There are many hard surfaces in that room. Better keep it on. Just to be safe. And get a gun. Never know when someone will break in and try to kill you. I think I'll invent a helmet you wear all the time that has a holster for a gun built into it. Yeah. Now we're talking.
Mandatory helmet laws are killing the 90% of cyclists who just want to leisurely ride their bikes around. All the kids, teenagers and adults who don't pretend they are in the Tour De France. These people don't need or want stupid chunks of plastic on their heads. Helmets should be a choice for any age group.
Guys, he isn't literally saying that everyone around the world should just stop wearing helmets. He's a city designer. His point is that we shouldn't HAVE to wear helmets, because cities should be designed around people and not around cars. Obviously having a helmet will be better than no helmet if some fuckwad in a car decides to hit you. But the fact that the car and bike came into direct contact in the first place is problematic.
"Obviously having a helmet will be better than no helmet if some fuckwad in a car decides to hit you." Ummm... No. Helmets are not desgned to help you in this situation. MCA explicitly says this. Helmet makers explicitly say this. Believe it or not.
@@UK030 Pretty sure the person is talking about the impact with the ground after a collision with a car, rather than the impact with the car itself. Which impact are you talking about?
@@UK030 I think he's talking about the impact with the car , if so he's right , but some accidents the biker have Tbi when he hits the floor , statistically speaking is very rare a car hit directly you head ,the majority of head injuries occurs when you hit the floor pushed by the car . When you have big cars like SUVs yes the head can be hit .
*Video Spoilers* This video is really about how more people should ride bicycles and that helmets make the bicycle seem more dangerous than it is. Also, he likes the idea of some kind of head protection in a car because cars are way more dangerous for drivers, which is true. He didn't include citations, but I'd think protection beats no protection and that just because you were able to find a study or two or three saying that you were worse-off with a helmet, doesn't overrule the vast majority that say otherwise, plus the physics of it all. Yes, head protection, based on physics, types of injuries and studies show that it'll save many of lives while worn in a car. In the car would be the best place to add more safety measures because it would have the biggest impact.
Even on the streets of Denmark, pedestrians have more than twice the number of head injuries. Cyclists are of course not representative, as they are more fit than the average pedestrian, but from a public health perspective. Making bike helmets mandatory but not "walk helmets" would only be virtue signalling. So apparently, cyclists are the least likely to suffer head injury?
He makes a good point. Although you can argue against helmet advocacy, you can't argue against actually wearing one. I just bought a new helmet because mine cracked last time I fell. My head is fine thanks to the helmet. Helmets may not save you from death when you get hit by a car, but they keep minor accidents from becoming major ones.
how come bike riders who wear helmets are far more likely to smash their head into something. Look at the statistics, Australia and New Zealand have some of the highest accident rates with mandotary helmet laws and places like Holland and Denmark where very few wear helmets have some of the lowest injurie rate.
It is a fact that countries where cycling rates are high, helmet wearing rates are low. It is a fact that scaring people into wearing helmets or making helmet use compulsory causes fewer people to cycle, than otherwise would. It is a fact that the more people cycle, the safer it is. It is a fact that money spent on cycling infrastructure is higher where more people cycle.
Because helmets markedly increase the size of their heads, converting what may have been a near miss to a hit. Also, some may be taking more risk while riding, thinking they are better protected from injury.
Perhaps you should consider wearing shoulder, knee and wrist protection as well then, seeing as most accidents on bicycles at speeds where a helmet could possibly do something, mostly result in injuries on the arms or legs.
HealixGaming True, but limb injuries are by far more common and most accidents involving head injuries result from situation where foam helmets help as much as a damp cloth.
Cycling is safer than motoring, hell yeah, thats out of the question. Cycling is safe without a helmet, that depends on the place and style of riding. I wear a helmet because i ride on the woods and do some fast city riding so my chances to fall and hit the ground pretty hard are higher than the average rider, my helmet have saved me some injuries and pain X).
Not true I was able to walk away without any treatment at all after doing a somersault with my feet firmly locked into my pedals. I landed on my shoulder blades and rolled out at about 30kph, still have a small scar on one shoulder blade. If I had been wearing a helmet the extra diameter could very well have prevented said somersault leaving me with a neck injury possibly broken or a rotational brain injury or both. Look up diffuse axonal brain injuries + bicycle helmet. these so called helmets do not protect the brain and only offer nominal protection to the scalp and skull.
@ensayofr Its hard to tell what exactly you are trying to say maybe you don't speak English well but if you're comparing using ropes while mountain climbing to wearing a styrofoam hat whilst bicycling how do you perceive those two things being in anyway related? They clearly have nothing to do with each other.
I do have to say something about motorist safety. Race car drivers routinely walk away from crashes at over 150mph and yet people die every single day on American roads at less than half those speeds. Cars are insanely dangerous.
I use a bicycle to get around my city. I have never worn a helmet. I remember the day an older gentlemen biked by me dressed in Lycra on his racing bike and gave me a "shame on you" look and tapped his helmeted head as if I should have been wearing one. We were biking on a segregated pathway far removed from any vehicular traffic. I was biking on an upright dutch bicycle going 18km/hr. I wish more people realized helmet use is context dependent. This is the greatest problem in North America where mention of a cyclist conjures images of recreational racing. They don't realize biking as transportation is very relaxed.
This guy made a good argument for the idea that, as a matter of public policy, we should not overstate the dangers of biking. There was no argument that you - for your own safety - should not wear a helmet.
Graham Widmer That's a great and one that he certainly should have emphasized in his presentation. The intent was slightly misleading in its omissions.
The problem is the environment surrounding the bicycles. Urban environments should be bicycles only (and it is possible). Interurban could be motorized. A balance is possible and should be aimed to.
While I agree with the sentiment against the culture of fear, it's a no-brainer that wearing a helmet can be a great asset in the event of an accident on a bicycle. I think that choice should be left up to the rider, since there are many styles of riding and places people ride bicycles. If you feel better about not wearing a helmet for the rides you do, that's fine. I ride fast, in an urban and suburban setting in the USA, so I will always wear my helmet. Some protection is better than none.
To wear a helmet or not? It's not all or nothing. "Only Sith believe in absolutes." Use common sense. If you're doing something inherently dangerous - mountain biking. bicycle racing, riding way too fast in the street, weaving between cars, passing way too close and blowing red lights, for example - then you should wear a helmet. In fact, load up on the safety gear, Johnny & Jeannie Live Dangerously. But if you're just riding around town and are relatively slow/careful, you don't need a helmet. His point is that this 'culture of fear' discourages bike riding by those who would be slower/safer on a bike, so they don't earn the healthy benefits of biking, and society as a whole loses. The crazy biker is still going to need a helmet (and more). (Cops writing tickets for reckless biking would probably help more than tickets for 'riding in the street instead of the bike lane'.)
