Helmets

lady_marmalade

Apologies as I'm sure this has come up before, but I just wondered what everyone thought about various claims that cycling without a helmet is safer than with?

I refer to articles here and here.

Personally my view has always been that any protection is better than none. Thoughts?

Membrane

lady_marmalade wrote:

Apologies as I'm sure this has come up before, but I just wondered what everyone thought about various claims that cycling without a helmet is safer than with?

I refer to articles here and here.

Personally my view has always been that any protection is better than none. Thoughts?

Your view is way to simplistic. Passive protection such as a helmet doesn't feature in the top 10 things you can do to improve your safety. So why bother discussing it?

Morgan

lady_marmalade wrote:

Personally my view has always been that any protection is better than none. Thoughts?

I guess it depends on what exactly you're trying to protect yourself from.

saobh_ie

I can't see the benefit of not wearing one and talk of risk compensation, you take more risks because your wearing a helmet, doesn't fly with me. It's a sh1tty little piece of foam...

Personally I'm going to wear a helmet, I think, most of the time, can't really say. I am definitally going to give a pair of gloves a go, I have some lightwieght armoured motorcycle ones that should be suitable.

Morgan

saobh_ie wrote:

I can't see the benefit of not wearing one...

Stops your hairdo being ruined?

milod

Here we go again! :rolleyes:

OP, I wear a helmet and it's saved me 5 head injuries of varying seriousness. I've had 5 accidents over the past 7 years all of which resulted in a tumble and my helmet getting seriously scraped or dented instead of my scalp/cranium.

I also wear gloves since the first accident because I left plenty of skin on the tarmac that time - the subsequent accidents didn't injure my hands even though they broke my fall to some extent.

It's simple logic that no amount of skewed data can overcome. Read the studies carefully and you'll see that they don't actually give figures on how many people avoided lacerations, blood loss, scarring of tissue etc etc - they tend to focus on things like road deaths, or skull fractures, or brain damage.

I'm not claiming that helmets save lives every day - but their function is also to save you the trouble of removing road grit from your forehead, or having to shave part of your skull to apply a dressing, in the same way that gloves prevent you having to go to A&E to get your hand stitched etc, etc.

However stand back and wait for the usual barrage of naysayers who refuse to accept the laws of physics because they reckon helmets make you head too hot, or make you look like a knob..., or [insert excuse here]

Ghost Rider

Your view is also simplistic. Why not discuss it?

Membrane wrote:

Your view is way to simplistic. Passive protection such as a helmet doesn't feature in the top 10 things you can do to improve your safety. So why bother discussing it?

Civilian_Target

He's right. Wearing a helmet is not more or less safe. All that wearing a helmet means is that, if you go down and whack your helmet, it breaks instead of your skull. If this concerns you, sacrafice your hairdo, and a bit of comfort and wear a helmet. If it doesn't concern you, leave it at home!

Cycling more aggressively because you've got the protection of a helmet is thick. Especially since, I'm told, 90% of people don't actually wear them in a manner that will save them from anything bar the slowest of accidents. It's got to be tight around both your head and under your chin so that the top front part doesn't lift when you push it up.

PS. To improve your safety:
- Don't undertake heavy vehicles
- Keep at least the width of a bike clearance between you and the kerb at all time
- Be visible, use lights at night
- Make sure your brakes are in good order, and know when to use them!
(This advice equally applies to motorists)

Membrane

Ghost Rider wrote:

Why not discuss it?

Because its been discussed to death with very few people willing or able to look at the issue in an unbiased way resulting in a lot of noise with no benefit at the end of the discussion. If you think that you are able to have an open mind, have a look at http://www.cyclehelmets.org/

dalk

lady_marmalade wrote:

I just wondered what everyone thought about various claims that cycling without a helmet is safer than with?

