing a helmet" or the side of "I will wear a helmet to avoid being in that 0.01%".

I do see that people who can cite a terrible accident that happened to someone they know seem much more likely to say helmets are worth it. I worked with kidney and liver transplant patients for years, and am fanatical about seatbelts and helmets because, well, where do you think those organs came from? Organ donation rates dropped drastically when seatbelts became mandatory because more people were surviving those collisions, whereas before they used to just fly head first out the windshield and smash their brains open, leaving the rest of their organs intact.

Except that isn't the argument.  The argument is that helmets actually don't help much, if at all.  All things considered, there's plenty of reason to believe they have a negative effect.

[Luck better Skill]

Perhaps you should read some books like Freakanomics which look at the unintended consequences of certain laws and recommendations.

Agreed, +1

[Kira]

I think what the argument boils down to is whether you are on the side of "there is a 0.01% of anything seriously bad happening to me, so why bother wearing a helmet" or the side of "I will wear a helmet to avoid being in that 0.01%".

I do see that people who can cite a terrible accident that happened to someone they know seem much more likely to say helmets are worth it. I worked with kidney and liver transplant patients for years, and am fanatical about seatbelts and helmets because, well, where do you think those organs came from? Organ donation rates dropped drastically when seatbelts became mandatory because more people were surviving those collisions, whereas before they used to just fly head first out the windshield and smash their brains open, leaving the rest of their organs intact.

Except that isn't the argument.  The argument is that helmets actually don't help much, if at all.  All things considered, there's plenty of reason to believe they have a negative effect.

Sorry, but if you are actually saying you believe helmets cause injury, we are just going to have to agree to disagree there. That may be the argument you are trying to have but it does not seem to be the argument the others were having.

[hybrid]

I think what the argument boils down to is whether you are on the side of "there is a 0.01% of anything seriously bad happening to me, so why bother wearing a helmet" or the side of "I will wear a helmet to avoid being in that 0.01%".

I do see that people who can cite a terrible accident that happened to someone they know seem much more likely to say helmets are worth it. I worked with kidney and liver transplant patients for years, and am fanatical about seatbelts and helmets because, well, where do you think those organs came from? Organ donation rates dropped drastically when seatbelts became mandatory because more people were surviving those collisions, whereas before they used to just fly head first out the windshield and smash their brains open, leaving the rest of their organs intact.

When I was growing up not wearing a seat belt (rather like smoking) was much cooler than wearing one of those uncomfortable sissy things.  Many years later I watch my grown kids and the idea of not wearing a seat belt is just utterly foreign to them.  It's a very rare occasion in 2013 I see someone not wearing a belt, almost no one I know goes without.  So what happened?  Well, clearly the culture changed.  Also, seat belt laws went into effect along the way as well.  Did the latter influence the former?  Who knows.

I certainly get the notion that laws can go too far.  I personally don't think wearing a bike helmet is a bridge too far (especially if the public is on the hook for some of the medical costs).  It's a very minor inconvenience, just like a seat belt.   Bike culture safety sucks overall as has been mentioned in these forums.  In my town most cyclists utterly ignore traffic laws.  I don't mean riding on a sidewalk on a busy thoroughfare to stay out of traffic or blowing a stop sign in an empty neighborhood, I mean blowing red lights in traffic, stop signs in traffic, riding the wrong way in traffic, etc.  When I see that, I have a hard time arguing against helmet laws when so many people are voluntarily putting themselves in harms way.  And as I mentioned earlier, the two folks I know that were seriously messed up in cycling accidents were actually following traffic laws.  Had they been in cars their injuries would have been minor.

Biking is mostly safe.  I cycle in traffic, follow the rules, and am not worried for my safety as I ride.  Having said that, when something goes south, just like with a car and a lack of a seat belt, it can go really south really quickly.  So I wear the helmet when I commute.  Not because I like to (I don't), but because I ought to.  I really just don't get the folks who don't.

[Rickk]

Sorry, but if you are actually saying you believe helmets cause injury, we are just going to have to agree to disagree there. That may be the argument you are trying to have but it does not seem to be the argument the others were having.

I don't think this thread is doing justice to this topic which is actually more complex than you would expect (on both sides). 
I would strongly suggest you (and anyone else reading this thread) read this short article, it gives a good overview of some of the points brought up here http://bicyclesafe.com/helmets.html
While it is not a scientific study (it does link to some), it will give you some insight into the arguments from the other side (that helmets are not as good as once claimed - and yes can actually lead to more overall deaths when looked at from an overall view).

[mpbaker22]

I think what the argument boils down to is whether you are on the side of "there is a 0.01% of anything seriously bad happening to me, so why bother wearing a helmet" or the side of "I will wear a helmet to avoid being in that 0.01%".