I wrote one of the papers disproving the efficacy of bicycle helmets. I'm also a person who received a serious concussion while wearing a helmet under ideal conditions. This is not a funny injury and I will be taking expensive anti seizure medication for the rest of my life. Trek has developed a new method of making the foam padding that makes it 28 times more effective against concussion than normal Styrofoam. This passes the same safety standards and they most certainly protect the rider better. While you can get seriously hurt on a bike it is by far the safest form of transport not to mention the health benefits. I'm about to go out on a weekly ride of 40 miles with 4,000 ft of climbing at nearly 75 years of age. Things are always looking up.
@@tomkunich9401 Was there a critical speed that the helmet became useful? Or more-so useless? I was told in the past that if you come off your bike over 20km/h then a helmet wont help at all, but I have also had other people say that under 20mph helmets increase risk of concussions and neck injuries.
The primary message here is not necessarily that wearing a helmet is bad, rather that when we market or legislate that helmets are necessary we 'scare' normal people away from riding bikes. In this talk it's suggested that we're 'fearing' people into a sedentary lifestyle and that we could 'save' more people (more exercise, healthier lifestyles, etc) if they weren't afraid to ride bikes and that any head injuries would be minimal in comparison.
Mikael -- in the ensuing decade more complete data has come to light: "According to Dutch government data, only about 0.5% of cyclists wear helmets in the Netherlands - the country where bicycles rule the roads. And yet, about 15% of injured cyclists admitted to the hospital were wearing them. It might seem odd that Dutch riders are overwhelmingly more likely to land in the hospital if they wear a helmet, but there is a simple explanation. Virtually all those who wear helmets do so because they are engaged in competitive cycling - racing or mountain biking. The risk of cycling injury has a lot more to do with the type of cycling activity than with the safety equipment in use. The remaining 99.5% of the Dutch cyclists who don’t wear helmets ride their bikes as transportation at a lower speed, which turns out to be a far less dangerous endeavor."
you misread the stat. is there a relationship between who is wearing the helmet--for instance more frequently or longer? the stat as presented means little. is there maybe a stat on how people in bad accidents fare in helmets versus more those with no helmets?
I've known of a few people who crashed on a bike at low speeds and cracked their skull open. I have personally hit my head on asphalt without a helmet enough times while biking around 30mph and have never had that happen. I don't know how a helmet will actually save my skull from being broken apart until it actually happens. That's a leap of faith. I also live in Houston, which has probably the most aggressive drivers I've ever encountered in a city that's completely almost dependent on driving.
About one year ago I took a hard spill while riding off-road on my bicycle. Fortunately, I was wearing a helmet. When my head impacted the ground, the point where the helmet hit cracked. I still have a sore neck but I believe I was spared a more serious injury thanks to the helmet.
The experiments were published. The research was conducted by Dr. Ian Walker of the University of Bath for the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents. He attached a ultrasonic distance sensor to a bike & measured exact distances left by overtaking vehicles. He found that drivers were twice as likely to get close to the bicycle at an average of 8.5cm. For me the less than 15mph protection a plastic helmet may give, isn't worth that average 8.5cm multiplied by all the cars I encounter,
A lousy winter hat kept me from cracking my skull when I skidded on a frozen puddle and fell so you can be damn well sure that a helmet is going to protect your skull.
I think people need to be weary of statistics. A lot of people do not wear their helmets properly and that leads to accidents where helmets are not effective. I do agree that we need to continue to make it safer to ride in cities, and I think we're making good progress toward that goal in San Francisco. I also agree that wearing helmets may cause people to feel safer and then take greater risks. I like that bicycle riding is being encouraged here but I think that helmets should be encouraged.
full face helmets block part of your peripheral vision and hearing, leading to an increased risk of that accident you never saw (or heard) coming. instead of worrying so much about what happens when you crash, how about preventing it from happening at all be being more aware of your surroundings. or even knowing how to crash properly. every dirt jumper knows how to land in a crash to prevent injury (usually a slide or roll), and roller derby girls actually have to crash on purpose as part of their training list. I know it sounds weird, maybe even a little bit crazy, but crashing properly is a skill way more useful than any helmet, and riding defensively is worth even more than that.
This. The amount of protection that people think a styrofoam hat provides is mindblowing. Learning how to fall with protect you much more than any helmet.
People would be safer in the car with a helmet, sure. But the difference is that in a car, if you crash, at least the car offers you some protection. If you crash on a bike with no helmet, you have no protection. Duh. I can't believe I had to explain this to an adult.
It is not as simple as "helmets are good" or "better safe than sorry". They may not be as good as we like to think they are. Cycle helmets are not designed for major impacts - if you are really serious you should get a motorcycle helmet. Even more worrying - hitting the head wearing a cycle helmet increases the rotational energy transmitted to the brain causing diffuse axonal injury and cervical spine trauma. On a population basis, helmet wearing might reduce cycling and lead to worse health overall.
Cars pass you closer. He states, in his video, that you're 14% more likely to be in an accident when wearing a bike helmet. That's because cars treat you as more protected. Wearing helmets can be more dangerous.
I concede to all of your points, my friend, except that in my experience I've found that drivers are more agressive when I wear a helmet. Maybe because a person without a helmet on is like a pedestrian on wheels and so it's a much more fragile figure. peace and keep on biking
I experienced that those, who wear helmets, ride more recklessly than those without, just because they think they'd be safe then. Even if a helmet protected one from major harms, one should not stop cycling cautiously. Maybe (I don't have any scientifical proof) this feeling of safety makes one carefree.
So many afraid that they'll fall off a bicycle and hurt their head. In about 40 years of cycling, I've fallen once. And that one fall only hurt my shoulder and knee, and taught me one important lesson. Do Not Fall Off. I have a helmet for the past few years but its main function is to keep rain off my head and warm in the winter. The speakers point about the culture of fear is valid. I meet it regularly when using my recumbent trike with people who don't cycle saying "It looks very dangerous being so low to the ground, people mightn't see you." Oddly enough, I have more problems with people not seeing me on my bicycle even wearing hi-viz jacket than on my trike. These people have bought into the fear culture and project their fear onto me, or try to do so.These same people have no problem with wearing dark, dull clothing in the dark when walking about. Talk about "people mightn't see you".