From having previously read a lot of those reports before my understanding is the scenario against helmet usage runs something like this:

- The more people who cycle, the safer cycling is for everyone. (This is taken as a given based on various studies).
- Increased helmet promotion/usage creates an impression that cycling is dangerous. (Even though statistical evidence from a number of countries suggests that being a cyclist appears to be about as dangerous as being a pedestrian or motorist).
- The more people consider cycling dangerous, the less people that cycle. (This happened in Australia when compulsory helmet laws were introduced).
- The less people that cycle means that cycling then becomes more dangerous.

So helmet wearing discourages cycling and then makes it more dangerous. So it achieves the opposite it set out to do.

It seems plausible to me and the figures can certainly be interpreted in this way.

el tel

I personally think the debate about helmets is much too complex.

My take on it is simple: A helemt is just an insurance policy that covers certain events but not all events. Make your choice to wear/not wear and go out and see how you get on.

Personally, I chose to wear a helmet.

kincsem

When I landed on my helmet I was wearing a helmet. Of course wearing that helmet may have discouraged other people from cycling because they perceived it as dangerous. And if more people were cycling I probably wouldn't have landed on my helmet.

Ghost Rider

To anyone reading this for the first time, be aware that this debate has been conducted on this forum many times in the past, so many people may be reluctant to join the fray all over again.

For the fullest exposure to the various points of view, I suggest you do a search for "helmets".

Civilian_Target

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/papers/c2023.pdf

wahlrab

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1120AP_ODD_Mangled_Helmet.html

Well done MR. Helmet

blorg

If you are happy/comfortable to wear a helmet, certainly, do so.

Almost all so called "anti helmet" people are opposed to compulsory helmet laws, not to people freely choosing to wear them, although they may also doubt their effectiveness. As such dalk has the general argument straight, although I would tend to limit it to compulsion only. The fact is, countries that bring in mandatory helmet laws see a fall-off in cycling (I am not aware that mere helmet advocacy has any such effect.)

As el tel says, a helmet is an insurance policy against a certain limited class of accidents. How likely these are and whether a helmet would protect you is up to you to decide. Some would argue from the statistics that wearing a helmet in a car would actually have a higher benefit and suggest that if rational you would consider doing this also.

As others have said this is not a new type of thread.

saobh_ie

I am anti-compulsory helmet law for bicycles, I will however wear one and a pair of gloves. I don't want to be stressed out riding home if I loose it, forget to carry it down from the office (probaly go back for it in this case as that would be the day that something happens)...

I have two hobbies (well ones a way of getting around) where I'm literally invisbile beneath all the protective gear, kayaking and motorcycling. I can't imagine myself engaging cycling (the most dangerous of the three) without at least basic protection.

blorg

saobh_ie wrote:

I have two hobbies (well ones a way of getting around) where I'm literally invisbile beneath all the protective gear, kayaking and motorcycling. I can't imagine myself engaging cycling (the most dangerous of the three) without at least basic protection.

What sort of crazy extreme cycling do you do that you think it's "the most dangerous of the three?" Motorcycling is significantly more dangerous than cycling and kayaking involves water for christs sake (and sometimes pointy rocks), and we all know how dangerous that stuff is if it gets into the wrong places.

This page on cycle safety makes for interesting reading. One set of statistics suggests you are 4 times more likely to die per hour spent swimming, for example, or 38 times more likey to die per hour spent on a motorbike.

DirkVoodoo

Yeah, I would be in the anti-compulsory camp too. I think cyclists are already marginalised enough without us getting into a helmet-ers versus non-helmet-ers row here .

I left my lights at home one evening, left the bike in college and got a bus/lift combo home. If I left my helmet somewhere would I cycle home? Yup.

If I fall of my bike and crack my skull its my fault, my problem, my risk, but personally I don't feel as vulnerable with/without a helmet as opposed to sui-cycling without lights.

My two cents.

ThOnda

The question is not "if", but "which" helmet to wear.

I am for mandatory use of helmets for all ages and all purposes.