I do see that people who can cite a terrible accident that happened to someone they know seem much more likely to say helmets are worth it. I worked with kidney and liver transplant patients for years, and am fanatical about seatbelts and helmets because, well, where do you think those organs came from? Organ donation rates dropped drastically when seatbelts became mandatory because more people were surviving those collisions, whereas before they used to just fly head first out the windshield and smash their brains open, leaving the rest of their organs intact.

Except that isn't the argument.  The argument is that helmets actually don't help much, if at all.  All things considered, there's plenty of reason to believe they have a negative effect.

Sorry, but if you are actually saying you believe helmets cause injury, we are just going to have to agree to disagree there. That may be the argument you are trying to have but it does not seem to be the argument the others were having.

I suppose you can ignore the statistic and scientific evidence if you choose. ... What happens is the helmet affects the cycling experience.  Wearing helmets results in more accidents due to a variety of factors, so the risk of head trauma actually goes up in some studies.

Thanks for the link Rickk.  Honestly I was totally pro-helmet before this thread was started, and I might have even been in support of helmet laws.  But when you actually do the research and look at the arguments and numbers, it doesn't make any sense to mandate helmet use when their effect is negligible, at best.

[Rickk]

Thanks for the link Rickk.  Honestly I was totally pro-helmet before this thread was started, and I might have even been in support of helmet laws.  But when you actually do the research and look at the arguments and numbers, it doesn't make any sense to mandate helmet use when their effect is negligible, at best.

Just to follow up (I have gone both ways on this topic), I want to give my personal solution below (I also really don't want to convince people to NOT wear helmets (after all I wear one!!)).  I am not a doctor (just an engineering type), and have not done any studies, so your mileage may vary!

I think a good helmet can provide some benefit in some circumstances, so for those that are willing to wear one I recommend a smooth round helmet to minimize the chance of traumatic brain injury due to twisting caused by the odd shapes and jagged holes in some helmet designs.  I wear a Giro Reverb which is pretty smooth and round - I would prefer if it came down farther in the back as I don't think most bike helmets provide enough protection in the back of the head.  What I would really like to see is more useful research into making bike helmets more effective.

I also recommend anyone doing off road riding to wear one, or anyone involved in especially dangerous riding to wear one. 

For those NOT willing to ride a bike with a helmet - I recommend they ride the bike without one (especially if they are a casual rider on a bike trail most of the time).  The benefits of riding a bike are many and strongly outweigh the risks of riding without a helmet.

And I strongly urge people to avoid trying to get helmet laws passed!!!!! 
<sarcasm on>The next law after bike helmet laws are walking helmet laws - and I am NOT wearing a helmet while walking.<sarcasm off>

[hybrid]

Sorry, but if you are actually saying you believe helmets cause injury, we are just going to have to agree to disagree there. That may be the argument you are trying to have but it does not seem to be the argument the others were having.

I don't think this thread is doing justice to this topic which is actually more complex than you would expect (on both sides). 
I would strongly suggest you (and anyone else reading this thread) read this short article, it gives a good overview of some of the points brought up here http://bicyclesafe.com/helmets.html
While it is not a scientific study (it does link to some), it will give you some insight into the arguments from the other side (that helmets are not as good as once claimed - and yes can actually lead to more overall deaths when looked at from an overall view).

The biggest issue I have with that argument is I have never met a doctor who agrees with it.  When I start seeing emergency room physicians backing off their claims regarding safety helmets, then I think the argument will gain more traction in our culture.  And since they are the ones that deal with the aftermath of accidents and are far more likely to encounter them than most (rather like the recent poster who gained an appreciation for seatbelts via working with organ donation), I feel inclined to give their opinion more weight than Michael Bluejay.  It seems one can find compelling links for just about any argument if one looks hard enough and the subject is controversial.

In the meantime, Google "emergency physicians bicycle helmets".  The search results rather obviously suggest where doctors continue to line up on the issue.   

[Hamster]

There are really 23 questions:
1) Do helmets reduce the risk of serious head injury/death when accidents happen?
2) Do helmets increase the risk of accidents?
3) Do helmet laws increase the risk of other negative health outcomes?

I am going to leave #2 and 3 alone for now, because I really don't think that there is very good data to support either side. There are various mathematical models based on various assumptions, but I haven't seen anything at all convincing based on real world data. I'm sure everyone knows how spurious it is to compare Denmark/Amsterdam with their bicycle infrastructure and lack of helmet use to the US/Australia with their higher helmet use and relatively crappy bicycle infrastructure.

The answer to 1, as much as people cite "well, there's a study that showed..." is almost unequivically YES, they do reduce the risk of head/brain injury DRAMATICALLY - 75-88%, whether or not cars are involved in the bike accident.