Pretty hard to fall from a recumbent trike! I also have ridden recumbents extensively and believe that typical head-over-heels falls on an upright bike are far rarer on recumbent bicycles due to the design. Re 'Do Not Fall Off', unless one is willing to go the recumbent trike route (not yet, for me), then falling off is always a possibility. A helmet is insurance... something you buy that you hope you never need. Yes, it won't protect from all injury. But it will protect more than not wearing one.
***** You can "fall off" a trike, just go fast enough and take a corner hard while not paying attention. :) Well, I still have and use an upright bike so I have the option of falling off with that. I've yet to see any end-over's with a recumbent bike, they most they will do is skid out.
Mike Savage easier said than done to just "not fall off" I'm pretty sure most people would not crash if it was an option. people don't crash on purpose
"Barrier for the lazy"? You think that people on bicycles crash because they are LAZY? That is absolutely the most absurd thing I have ever heard. The facts are clear: more bicyclists die from head injuries who DON'T wear a helmet than people who DO. Calling a helmet a "barrier for the lazy" is just something you said because you couldn't think of another argument.
As a lifelong bicyclist, I believe that under the age of 15, helmets should be worn, but once mastery and habits of bike riding have been formed, it should be left to personal preference. I have ridden 29er's, 26's, 24's, hardtails, no front suspension, w/front suspension, with brakes, without brakes, in the summer, in the winter, on the roads, the trails, in the rain or sun, or snow, ALL WITHOUT A HELMET, and more importantly, mostly over the age of 16. But yeah, I have a helmet, mostly to wear if I know there will be kids watching, just to set a good example, but 90%, I wear none. Willing to change if the evidence supports it.
@@Lunavii_Cellest Sure, but I know a kid, a neighbour of mine, who suffered head trauma around the age of 9, and theirs no way that you could convince his parents for him not to use a helmet, after that. that said tho, being comfortable from a young age is great, so teaching kids to ride is something I'm getting into
Protective head gear in cars is not a bad idea. During WWII British tankers had a much higher rate of head injuries than their American allies. American tankers wore leather helmets, the Brits wore wool berets.
I got a puncture at 60 kph and hit the ground hard. Broken collarbone, road rash everywhere, helmet split in 2 but not a scratch on my head!? So yeah, they do work over 20 kph, sideways...
+iSE9 It takes an unusually open mind to realize the guy might actually be right. First I was on the brink of disliking the video, too - before I realized the truth he could be conveying. He`s not saying bicycle helmets can't help in certain cases, he is just saying that bicycling isn't very dangerous - with and without a helmet - if you for example compare it to driving a car. Yet for many people it's unthinkable to ride a bicycle without a helmet, however the thought of wearing a helmet inside a car hasn't occurred to most people at all, even though it is probably the more dangerous activity and also would receive greater safety benefits from wearing a helmet. It's all about how for example the automotive industry want's us to perceive danger levels, perception of safety to promote certain activities and perception of danger to discourage others. I think further evaluation would be necessary for different kinds of cycling (I've a hunch for example mountainbikers receive a way geater benefit from helmets than normal commuting cyclists) but the guy has some very good points...it's just many people can't see them because they are so indoctrinated. I almost failed to see them, too.
+Max White True, but in a car you have seatbelts, airbags and are protected by a metal frame. That will save you in many cases. Why remove the only protective equipment you have just because it might not work in the unlikely event that you do have an accident on your bicycle? Many if not most accidents involving cyclists happen when hit from behind by a car, and you will likely hit your head. Personally, I would want to do all I can to protect the most important thing - my brain.
iSE9 No the real reason why you wear a helmet when bicycling (btw I do wear a helmet, too) is conditioning. That is not to say that it can't be effective to protect you (I have no clue whos right) but it's not the reason we wear a helmet if you think about it! Think about alpine skiing, a few decades (or even less) ago noone would even consider wearing a helmet, nowadays even in areas where it's not legally enforced almost everyone does! Why? Did people 15 years ago not value their brains? I doubt it! The reason again is conditioning, it has been brought to our attention from the outside via campaigns and such that skiing without a helmet is incredibly dangerous and we need to wear (and thus buy) ofcourse a helmet. And we do because we are anxious not to do so. I am not saying you should now start playing Russian Roulette but I think the risk minimization we practise on a daily basis is not as logical as we think. It's based on subjective criteria (which is quite normal) but we are very vulnerable to suggestion, fear is a prime motivator to make people do something. Another example would be terror: is it likely that someone living in a western country will fall victim to a terror attack? No, chances are almost zero. Yet people are afraid to some degree, avoid crowds. There is absolutely no reason for that, none. You are probably more likely to be struck dead by a falling branch, yet people do not avoid forests. By the way those who dare to go into the forest, do they wear helmets? ;-) I think the mainpoint of the speaker is not that you should not wear a helmet, but that helmet campaigns are a tool to shift the perception of what is dangerous and what is safe more in favor of automotive transport or buying safety equipment. Maybe that's a bit of a conspiracy theory and I myself think it's abit black and white (since I believe that atleast sometimes there are also sincere intentions to protect people at play) but I am not sure it's really that ridicolous.
The type of cycling I do is dangerous with or without a helmet, I know that. It's part of the sport. Today I drafted behind a bus going 70km/h. A little tree branch could have killed me. Would I be doing the same thing if helmets didn't exist? Probably. I either live or die happy on my bike, that is my motto. I don't fear crashing, I have done that many times. I fear more for my bike than my own health. But I am convinced some of those crashes would have ended much worse for me without my helmet. That is my opinion, and my experience.
iSE9 Well as I've written in my first reply I think while the guy generally may be correct it's important to evaluate that further for different riding styles, not just riding in general where the bulk are commuters. By the way are you a roadie, too? I'm a road racer. Not to be mean or anything but I don't think 70kph is that fast ;-) Motordrafting is dangerous, though - but fun. Ido it too lol
Excellent TEDxTalk. One of my favs. The most telling reality he describes is how auto manufacturers are pushing for bicycle helmets not because they care about the safety of bikers, but to scare people away from bicycles. The health benefits of bicycling are awesome. Bicycling is fun, freeing, good exercise and more. My safety advice to bicyclists who haven't yet been hit by a motor vehicle: pretend they can't see you; only steer your bicycle toward places that they can't get to; assume that that motorist is going to try to hit you, go the other way, go a way that s/he can't get to you. I'm also a motorist, and Hades! yes have I not seen every single bicyclist that I should have seen.