It is not so expensive and there are tons of types of helmets, so everybody can find the best shape to fit her/his head.

I hate seeing organ donnors without helmets when I'm driving (bike or car) or just walking.

blorg

ThOnda wrote:

I am for mandatory use of helmets for all ages and all purposes.

Including for car drivers, then, I presume, where they would be at least of as much use?

The Australian experience of mandatory helmet laws is telling: an increase in helmet wearing from 26-31% to 76-85%, but a _decrease_ in cycling greater than the increase (e.g. more people didn't start wearing helmets, non-helmet wearers just stopped cycling.) A corresponding small reduction of cyclists treated for head injury was mirrored by a similar reduction in pedestrians treated (with no pedestrian helmet law,) suggesting that concurrent initiatives against speeding and drink driving were to credit.

Good for you if you want to wear a helmet but from a public safety point of view there are a lot of things that could be put ahead of cycle helmets.

lady_marmalade

Ghost Rider wrote:

To anyone reading this for the first time, be aware that this debate has been conducted on this forum many times in the past, so many people may be reluctant to join the fray all over again.

For the fullest exposure to the various points of view, I suggest you do a search for "helmets".

Yeah, I did that already, nothing came up.

lady_marmalade

Membrane wrote:

Your view is way to simplistic. Passive protection such as a helmet doesn't feature in the top 10 things you can do to improve your safety. So why bother discussing it?

I wasn't talking about other things to do with cycling safely, just those two reports I'd seen yesterday which claimed that it's less safe to wear a helmet. It seemed a fairly odd claim and just wondered what other people thought of the reports, that's all.

dalk

TheOnda wrote:

I hate seeing organ donnors without helmets when I'm driving (bike or car) or just walking.

Well fair play to you for wearing a helmet when you cycle, drive and walk. (All three activities involving a risk of head injury).

Anyway, I think Godwins Law of cycling helmet debates would be something like this:

- As an online discussion of helmet usage grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving A "Darwin Award" or "Organ Donors in Waiting" approaches one.

DirkVoodoo

Ha! On a sarcastic slant, I am all for wearing helmets while sleeping. Think about it. The average bed is maybe 3 feet wide, with a ground clearance of another 2 feet (based on my knowledge of single beds, sizing them up by eye, etc.).

Now, being a sleep your motor controls leave your conscious control, being unconscious of course. So, surely there exists a risk that you may roll head first out of your bed and land awkwardly, not being able to control how you land. Add to this the risk factor associated with pictures (i have a framed poster hanging over my headrest) and other lethal objects, and the case for wearing helmets becomes increasingly apparent.

Anyway, really, I thought civilian_target's link was the best I have seen in a while, not taking a side but just highlighting the test procedure involved in helmets. I think people see a helmet the way they perceive seatbelts in cars, as an all encompassing safety solution, and yet the conditions for a helmet to perform at its best are not easily repeatable in cyclist collisions. Yes they are beneficial, and we should wear them, but to believe that you are perfectly safe with one on is a fallacy. Proper cycling practice, awareness and visibility are far more important.

Oh, and I am against compulsion. Some people feel safer with one on, others with one off. I think children, who they seem to benefit more should be made wear one by any responsible parent.

Ghost Rider

Putting aside the mandatory issue (which seemed to be the only really divisive one), I'd love to know how a person could actually feel safer with a helmet off.

Can you explain that to me?

DirkVoodoo wrote:

Oh, and I am against compulsion. Some people feel safer with one on, others with one off. I think children, who they seem to benefit more should be made wear one by any responsible parent.

Ghost Rider

I just tried it and came up with 17 pages of results (!), among them these:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054976385&referrerid=&highlight=helmets

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054989468&referrerid=&highlight=helmets

lady_marmalade wrote:

Yeah, I did that already, nothing came up.

