- The importance of wearing a helmet has been drilled into everyone since childhood. And, it's true that, as study after study has shown, you're better off with a helmet if you're in an accident.
But in the world's most popular biking cities, particularly in Europe, very few bikers wear helmets. And there are good reasons for that: biking, it turns out, isn't an especially dangerous form of transportation in terms of head trauma. And the benefits of helmets may be overstated. While they do protect your head during accidents, there's some evidence that helmets make it more likely you'll get in an accident in the first place.
I bike most days, and feel conspicuous when most of the other bikers I see are wearing helmets. This morning I counted 5 riders without helmets out of 58 total (not counting myself and an unhelmeted woman walking her bike).
Anecdotes are compelling, but don't give a clear idea of the big picture. How great is the risk? Should we consider the number of injuries per trip, per mile, or per hour? What do we compare to?
The studies are clear in a certain narrow way, with conclusions like "Wearing a helmet dramatically reduces the risk of head and facial injuries for bicyclists involved in a crash, even if it involves a motor vehicle." But the same could probably be said of pedestrians and people in cars. Why don't we wear helmets all the time?
See also mk's link to a paper by two authors who "dread questions about bicycle helmets."
Want to hear something funny? I suffered a TBI (Traumatic Brain Injury) back in 2012. I was jumped by some kids and smacked with a 2x4 off of my bike. I was one of three cyclists this happened to that year and the police did nothing. Anyways, A lot of people always say "I bet you'll wear a helmet now". I've put thousands of miles on my bike and just don't particularly like helmets for a variety of reasons. People don't seem to understand that in most situations a helmet isn't required. I remember reading awhile back that the #1 injury for people who compete in the tours was a broken collarbone (could be wrong on this, if I am please let me know). This was before they started to require helmets for the full length of the race.
I just don't like the way they feel, they're clunky and uncomfortable, let alone the fact I don't see how that block of Styrofoam is going to prevent me getting injured, I'm pretty sure not that long ago a study was done where a neurosurgeon said he sees no difference in a lot of cases between the ones with and without helmets, I wish I could find that video online but I couldn't. So, not only would I not be willing to wear one but it was the determining factor in me not owning a bicycle as an adult, I just can't do it. Although, recently they repealed the law for anyone over 16 years, but living in a metro area it's too dangerous to ride anyways.
If I knew I was going to have a wreck and hit my head, I would want to have a block of Styrofoam strapped on. It's just that the same logic argues for kneepads, eye protection, a bullet-proof vest and carrying a lightning rod. I believe that helmets reduce risk of injury in some crashes. They do a good job protecting against less serious scalp injuries, help protect against direct-impact brain injury, though apparently are not so helpful with brain injury caused by rapid twisting of the head during impact. The problem with interviewing neurosurgeons is that you don't hear about the people who didn't make it to the hospital.
thenewgreen Well, here you have an article on helmet usage. Wasox, I just discussed this here. I think using bike helmets really depends on how safe it is to bike somewhere. I'd never use a bike helmet here in the Netherlands, but if I were to drive on the ridge of a highway (illegal here, but a common sight in America I think), I wouldn't go a foot without it.
It may be different in Europe, but according to Wikipedia, the term highway in the U.S. designates a major road, such as a controlled access highway where one might expect to see a sign like this: It would be pretty unusual to see a cyclist on the side of a large highway; more often you will see someone walking, but even then it is usually because their car has broken down. But outside of urban areas, bike lanes are not common and cyclists share space with cars. If I had to do that, I would think more about wearing a helmet, but I would probably just drive.
Just chiming in to say that many of the major bike routes in Austin -- for the people who like to knock 20 miles before work or what have you -- include what I would consider long stretches of highway. It's in-between highway, the ones where you can hit 60 but intermittently have to stop for red lights. In any case I don't wear helmets because I absolutely hate them.
I feel like I have to piggy-back off of every Austin comment you make but I bike a lot in Austin and there is no way to bike on the highway unless you either like being honked at or like riding the shoulder. Even in the city it's uncomfortable in most places unless they separate the bike lane from the road (like on Guadelupe with the potted plants), but even then, cars take turns without considering bicyclists. Despite the discomfort, I make most of my trips on bike mostly due to a lack of motor vehicle. I do ride defensively to avoid any misunderstanding with cars, but problems still happen. Today even, I was riding in the rain and I had to slide a solid ten feet to my left with my leg out in order to take a right turn without being rear-ended by a car tail-gating. I wouldn't have been worried about this in my car but then again I don't own it anymore. I never wear a helmet either, but I'm also wearing a wrist brace because of an accident involving a a car and the driving and road conditions here.
I was clearly talking about the shoulder of the highway. You see them every day on 360, etc. To be fair, this is based on the assumption veen's ridge is the same as America's shoulder.I'd never use a bike helmet here in the Netherlands, but if I were to drive on the ridge of a highway (illegal here, but a common sight in America I think)
Sorry flag, when I said "there is no way to bike on the highway", I wasn't trying to dismiss your comment about the ability to bike on those stretches of highway. I was trying to say that it wasn't a comfortable place to ride but I can see how that part of my comment could have been taken.
I hate them. I'm not a commuter rider, but I ride for fun on the weekends. Sometimes I'll go up to 25 miles, and I've never owned, nor do I plan to own, a helmet. I do a combination of street and trail riding (not a lot of elevation change around me--in the mountains I would probably wear one, or perhaps on trails where there are a lot of low hanging branches), and I can't say I've ever felt unsafe. Currently, it isn't illegal in my area to bike without a helmet, but even if it were, I would defy that law with a smile on my face. There was an amazing South Park episode where this one particular family never left the house without a life preserver. The point was transparent as hell, and equally funny.Why don't we wear helmets all the time?
I would dare imagine that reducing the amount of bicyclers has been a favourable strategy to many countries and cities for quite a few decades. Cities were never designed to accommodate bicycles in large numbers - in a common setup we have the road for cars that move on wheels and we have the road for people that zigzag on their feet. Cyclists are disliked by both cars and pedestrians. Even I dislike cyclists when I'm walking or driving. The average cyclist in my city - doesn't know it's not OK to cycle on a footpath - doesn't know it's not OK to cycle on driveway if there is a bicycle path - doesn't know there is a difference between zebra crossing (only for pedestrians) and bicycle path crossing - doesn't know right of way laws regarding bicycles and intersections (well, neither does the average car driver..) - doesn't consider what is a safe cycling speed - this list would just go on and on From this perspective, passing a law that both improves cycling safety and reduces prevalence of cycling can be seen as favourable, no? Ending up with a situation like Copenhagen needs that the laws, infrastructure and culture are favourable for cycling. IMO demanding removal of helmet laws "because Copenhagen" is like people of Tonga demanding their government to achieve a moon landing "because USA". Eh, that's a terrible analogy. I don't really care about the helmet law personally. I use a helmet if I'm planning to cycle fast or use a bicycle that I suspect might suffer a catastrophic failure while cycling. The law here requires the use of helmet, but there are no criminal penalties for breaking the said law. While we are on the topic of bicycle safety if there's one thing that's really important it's proper bicycle lights during twilight, dark, or just generally poor weather. Improve your visibility!