+Blake Morrow Watch this TEDx talk. Learn. Are you too whatever to get out there and bicycle? Oh, well. It's too bad to be you then. I bicycle and I drive a car. Almost every time I drive, I have a good statistical chance of dying; almost every time I ride my bicycle, the chances of me dying during said trip and directly due to my being aboard a bicycle are millions if not billions to one. I stay mostly on bike paths, and go about ten to fifteen mph; cars are so much more dangerous because of the speeds involved, both yours and the other guy's.
Some flaws with his stats about bicycle helmets. One: how many of the helmets that had failed to protect the wearer were improperly adjusted while worn ? Two: how many helmets were the wrong type for the wearer and/or the wrong size? Three: how many of them have been used longer than the manufacturers' recommended time? I am one of those paranoids who was saved by a helmet.
chris wiehle Anecdotal evidence Chris. Also, if all those unproper wearing episodes happen in places with helmet laws and campaigns, and are common enough to be statistically significant... Then most people will always use their helmets wrong, making them hazardous.
Wearing a helmet should always be a choice, I agree that enforcing it is a bad idea but until the cycling infrastructure where I live is improved drastically I'm going to continue wearing a helmet. All it takes is on serious head injury for a person to wish they were wearing a helmet. Sensible road use is the way to go but you can't always account for everything so I choose the wear a helmet in conjunction. I've heard and read about loads of people's personal experiences where a helmet has prevented death/serious head injuries. I don't wear a helmet walking down the street because the risks are much much lower. You can't compare walking on a path to cycling on the road in a city full of impatient drivers.
...and to say a helmet increases the risk of brain damage... There is no DEFINITIVE proof of that claim. I know that on impact I'd rather have something between my head and the concrete floor, car bonnet (hood if you're American) ect...
I don't know what your definition of definitive is but this study trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=810710 published in The National Academies of Science Engineering and Medicine is pretty damning especially in conjunction with our understanding of bike helmets and rotational head injuries. Look up "The efficacy of bicycle helmets against brain injury" by the author W.J. Curnow for more evidence.
+BartBart22 that article starts off saying "may increase risk" I'll read it properly when I have more time but it already seems like it's not definitive.
+BartBart22 that article starts off saying "may increase risk" I'll read it properly when I have more time but it already seems like it's not definitive.
Thanks for at least entertaining the idea that helmets may not be what they seem, if any of the articles I've reference peek your interest there is a lot more information available WRT how minimally protective bicycle helmets are. By your standard there is really no definitive evidence that bicycle helmets provide protection against anything but the most minor impacts and may make impacts of greater force worst by magnifying rotational forces transferred the brain and or neck.
What he hasn't even addressed is that bike helmets are not designed to prevent concussions, only skull fractures. There recently was a great article in Bicycling Magazine on this. The helmets are not doing what many wearers expect them to do. I still wear one, but have lowered my expectations of it.
Drie wiel. Yes I have a road bike and I use it to get to work and always when I'm cycling I have my helmet on my head. United Kingdom isn't cyclist's paradise. I have the clouths you are writing about and thin 25mm tires and I ride between cars, vans and lorries. But I'm not taking more risk as you claim it's not my fault that driver didn't notice 2 x 200 lumens light s on my bars and hit me instead of giving me way as the road signage was showing.
The issue is lack of infrastructure. Hence, people wear helmets. I wish the USA would get their act together. I hate living in a world where the car dominates the streets so much I feel uneasy with the simple clean act of getting from A to B on a bicycle.
I totally agree with this. I am a regular bike commuter to and from work. The poor planing or development of infrastructure in the majority of American cities to accommodate alternative transportation is troublesome.
Mikael has a point about governments scaring people away from cycling . I'm from Ireland here a couple of weeks back the government brought in a law against cycling on the pavements and sidewalks apparently its an inconvenience to people and that all bike users should use the road which is fine if you know the rules and laws of the road like box junctions
Was just in Amsterdam and saw SOOOO many people without helmets (and the majority were also looking at their phones while riding). Children held on a hard seat in front and one rider CARRYING THEIR BABY... I am still in shock
And yet, we have an extremely low accident and fatality rate when it comes to cycling accidents. Putting some painted styrofoam on your head does nothing for you in 99% of the cases. It only messes up your hair and causes discomfort.
Noticed the cycling infrastructure in Amsterdam? All cycling paths are separated form cars. That's everywhere in the Netherlands. Bike usage is the highest and the change of being in a cycling accident the lowest in the world. Everyone cycles because it is the fastest, cheapest and safest why to go from A to B. You are in shock because the facts don't fit your paradigm. Change your paradigm.
That may well be ONE of the reasons however I would recommend that you check into a cycling study in Bristol U.K, that showed drivers gave less space for helmet wearing cyclists.
You can always come up with arguments both for and against any proposition. I'm 71 years old and I've been riding bikes since I was 5. A bicycle is now the way I get around. I don't own a car and I don't want one. In all those years I've gone over the handle bars of my bike twice, feet pointing at the sky. In neither case did I land on my head. In any case I've only recently started wearing a helmet. Why? Mostly to avoid having to deal with people who like to shake their heads and wag their fingers. The statistics are clear. In the United States, 40,000 people a year die in auto accidents, and 700 people a year die on bicycles. I don't know this for certain, but I'd be willing to bet that the majority of those 700 were killed because they were struck by a car. What cyclists need to cultivate in order to protect themselves (from cars, mostly) is situational awareness.
Even though I don't wear a helmet myself, from a scientific point of view this talk is heavily flawed. He claims to have spent 2.5 years researching the subject [6:05] and reading scientific reports [6:15] but does not provide a single citation supporting the strong claims he makes. I did a little bit of homework and checked out recent scientific publications on bike helmet effectiveness and found, to my surprise, that the claims made in this video are utterly wrong. A recent meta analysis study [Reference see below] from 2018 that includes 179 effect estimates from 55 studies from 1989-2017 concludes with: "Bicycle helmets have consistently been found to reduce head injury, specifically serious and fatal head injury. The results from different meta-analyses are remarkably consistent...". And yes, this video is old and new scientific studies have been made in the meanwhile but in the paper I cited, it is made clear that even the publications from 1989 to 2010 consistently found that helmets reduce head injury. So this can't be an excuse. In my opinion, this video should be removed to prevent spreading of misinformation -- or -- the claims he made should be supported by proper citation of scientific papers in the description of the video. But in its current shape, this video is just bad for everybody. [Reference] "Bicycle helmets - To wear or not to wear? A meta-analyses of the effects of bicycle helmets on injuries.", Høye, A. (2018), Institute of Transport Economics, Gaustadalleen 21, 0349, Oslo, Norway Accident Analysis & Prevention, 117, 85-97. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2018.03.026
"If You Torture the Data Long Enough, It Will Confess" a wise man once said. Thanks TEDx for the clickbait title and video of some guy who doesn't know how statistics work.
once my front wheel went into a a dip and I got thrown over the handlebars and flew headfirst into a cement curb. My helmet went "crack!" against the cement. I jumped up, put my hands to my head and couldn't stop saying, "wow, wow, wow": So I can say with authority, "This guy is full of shit".