DirkVoodoo

No, I can't. There are no numbers to back it up, and I'm not going to bother quoting the "wear a wig not a helmet" paper. Am I personally safer with a helmet off, probably not. Do I feel safer? I don't know, but I prefer not wear one.

I should have chosen my words more carefully, but If you are going to start chastising me over semantics then have at it.

Its probably in my head, but I do believe people give me more room when I don't wear a helmet, as such I feel safer.

Ghost Rider

Take it easy. I wasn't chastising you over semantics, I was trying to find out what you think. As you yourself implied, there are plenty of unbalanced viewpoints on this subject. Neither I nor anyone else can be expected to know you don't hold one of them.

If you think people give you more room when you don't wear a helmet, fine. That's a valid viewpoint.

DirkVoodoo wrote:

No, I can't. There are no numbers to back it up, and I'm not going to bother quoting the "wear a wig not a helmet" paper. Am I personally safer with a helmet off, probably not. Do I feel safer? I don't know, but I prefer not wear one.

I should have chosen my words more carefully, but If you are going to start chastising me over semantics then have at it.

Its probably in my head, but I do believe people give me more room when I don't wear a helmet, as such I feel safer.

Traumadoc

I had to wear a helmet in Australia, I left the hospital and put the head down to get home as there was a bit of a haed wind.
The visor on the helmet restricted my view and i did not see the parked car , I ended up going through the back window and an ambulance brought me back to work.
That said the helmet may have saved me from serious spinal injury.
So it may have contributed to the accident, but it may have saved my life.

lady_marmalade

Ghost Rider wrote:

I just tried it and came up with 17 pages of results (!), among them these:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054976385&referrerid=&highlight=helmets

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054989468&referrerid=&highlight=helmets

Ah, thanks for that. It's still coming up blank when I do a search for some reason.

Looks like I've opened a right can of worms here.

Ghost Rider

Ouch. That's ironic in at least two different ways (though I'm sure irony was the furthest thing from your mind at the time).

Traumadoc wrote:

I had to wear a helmet in Australia, I left the hospital and put the head down to get home as there was a bit of a haed wind.
The visor on the helmet restricted my view and i did not see the parked car , I ended up going through the back window and an ambulance brought me back to work.
That said the helmet may have saved me from serious spinal injury.
So it may have contributed to the accident, but it may have saved my life.

Civilian_Target

Ghost Rider wrote:

Putting aside the mandatory issue (which seemed to be the only really divisive one), I'd love to know how a person could actually feel safer with a helmet off.

Can you explain that to me?

I do, when I'm cycling with my violin! My new violin case has back straps, now every time I stop quickly, if I'm wearing a helmet, the violin case smacks me in the back of the helmet. Given the choice of tube or helmetless cycle, I leave the helmet at home and get on my bike!

So yeah, I feel safe without my helmet under those circumstances - at least I won't be hitting myself in the back of the head!

el tel

saobh_ie

Eh... motorcycling is as safe or safer than motorcycling... I might attempt to find backup for that when I get home but having seen whats been presented as back up for the various sides of the helmet/no helmet debate I don't think I'll bother. =D It's plainly obvious that motorcycles are superior to bicycles when the **** hits the fan. Bigger, stronger, louder, faster (accel & decell), they have horns and lights that are acutally worth having. As regards canoeing, I've yet to see a stupid bint in a car cut up a kayaker, on the water your safety seems to be in your own hands.

On the road on a bicycle your pretty much defenseless and at other peoples mercy.

All relativaly speaking, I know being on the road, near the road or even looking at the road while sitting on a motorcycle or a bicycle or in a kayak is extremly dangerous. =D

Ghost Rider

And that's the helmet's fault?

Civilian_Target wrote:

I do, when I'm cycling with my violin! My new violin case has back straps, now every time I stop quickly, if I'm wearing a helmet, the violin case smacks me in the back of the helmet. Given the choice of tube or helmetless cycle, I leave the helmet at home and get on my bike!