The gold standard for meta-analysis/review of available evidence is the Cochrane Collaborative, which requires reviewers to use systematic methods to gather, review, and assemble the best available research-based evidence from published peer-reviewed literature which meet established criteria. They most recently published on this issue in 2009. http://www.thecochranelibrary.com/userfiles/ccoch/file/Safety_on_the_road/CD001855.pdf. combining the data from the studies that were included into a meta-analysis, they show a dramatic reduction in injuries to the head, upper face and midface, but no difference in injuries to the lower face (which also acts as a control for the data as teh helmet doesn't cover the lower face). They don't explore the effects on mortality. I'm not sure why, but my guess would be that mortality rates are much lower than brain injury rates, meaning you need much larger samples to get meaningful data.

If you want to rehash the head/brain injury rate with/without helmets, I'd urge you to follow the link, scroll to the discussion, and read the feedback section where the authors respond to the various criticisms of helmet law the research showing risk reduction in helmeted vs non-helmeted accidents. If you read the whole Feedback section, it also provides a very good background on study design, ecological studies vs case control vs time-series, and the merits and shortcomings associated with those study designs. Sort of a mini-epidemiology course.

[Luck better Skill]

Sorry, but if you are actually saying you believe helmets cause injury, we are just going to have to agree to disagree there. That may be the argument you are trying to have but it does not seem to be the argument the others were having.

I don't think this thread is doing justice to this topic which is actually more complex than you would expect (on both sides). 
I would strongly suggest you (and anyone else reading this thread) read this short article, it gives a good overview of some of the points brought up here http://bicyclesafe.com/helmets.html
While it is not a scientific study (it does link to some), it will give you some insight into the arguments from the other side (that helmets are not as good as once claimed - and yes can actually lead to more overall deaths when looked at from an overall view).

The biggest issue I have with that argument is I have never met a doctor who agrees with it.  When I start seeing emergency room physicians backing off their claims regarding safety helmets, then I think the argument will gain more traction in our culture.  And since they are the ones that deal with the aftermath of accidents and are far more likely to encounter them than most (rather like the recent poster who gained an appreciation for seatbelts via working with organ donation), I feel inclined to give their opinion more weight than Michael Bluejay.  It seems one can find compelling links for just about any argument if one looks hard enough and the subject is controversial.

In the meantime, Google "emergency physicians bicycle helmets".  The search results rather obviously suggest where doctors continue to line up on the issue.   

  Emergency Physicians are treating people involved in an accident, so of course they will support helmets.  But they have not studied/researched the issue of how much help helmets provide versus harm.  Like the doctor I agree you should wear a helmet or a seat belt.  I do not want a law. 

[Luck better Skill]

  I would like to take a minute to debunk the thought helmet laws will save anybody money.  Seat belt laws were going to do the same thing.  except:

Cost of auto insurance has gone up.
Cost of medical insurance has gone up.
Cost to Enforce the law has gone up.
Revenue from seat-belt law tickets has gone up.
Maybe bonus to insurance CEO went up, so seat belt laws may make CEO richer.

  Yes we may all pay a few bucks more but odds are a helmet law will only make us pay even more.

Kevin.

[Luck better Skill]

  As someone who works with patrol law enforcement and judges I can tell you they want nothing to do with a bicycle helmet law.

  Safety, society, and culture are the way to promote bicycle helmets, not a law.  Designated Drivers concept was accept by our society.  Smoking falling out of favor.  Many positive changes have happened with the need for a law.

[mpbaker22]

Sorry, but if you are actually saying you believe helmets cause injury, we are just going to have to agree to disagree there. That may be the argument you are trying to have but it does not seem to be the argument the others were having.

I don't think this thread is doing justice to this topic which is actually more complex than you would expect (on both sides). 
I would strongly suggest you (and anyone else reading this thread) read this short article, it gives a good overview of some of the points brought up here http://bicyclesafe.com/helmets.html
While it is not a scientific study (it does link to some), it will give you some insight into the arguments from the other side (that helmets are not as good as once claimed - and yes can actually lead to more overall deaths when looked at from an overall view).

The biggest issue I have with that argument is I have never met a doctor who agrees with it. 

This has nothing to do with the argument.  Doctors aren't going around taking statistics of what happens in each accident.  You don't make a decision based on one personal experience.  You make it based on what is likely to happen, what is statistically expected.

[Kira]

This has nothing to do with the argument.  Doctors aren't going around taking statistics of what happens in each accident.  You I don't make a decision based on one personal experience.  You I make it based on what is likely to happen, what is statistically expected.

FTFY. Clearly several people in the thread upstream who have known someone who had a terrible bike accident find it perfectly valid to make a decision based on personal experience.

There are also statistics galore to prove any point you wish.