This is just as anecdotal, but the only "bad" accident I've had on a bike was 12 years ago. There was an icy spot on the street I didn't see and I went down. Broke my wrist. But my head never touched the ground. I dunno.
A girl from my class fell weird from her bike at a fairly low speed (or so bystanders say, she has no recollection of the accident) She basically got angled in her bike and hit her head. She had an emergency surgery, spent months in the hospital and half a year in rehab. All that would have been avoided, had she worn a helmet.
@@lilia3944 No, because side-ways hits are not protected well by a helmet. Also, if it's a kid, the helmet probably wasn't put on correctly on that day, and in that case it would have done more harm. If only 5% of the budget for road maintenance was diverted to bicycle paths, then bicycles would be the safest, cleanest, fastest urban vehicles out there. Helmets increase the inconvenience of your bicycle by a lot. Increasing the inconvenience means more people take their car. Cars just casually murder people. They murder them with climate change, they murder them with pollution, and they straight up run them over. Every car trip saved saves lives.
I support your view and am also an optimist however here in Australia where it is legislated it is quite likely now impossible that it will ever be repealed. It’s undeniable that people cycle less when penalties exist for not wearing a helmet.
Not very convincing. I personally started to wear helmets when I got myself a MTB (they can be too fast on difficult terrain to risk a crash without head protection) and I will never ride a bike without one again, even in town. Why? Because when you crash due to unexpected obstacles, you go head first and have no time to react with hands or anything. Also, there's nothing you can do to prepare yourself when you collide with a car. You either see nothing (car is behind) or you are too busy braking, and at the end you hit a hard road surface or a metal object with your head. My first helmet lasted over a decade, then within few months I had two big ones that ended with concussions. Third helmet now, and several years without any accident. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be so 'vocal' now if I didn't wear a helmet when I had those crashes.
When I was in my teenage years to my late twenties I would not have been caught dead in one of those goofy helmets - just how a LOT of people are at that age. If I hadn't developed the habit of riding nonstop during that time it's doubtful I would have ever gone back to bicycling when I was older & not so vain. If you feel more comfortable wearing a helmet fine; but I don't & not only do not want people forcing me to wear one but also don't want to hear condescending comments from people who do.
Depends on where you are in the world is a factor in wearing a helmet. If you're in the mountains with a mountain bike, you might want to wear a helmet.
In Australia we have these two things- bicycle helmet laws & hard rubbish roadside collection when the bicycle laws were introduced (early 1990's) , you could walk down any street and find many completely usable bicycles just thrown out in the rubbish
+strangedaysarethese Can't tell if I'm preaching to the choir here but if you aren't already familiar with this web site crag.asn . au/are-bicycle-helmets-dangerous/ it is one of the better compendiums of knowledge on this topic on the web, it' has a lot of Australian specific information as well.
I'm torn. I agree that we are battling a culture of fear. However, I must be one of the few cyclists who have benefited from wearing a helmet. Fell off my bike and hit my head on the corner of a concrete planter. Quite sure I would have been left with a horrible head injury had I not been wearing it. A friend also survived a head on collision with a car (his head actually hit the bumper) thanks to a helmet. He was told by a doctor at the scene he would have died without it.
Plot twist: wearing a helmet as a kid made me not as good at avoiding head injury, and subsequently hurt my ability to protect my head in activities while not using a helmet...while this may or may not actually be true, my point is that there isn't science based on what I just said, and it's likely a relevant factor, even if small.
I'm sitting here watching this, recovering from a freak bicycling accident... a fall in a parking lot over a speed bump. I haven't crashed in 30 years. I have always worn a helmet religiously. Wasn't wearing one, because I was traveling with my Brompton and forgot it. It was only a 2 mile ride from my hotel to my client's office, and I crashed in their parking lot. Three days in the hospital including 2 days in the ICU. A bad concussion, several fractured facial bones, some brain bleeding. I will never ride without a helmet again.
What Mikael avoids, or fails to understand, is the concept of risk exposure. The chances of anyone falling on a bicycle on any given day is very, very low. As I wrote above, haven't fallen in 3 decades. However, the consequences of a fall are likely to be very serious. I was moving less than 10 mph (16 kph) and yet suffered a severe concussion, multiple broken facial bones, and a broken arm. A low chance times a very high cost is a very high number. Helmets will not protect against all falls, but you do what you can reasonably do. Spending EU30 or less for a helmet is no inconvenience and if it prevents one severe injury per person per 30 years it's worth it. Yes, we shouldn't market helmets based upon fear, but instead as a simple, obligatory piece of gear. BTW, cherry-picking statistics to make the anti-helmet point is as misleading as fear-mongering.
With that low of a risk and with that risk be more or less equal to the risk of head injury from traveling in a car or being a pedestrian. per hour of activity, how can you justify the notion that helmets should be an "obligatory" item. I'll guess that you don't wear a helmet in either of the two situation, what about when climbing or descending a set of stairs? Walking on stairs leads to far more head injuries on a per time basis that does bicycle riding. It's people who use their amygdala to make decisions and feel there should be a law or at the very least public shaming so that everyone wears a helmet while riding bicycles that are the fear mongers.
So just exactly how would a helmet have protected your face in that situation? As far as helmets and concussions go here is what a leading Canadian Neurosurgeon has to say about that. www.cbc.ca/news/health/bike-helmets-should-address-concussion-risk-scientists-say-1.1367454
Because I hit on my forehead as well, and it hit first, leading to the concussion. Any dissipation would have been of benefit. Trust me, I am looking to buy more than just a rudimentary helmet now! BTW, if you read the article (and yes, I did earlier this week after googling for it), you'll see that there HAVE been changes to helmet design addressed to reduce the risk and severity of concussions. This article is dated in 2013; a little Googling will show you that things have progressed since then, e.g., MIPs, smooth helmets.