So yeah, I feel safe without my helmet under those circumstances - at least I won't be hitting myself in the back of the head!

DirkVoodoo

I think what Civilian_Target is getting at is that yes, he may be more at risk of a head injury without the helmet, but the constant smacking is more likely to distract his attention at a crucial time and result in an accident. This goes with the "feeling" safer part: he probably isn't but at least he is focused on the road, similar to traumadoc's experience of an obstructive helmet.

rubadub

Ghost Rider wrote:

And that's the helmet's fault?

If he is not wearing the helmet it doesnt happen. You were asking

I'd love to know how a person could actually feel safer with a helmet off.

He gave a reason, I am not sure what you mean by "fault", is it the violin cases fault? or the bumpy roads fault? The person/thing causing him to stop suddenly.

Others might feel safer since cars do not drive so close to them, is this the helmets fault too? or oblivious ignorant drivers.

I can do metal work where glasses will protect against shards of metal, but they also disrupt my vision so my hands are at risk, therefore I weigh up which is more dangerous and use/don't use the glasses as I see fit.

I dont wear a helmet on a bicycle nor in a car, though I believe it offers more protection in a car from what I have read. Now how many people who would never get on a bike without a helmet would consider wearing one driving or walking, and if not why not?

Ghost Rider

My point was that if something I'm carrying on my back is conspiring with my helmet to annoy me, I'd rather do without the thing on my back than the helmet. If I made the opposite choice, then it would only be because I'd already decided the helmet wasn't very important to my safety. (Of course, this assumes I'd prioritise what I consider to be important safety measures over any other activity I might be involved in - but I'll grant you that not everyone thinks that way, and I'll grant you I haven't always done so myself!)

These debates always come down to the same thing at the end of the day: one's own judgement regarding one's safety and the weighing-up of that against various other factors. We may argue about various individual acts of judgement but we don't seem to be arguing against the principle.

The only truly divisive question around this subject is whether or not helmets should be mandatory. Personally I've not decided yet, though I have noticed some pretty dodgy arguments out there on the "anti-legislation" side.

DirkVoodoo wrote:

I think what Civilian_Target is getting at is that yes, he may be more at risk of a head injury without the helmet, but the constant smacking is more likely to distract his attention at a crucial time and result in an accident. This goes with the "feeling" safer part: he probably isn't but at least he is focused on the road, similar to traumadoc's experience of an obstructive helmet.

dalk

Ghost Rider wrote:

I'd love to know how a person could actually feel safer with a helmet off.

I don't feel safer without a helmet but i also don't feel much safer with a helmet on either. Does that make any sense? The standard that the majority of bicycle helmets are made to is only designed for low speed falls, from a low height. Which in my mind is good for the sort of accidents you have when you are a child. Helmets don't inspire any confidence in me.

Ghost Rider

As I said above, I take his point to be an argument against carrying violin cases on bikes, rather than an argument against wearing helmets!

It's a question of priorities or, if you prefer, a question of judgement regarding safety. When I speak of the "fault" of the helmet, I am of course referring to which factor the poster considers most important among those factors of which he has any say e.g. the wearing of the helmet; the carrying of the violin case; a tolerance of the violin case banging against the helmet; a sense of how necessary it is to protect his head against possible impact upon road or car chassis, etc. (The bumpiness of the road doesn't enter into one's own judgement, except in the trivial sense of deciding what road to travel on!)

Regarding the other response, I already conceded that the feeling that "Other drivers give me more space when I don't wear a helmet" is a valid response to the question "How could you feel safer without a helmet?"

Of course, I would question the psychology implicit in that response. Not only that, but I would raise the question as to what might happen if/when there is no space for a driver to give a cyclist (as is often the case in accidents, I imagine). But, as I say, that is merely a statement of my judgement against theirs and there is probably no way of resolving that conflict ultimately.