I've yet to see anyone wear a MIPs helmet and at several hundred dollars I'm not expecting a whole lot of them anytime soon. Bike racers would rather wear something that appears aerodynamic than something that actually protects them/ That said I would hope you recognize that you on some level understand that 99.999% of the helmets that you see cyclists wearing provide little or no protection or worse can add to or even cause rotational injuries to the brain leading to far worse damage that even a fractured skull. If you're into googling this topic read more about rotational injuries.
yeah why not telling people to not wear seatbelts in cars, in the end stastically there's a very low chance you'll end up in a car crash. And they are unconfortable and they ruin your clothes.
I don't wear a helmet when biking on the road or bike paths. Never have and never will. Only time I wear one is when downhill biking, but then it's much more substantial full face helmet. I don't understand why those in this thread who are so big on helmets don't wear a full face while driving? It's proven to be much safer????
Because per mile traveled, you're more than 11 times more likely to be killed while cycling than driving. There's only 0.11 deaths per 10 million car miles traveled, so it would take the average driver 5,000 years before dying while driving would be 50/50 odds. Also, it's hilarious you think you have more need of a helmet riding downhill than on a road with cars. You don't do a lot of road riding, do you? I do, and I have a wall of broken helmets to prove the hazards of road riding to your head... and thanks to them I've never had a head injury.
Did you notice that you are encased in a gigantic metal structure when driving as opposed to cycling? Have you also not heard of air bags and seat belts darling? Darling is it still unclear?
+Carl Monson You clearly have never been downhill biking. Riding your huffy through some dirt does not count. Everyone I know rode a bike as a kid and without a helmet, never known anyone to be killed or even seriously injured. Can't say the same thing for cars. The only thing that dinky foam hat you call a road helmet does is cause you to hit your head on the ground because of the increased weight and circumference. Your collection of broken helmets shows this. You're lucky to not have a neck injury by now. If you weren't wearing a helmet your head probably never would of made contact. It's your natural tumbling reflex. Watch a bmx or skate video (street) and learn how to fall....
J MO- actually, I do downhill mountain biking, and use a full-face helmet for that, but I'll give you that you may be a more reckless and dangerous rider than I. But downhill is really a departure from the discussion. The fact that you don't know anyone who was killed or injured on a bike is what is known as anecdotal evidence, and is giving you a false sense of security; the statistic that you're 11 times more likely to be killed road cycling than car driving per mile is statistical fact. Your personal experience fails to take into account the amount of exposure - people spend many, many, many times the amount of time and miles in a car than on a bike, so even though per mile cycling is 11 times more deadly, it makes perfect sense that there are more deaths by car- there just aren't that many cyclists. And that dinky 'foam hat' I have weighs only 220 grams - less than 5% the weight of my head and less than 1/5th the weight of your full-face helmet... hardly likely to be the cause of hitting my head. But it's designed to crack internally on impact and slide on the ground, not twist my neck... and it has proven to be effective to me multiple times. And if helmet weight, circumference, and neck injury is such a big concern for you, why do you wear a much heavier and bigger full face helmet riding downhill? It's going to snap your scrawny neck like a twig.
+Carl Monson , we can agree to disagree on road bike helmets. To answer your question I wear full face while riding downhill because you are moving as fast as you would on a road bike only with jumps, jagged exposed rocks and whizzing by trees sometimes within inches. And yes you can most certainly snap your neck which is why a neck brace is important. When road riding I'm not as concerned about falling on flat pavment as I am getting hit by a car, which is what kills most cyclists. In that case youre prolly screwed either way. If statistics show I'm safer not wearing a helmet around cars even better.
I'm a construction worker. . and when on site Im told to wear a Helmet... So all day long I bash my head wearing this Fucking Helmet. . . Before when we didnt have to wear helmets. . . guess what. . . I NEVER bashed my head! Helmets Desensitize and give you a force sence of security. . . Fucking Fear culture. . .This blokes got it right.
I'd be dead twice by now were it not for a helmet. I've split two in half so far, and am a careful cyclist. Even when cars are finally banished from the earth I'd wear a helmet-- neither of my collisions was caused by cars or carelessness. People perceive cycling as dangerous because cars pass close, which is genuinely risky. Helmets only state the obvious. Getting more people on bikes means getting rid of cars, not getting rid of helmets.
Discourage helmet use because of bike use would (allegedly) go down? Really? And that is his first and only solution? Good luck using your "common sense" after hitting pavement or a windshield with it.
Cool presentation and I agree for utilitarian cyclists. He may be talking about Euro standards for bike helmets. US standards (CPSC) are more stringent and are tested in random places. This makes the US bike helmets more robust and weigh more. This is true for motorcycles too. The Euro motorcycles are very noticeably lighter.
Yeah I'm still going to wear a helmet. I've already had a brain injury I do not need another. However I really do like the point he brought up about the bicycles being incredibly efficient in urban areas. Or in my case is Segway because I can't use a bicycle. People need to get out of their cars and find other ways to get around that are better for the environment and their wallets.
A logical argument: Would putting a barrier of any form around your head possibly protect your head in the event of an accident? Yes, wear a helmet, it may save your life.
Er, no he doesn't explain why. He just complains that helmets seem such a burden that more people stop riding than buy helmets and he sees that as a net negative. But I see that as the result of decades of conditioning. Eventually people will become comfortable with helmets and riding rates will increase.
***** Well he does explain. First, there is the net negative as you put it. This is very important though because by lowering the number of cyclists on the roads you not only deprive society of all the benefits (health and otherwise) but you also make it more dangerous for the existing cyclists - since there is a correlation between safety and number of cyclists. You theorize that this would change in time - but that is a hell of a risk to take considering helmets have killed cycling whenever they were made mandatory. Second, helmets promote the notion that biking is dangerous. This goes hand in hand with point 1 but merits being singled out. The car companies promote bike helmets even though you are more likely to sustain a head injury in a car... and even though car helmets exist. They know fucking well that helmets kill cycling and this is precisely what they are after. They want the illusion of danger to be with bikes, not with their metal death traps. Third, there is the issue of risk compensation. People are generally more likely be more reckless when wearing a helmet. They essentially increase the likelihood of accidents. Fourth, they dont do all that much. This is just the icing though. The cake is in the points above. So just forget about those pieces of garbage and go biking. If anyone says you should wear one see if they are willing to put on a helmet when driving their car :)
You're talking about road racing right? I never ride at 50km/h or even close, so I see no need to wear a plastic hat. Pro & semi-pro racing car drivers wear helmets, i don't wear one when i'm driving to the shops. The speeds you ride at are far more of a factor than what you are wearing on your head. if you're really concerned about your safety, slow down.
your personal experience is not a study, so how does it make it any more credible than what blastofo is saying? also, your experience doesn't take into account the current general perspective on cyclists. 10+ years ago people didn't care about the old guy in lycra riding 8 mph on the side of the road. also, you are 57 and have the idea that helmets are nothing but "goofy looking," and the fact that wearing one would've been the SOLE reason for you to drop this cyling makes your opinion invalid.
im from nanny state, Australia. people treat you like a pedo if you ride without a helmet. I hate the bloody things. I have friends that stopped riding the day the laws came in so they worked, they got people off bikes, exactly what the polititians wanted.
spoddog1 I agree. The less convenient you make cycling, the less likely people are going to do it. No space for bikes, compulsory helmets etc makes cycling a niche, rather than normal activity.