That's not to say that arguments either way shouldn't be adduced - it's just to say that there is an ultimately subjective component to such judgements - which is what is meant when we talk of things like a "feeling" of safety.

rubadub wrote:

If he is not wearing the helmet it doesnt happen. You were asking



He gave a reason, I am not sure what you mean by "fault", is it the violin cases fault? or the bumpy roads fault? The person/thing causing him to stop suddenly.

Others might feel safer since cars do not drive so close to them, is this the helmets fault too? or oblivious ignorant drivers.

I can do metal work where glasses will protect against shards of metal, but they also disrupt my vision so my hands are at risk, therefore I weigh up which is more dangerous and use/don't use the glasses as I see fit.

I dont wear a helmet on a bicycle nor in a car, though I believe it offers more protection in a car from what I have read. Now how many people who would never get on a bike without a helmet would consider wearing one driving or walking, and if not why not?

Ghost Rider

It makes bucket-loads of sense. Roads can be dangerous places. Who in their right mind would think that a helmet could ever replace things like vigilance, brakes, anticipation of other road-users behaviour etc?

Everybody agrees: helmets don't guarantee safety. But they certainly don't guarantee un-safety either! At worst, there are times and circumstances when a helmet can be a hindrance (as evidenced from previous posts).

Maybe nobody is actually arguing this, but just to be sure: the relative scarcity of such times, or the avoidability of those circumstances, are no more arguments against helmets than the rare cases of asphyxiation caused by seatbelt are arguments against wearing a seatbelt.

dalk wrote:

I don't feel safer without a helmet but i also don't feel much safer with a helmet on either. Does that make any sense? The standard that the majority of bicycle helmets are made to is only designed for low speed falls, from a low height. Which in my mind is good for the sort of accidents you have when you are a child. Helmets don't inspire any confidence in me.

el tel

Ghost Rider wrote:

These debates always come down to the same thing at the end of the day: one's own judgement regarding one's safety and the weighing-up of that against various other factors. We may argue about various individual acts of judgement but we don't seem to be arguing against the principle.

The only truly divisive question around this subject is whether or not helmets should be mandatory. Personally I've not decided yet, though I have noticed some pretty dodgy arguments out there on the "anti-legislation" side.

^^^What he said^^^.

Do I wear a helmet: yes

Should they be mandatory: no

DirkVoodoo

Ghost Rider wrote:

)Of course, I would question the psychology implicit in that response. Not only that, but I would raise the question as to what might happen if/when there is no space for a driver to give a cyclist (as is often the case in accidents, I imagine).

Seeing as 75% of cycling accidents occur at junctions, I think we can conclude that most accidents OCCUR due to poor driver awareness. Making yourself more visible (lights, high-vis vests, cycling further out from the kerb) and cycling more responsibly (signalling, not undertaking Heavy vehicles, awareness of traffic/assholes at junctions) seems far more beneficial to me than the act of wearing a helmet. As others have mentioned, if helmets were the be all and end all of cyclist safety, then we would see far fewer accidents. I'm not disputing helmet effectiveness in such an event, but I think cyclist visibility is more important.

EDIT: also, the cases of seatbelt asphyxiation are EXTREMELY rare occurrences and don't hold much in the way of parallels. While I respect the point you are making here, such incidents occur not due to seatbelt design, but due to improper adjustment. This results in "submarining" of the victim. Other incidents have occurred where victims are wearing the shoulder only portion and are decapitated as they are thrown from the vehicle. This is more akin to having a helmet poorly strapped to ones head, as opposed to no helmet at all.

Ghost Rider

I agree: being highly visible is a much more effective safety measure than wearing a helmet.