Well said, you can't even ride a bicycle along a deserted beach legally without a helmet! If my memory serves me correctly it was a 41% decrease in bicycle riders Overnight!
+greggy weggy Overnight? Well, if it's literally overnight, then maybe that's how many didn't have a helmet. I prefer to wear a helmet in town and busy roads, but the idea of compulsory helmets is just daft. Adults can assess their own risk. If anything should be compulsory on bikes in traffic it should be mirrors and bells - the things that reduce the chance of being hit by making you more aware and allowing you to make others aware of you.
Figuratively obviously! People just didn't buy a helmet and stopped riding their bikes full stop! I have mirrors on all my bikes which are of use mainly on the local cycleway, but why should bicycles have to have mirrors when it is the cars that are causing the rear end accidents! Does that mean that car drivers can lessen their liability because the cyclist should have seen them coming up from behind, especially on hills when the speed differential could be many tens of kilometres per hour? Bells are already compulsory on bicycles in Australia, they are just about the first thing most people remove from bicycles because most think they can yell louder.
+greggy weggy Mirrors let you see what is behind you as you know, from using them. Not having one doesn't reduce the liability of a bad driver behind you if they hit you but you can't sue him/her if you're dead, and if you're mangled but alive, the compo isn't a great substitute for having had the warning to dive to the side and have the driver done for dangerous driving. It's easy to just turn your head and look on a good road with no potholes and frequent junctions, but in a busy city with jaywalkers, potholes, and everything else, it's a lot quicker to glance in a mirror and then immediately return your gaze to the road ahead. I'm not saying that mirrors _should_ be compulsory, I'm saying that if I _had_ _to_ pick an item to make compulsory, I'd say mirror or bell _before_ helmet. I think it should really depend on your circumstances of where you're cycling. I've cycled across Northern Europe and in some places (like the Netherlands) it's a lot safer than going through the centre of London. In Rotterdam, or Copenhagen you don't need a helmet. In central London you need a helmet, and a guardian angel or a tandem bike with a rear gunner :) Bells are compulsory in Oz? I didn't know that. I don't think it was the case when I lived there. Bells have their use, but again pedestrians jaywalking with headphones or inattentive drivers with windows up and radio blaring, they won't hear you anyway - I once had an old style horn on the bike, and that got their attention. I rarely shout, and I tend to use the bell from a good distance back to let people know to pay attention, I think it's more polite than shouting at people who are drifting across a street or bikepath without looking just cos they can't hear an engine approaching.
The statement about ER doctors was of course more provocative than a real argument. Do I take more risks when wearing a helmet on the bike? Personally, I don't think so. But of course I can only speak for myself. Nevertheless, I am not sure if the risk-compensation argument against helmets on bikes is very strong (please give a reference if you want to get into a discussion of the specifics).
Good talk. People need to stop arguing safety vests and bicycle helmets and start focusing on what *really* makes bicycling better, safer and more efficient.
Those safety vest dorks make me nervous. One of them pulled out in front of me without looking once. They probably assume they need that shit because they're not paying enough attention to stay out of harms way.
Good infrastructure and traffic systems in short. I want something like www.visionzeroinitiative.com/ to cover bicycles too. (in reality it does not apply for bicycle infrastructure in sweden...yet?)
Actually you have just posted identical reasons for not wearing a car helmet or a bike helmet along with your own made up BS - you can't have it both ways. The fact is that the inside of a car - with it's much higher speeds and glass & metal, is VERY dangerous to the driver's head despite air bags and seat-belts. And the absolute truth is that there is MUCH LESS chance of dying on a bicycle from a head injury than there is in a car - go look it up. You aren't being honest and you know it.
@@Luiz.Andrade He presented the evidence and arguments for his side, as the auto industry has presented the arguments only for its side. Funny how people who argue that others are biased always fail to recognise that the information they themselves have is unbiased.
Simple: percentages can be misleading. We balance perceived benefits with risks. The risk to consider is not how likely it is that a deadly accident has been caused by a head injury, but how great the benefit of wearing a helmet in any type of accident is (deadly or not). Subtle but important. Chances for serious head injury are significantly reduced by wearing a helmet on the bike while chances for serious head injury in a car accident are already low because of various other technologies.
No reply from you yet for my legitimate question as to your reasons why you don't wear a helmet in your car when studies PROVE it would greatly reduce your chances of serious injury or death. Come on, I want to hear your "nonsensical reasons" why you aren't wearing a car helmet. Or are you going to be like every other bicycle helmet advocate here & just disappear when I ask this question? My guess is that you would feel silly wearing a car helmet. At least man up & admit you're a hypocrite.
If your agenda is to increase ridership for general welfare, mandating bicycle helmets is certainly detrimental, but on an individual basis if you ride and don't wear a helmet, maybe the contents of your head aren't worth protecting. Going down on a bike is far more violent than a pedestrian stumbling. You grew up learning how to protect yourself from falls while walking or running to the point that it's instinctive, but those same instincts don't help much in a higher speed crash on a bicycle. People tend to tightly grip the handlebars until they hit the ground, so aren't using their arms to protect their head - leaving your helmet as the only thing between your head and pavement. With some of Mikael's logical fallacies, I'd think he would advocate riding no-handed for increased safety. Even the worst helmet is better than no helmet. Among my collection of crash-retired helmets from decades of racing is one of those old 'leather hairnets' - absolutely minimal protection by today's standards, yet it was ripped in half in a crash... and I had no idea my head hit the ground until I saw the damage. Please don't listen to this guy pushing his agenda at the risk of your injury.