DirkVoodoo wrote:

Seeing as 75% of cycling accidents occur at junctions, I think we can conclude that most accidents OCCUR due to poor driver awareness. Making yourself more visible (lights, high-vis vests, cycling further out from the kerb) and cycling more responsibly (signalling, not undertaking Heavy vehicles, awareness of traffic/assholes at junctions) seems far more beneficial to me than the act of wearing a helmet. As others have mentioned, if helmets were the be all and end all of cyclist safety, then we would see far fewer accidents. I'm not disputing helmet effectiveness in such an event, but I think cyclist visibility is more important.

cerebus

blorg wrote:

The Australian experience of mandatory helmet laws is telling: an increase in helmet wearing from 26-31% to 76-85%, but a _decrease_ in cycling greater than the increase (e.g. more people didn't start wearing helmets, non-helmet wearers just stopped cycling.) A corresponding small reduction of cyclists treated for head injury was mirrored by a similar reduction in pedestrians treated (with no pedestrian helmet law,) suggesting that concurrent initiatives against speeding and drink driving were to credit.

Disclaimer: I am not necessarily pro or anti compulsory helmet legislation.

I am however definitely against dodgy references and questionable science masquerading as un-contested fact. The Australian study quoted above gets trotted out regularly in these debates, and I think it is important to recognize that a number of bodies have questioned the findings of this study.

As an example, the BMA policy on cycling can be found here, and it contains a link to their stance on compulsory helmet legislation, which can be found here.

The BMA comment on that study from Australia:

BMA wrote:

This advice was based on evidence from Australia indicating that cycling levels decreased following the introduction of legislation. This evidence is now outdated and contains distortions from variables including a reduction in the legal age of driving that meant more teenagers travelled in motor vehicles. A study from Ontario, Canada has demonstrated that introduction of helmet legislation did not reduce numbers of children cycling

I'd encourage anyone trying to make their mind up to do their own research and draw their own conclusions.

saobh_ie

Now that I think about it... the last time I cycled was in Copenhagen, where I cycled extensivally without a helmet, occasionally under the influence of acholol and engaged in hi-jinks with people I was travelling with.

Now in Dublin cars present a much greater danger but is a helmet going to do much for me in collision with a car? Acutally, it might... never mind... I'm going to wear a helmet.

But it will be the last line of defense.

Civilian_Target

Yeah, Dirk's right - I don't wear a helmet when I have a violin case because the "safety" provided by the helmet is outweighted by the distraction of a violin hitting your helmet. It doesn't hit my head when I stop quickly without one, probably by design. Therefore, improvement in safety by leaving helmet at home.

Like I said, I could take the tube instead of cycling without helmet, indeed in Aus. I've be required to do that. And that's safer. But I'd rather cycle in the open air and get some exercise than sardine myself into a rushhour Piccadilly train.

EdRedbird

lady_marmalade wrote: »

Apologies as I'm sure this has come up before, but I just wondered what everyone thought about various claims that cycling without a helmet is safer than with?

I refer to articles here and here.

Personally my view has always been that any protection is better than none. Thoughts?

Ok I was glad do find this link of the European Cycle federation..who are not overly in support off.

As for myself... i will not.
Safety is in behaviour.
I see cyclist with their helmets and jackets on the footpath (if there are any unpredictable movements from pedestrians your F ed) Its a FOOTpath or sideWALK.
red lighst are for cyclist too. The helmets are not designed for 50kmh car impact. If your suicidal please wear a motorcycle helmet on your bike

I Cycled since the age of 6 without helmet. I feel unbalanced and restricted with one. I feel and therefor partially am more secure without. If you feel uncomfortable you are not focused on other things around you)

I use the main road, indicate when I turn, my lights are working and properly visible and stop for red lights

The few accidents , slips and misjudgements on stationary objects (Cycling through a porch) I had, caused me injuries on knees / hands / shoulder. I never ever hit my head. I would not know how to breakfall with a helmet even... I fear it would get in the way.

A helmet does not prevent accidents
A helmet does not even prevent injuries

Plastik

Okaaay.

A helmet does not prevent accidents.
A helmet can prevent injuries.

Captain Havoc

Zombie thread. Closed.