Yes- I wear a 4000 pound full-body helmet, complete with bumpers, door reinforcement, crush zones, air-bags and seat belts (people didn't used to like seat belts either). This is one of your many logical fallacies (a euphemism for lies)- the auto industry have spent billions on safety equipment. Each car has about $900 worth of safety equipment. I also wear full leathers, boots and helmet on my motorcycle that cost over $600. On my bike my only safety equipment is a 219g helmet that cost $75. Per mile traveled, cyclists are over 11 times more likely to be killed (1.26 per 10M miles for bicycles, 0.11 per 10M for cars), yet you claim that if everyone knew the statistics they would stop driving, and claim they would be safer riding a bike without a helmet. If you had argued that helmets should not be mandatory by law I would agree with you (even though your reasoning is faulty), but I think anyone that would ride a bike without a helmet is a fool, especially if you ride on city streets. Do you let your kids ride without helmets?
This kind of thinking leads to dangerous driving. I know a person who thinks and talk exactly like that. "I have soandso brakes in my car, soandso safety equipment, I can stop in seconds if child runs out on the road in front of me". False or not, this sense of safety makes people drive faster and more aggressively, making life in cities and towns a pain in the ass for everyone else. The bottom line is private cars should be banned from city centres and towns. It makes life much more pleasant for all citizens. Simple as that. PS yes I let my child ride without helmet because we ride on dedicated cycle paths, away from car traffic where no "Carl Monson" tests his $900 worth of safety equipment.
No, it leads to less risk of death to me caused by your average 98 IQ driver in normal driving conditions, and hugely decreased traffic deaths per mile overall. The only car collision I've been in over the last 20 years I was rear-ended at a stop light by one of those average drivers on a cell phone. Your kind of thinking could land your kid in the hospital or worse, something a minimal amount of protection could prevent, or at least reduce the severity. And yes, it can even happen on a dedicated bike path, although they do help greatly. I ride on dedicated paths as much as I can since more than half of my crashes have been caused by your average car drivers... but average bicycle riders are actually less skilled at handling bikes than cars, and I have been hit by one of them. She took the worst of it, but was fortunately wearing a helmet, so got nothing more than road rash. Modern helmets are far lighter, more comfortable, and safer than they were even 10 years ago, and they're a small price to pay for a little protection for the unforeseen and unpreventable incidents. Somehow, I don't think your kid would ride less if you got them a helmet - it sure doesn't stop me.
Bicyclists in possession of a functioning brain should consider wearing a helmet for protection. It pains me to listen and read all the nonsense which is being spread to 'prove' that wearing helmets does not protect from serious head injury in case of an accident. For example: what use are studies on the percentage of head injuries in accidents with and without helmet legislation if it ignores the issue of severity of an injury! Talk to an ER doctor about the issue if you are still confused.
My uncle is a serious cyclist, and one day he got into a high speed crash. His helmet was cracked down the center. If he hadn't been wearing it then it would have been his skull that cracked. I will always wear a helmet, no matter how many literature experts tell me not to.
There is a big difference between sports bikes and recreational/transport bikes..in a cycling country the majority has a "normal bike" where a helmet is useless.
"If he hadn't been wearing it then it would have been his skull that cracked." People say this all the time, and most of them believe it, but it's really not true. Polystyrene helmets split in half very easily in quite mild collisions. Heads are actually quite tough (that's the point). They will help avoid scrapes and bruises, but are not much use in a crash where your skull is actually in danger of getting cracked. Which is why the evidence of efficacy from 30 years of research is so weak. Sure, wear one if you like, they don't do much harm either, just be aware that promoting them _harms_ cyclists health overall.
Helmets increase the surface area of your head, which makes you more likely to hit your head in a crash. If your uncle had not been wearing a helmet, he might not even have hit his head.
If you read Max Weber's post again carefully it says his uncle's helmet was cracked down the center. Can we assume that his helmet was put on properly? And his head sits squarely on his shoulders with or without a helmet? The would it not be reasonable to say that it would have been his head 'cracked down the center' had the helmet not been present? By how much is 'the surface area of my head' increased? The helmet material is designed to dissipate the force from a blow to a small area into a bigger area, while also absorbing the energy of the blow. That is how any helmet works. A bicycle helmet gives some protection but it is better than none at all.
You have just totally ignored what I said to push your own agenda... In spite of crumple zones, seat-belts, and airbags, 90% of car accident fatalities are still because of head injuries which a helmet would prevent. Obviously, wearing a helmet in a car would save thousands of lives every year. So do you wear a helmet in a car and do you insist your passengers do? IF NOT, THEN WHY NOT???
I wear a helmet but I object to compulsory helmets. It's a ridiculous idea that I should be required to wear a helmet to cycle to a shop, 100 metres away, on a quiet country road.
Do you really think a bike helmet protects you from regular falls? Almost every fall on a bike is when it tips over because of a sharp corner or imbalance and a fall. The helmet does nothing to protect the side of your head at all. The only reason a helmet on a bike would help is tipping over your handlebars and falling on your head which is extremely rare. If you want to protect yourself, try knee and elbow pads and bubble wrap. If you feel like that is impractical than stop being a hypocrite.
If you have ever fallen or crashed while riding a bicycle and hit your head on the concrete (I have, twice. I’m an avid road cyclist) you KNOW you should wear a helmet. One of my crashes was caused by my front tire blowing. This could happen to anyone. My helmet was cracked; my head was unharmed. WEAR A HELMET!
That's nonsense. As the video showed, the helmets only protect you from falls to the top of the head. I don't know about you, but every time i've ever seen a person fall of a bike, it has always been scratched up elbows and knees and no head damage. If anything, one could conceivably hit themselves on the side of the head, but helmets show no protection there. I have a better solutioon to make you 5 times safer than a helmet. Wrap yourself in bubble wrap or better yet, stay home.
Without a bicycle helmet I'd be dead by now. Twice. If I'd listen to this guy "rational conclusions" I would have been 6 feet under today. Last year I was hit with a car. The driver didn't pay attention to red light nor me. I was airborne and then I landed hard on my head an shoulder. My helmet was broken as well as my clavicle. Guess what, my head was intact. Besides headache I was fine.
And by the way, since you brought up "a deadly car crash" are you aware that 90% of car crash fatalities are caused by head injuries that could have been prevented if the passengers and driver were wearing helmets? Stats prove that seat-belts and airbags are not enough. Do you wear a helmet in the car? Do you insist that your passengers do? I have never seen a bicycle helmet advocate ever adequately address their hypocrisy in this matter and I doubt that you'll be able to either.
+chris partin It is better to wear, one, but I think the quote has been taken out of context. Telling cyclists that they must wear a helmet is not the quick and easy solution - building better infrastructure is the better option. Make cycling safer. Many countries would prefer to fund a cheap public awareness drive to encourage helmet use, rather than spend money on proper bike paths and other infrastructure.
