Bicycle helmets: Unnecessary?

[Bak]

Most of the proof to wear a helmet while riding a bicycle falls in two categories:

 

1. 90% of people who died while riding a bike weren't wearing helmets. This argument proves the effectiveness of wearing helmets, but doesn't prove that bicycling is a dangerous enough activity to warrant wearing one. This point would be true for walking helmets too, but people don't wear helmets for walking because it's not dangerous. People don't wear helmets while riding in cars, even though it would save some lives.

 

2. Person X got hit with a car and her helmet shattered into a million pieces but they survived. These arguments are not really proof since it's a testimonial account (sure it's effective emotionally, as anyone who's seen infomercials will attest, but it's not proof). Additionally, helmets are designed to shatter when slight impacts occur, ones that wouldn't necessarily cause more than a bump on the head (so a shattered helmet doesn't mean the alternative is a shattered skull).

 

What sort of evidence is needed to prove that helmets are necessitated? We need a comparison between the rates of head injuries that occur when people are bicycling and the rates of head injuries that occur when people are walking as pedestrians or riding in a car. Comparing simple numbers is not enough, since obviously a lot more people walk around than bike. The comparison must be done on a per-time basis. Additionally it needs to be specific to head injuries, since most bicycle accidents result in scrapes where helmets do nothing. I would be convinced to wear a helmet if it's more dangerous than both walking and driving a car, since I don't wear one for either of those activities.

 

Some interesting things I found while researching this was that the Netherlands have the highest rate of people who bike and a ridiculously small rate of fatal accidents, even though helmets are almost unheard of. Additionally, in Australia after they mandated all bicyclers wear a helmet by law, less people ended up riding their bike. In fact, many claim that since riding your bike (exercise) helps prevent the #1 killer heart disease, more people have ended up dead as a result of the bicycle helmet law.

[Samapico]

I would be convinced to wear a helmet if it's more dangerous than both walking and driving a car, since I don't wear one for either of those activities.

That's like saying: I will leave my plugged toaster on that shelf above my bath, until someone proves that these type of shelves are not stable enough.

Well maybe not, I'm kinda tired... but I find this comparison amusing anyway.

 

It seems to me you'll only be convinced when you get your own skull cracked :/

If you had to hit your head in a bike crash, it's obvious that a helmet WILL absorb a lot of the impact. And I'm pretty sure most fatal bike accidents are caused by head injuries. As you said, scrapes aren't prevented by helmets, but you usually don't die from these.

[»Ducky]

This seems kind of a silly topic.

Are they necessary? No. It doesn't prevent you from riding a bike. Is it more safe? yes.

Isn't that kind of just a factual statement?

[Bak]

but you see, you can make the same points about wearing helmets for walking. It's certainly more safe. If you get hit in a pedestrian crash it's obvious the helmet WILL absorb a lot of the impact. but you don't wear helmets for walking

[Dav]

2 weeks ago I was out riding with a friend. He went over the bars whilst riding a steep bank and torpedoed head first into a log. He was fine but he shattered his helmet.

 

off road they are 100% necessary.

 

on road I think they are a good thing to wear. Whilst most things that will kill you probably won't be an impact to the head many crashes can involve a head impact. Also head impacts can be worse then impacts elsewhere.

[JDS]

last time i remember my dad riding a bike, he was riding one with dog on leash, dog got stuck under front tire... dad flips over bars and hits his head. Bam head injury.. not serious but preventable if he woulda wore a helmet.

 

basicly. if you think you Could hurt your head, wear a helmet.. if you are going for a pleasure cruise o your bike and are 99.9% sure thatyou wont fall, lol.. then you dont have to wear one.

 

safety first.. but yea

 

its like cutting a 2x4 on a chopsaw without safety gogles.. you are going to cut the wood just fine, but you might get !@#$%^&* in your eye.

 

 

helmet, or whatever it is, is made for YOUR safety.. you can choose to wear it or not, but the helmet itself will help you out.. i dont see how they can Make you wear one though.. its like.. !@#$%^&* off i dont wana wear a helmet

[PaRa$iTe]

Why NOT wear a helmet when biking? Sure, it might look stupid or something, but hey, why take the risk?

Yes, you could say that to pedestrians too. I suppose there's no real reason NOT to wear helmets when walking, even though I'm 100% sure that walking is less dangerous than riding a bike. It's just a question of how small the risk has to be before the nuisance caused by precautions is too annoying. I mean, theoretically someone could bomb your house now - the chance is very small, but it COULD happen. So why not spend your entire life in a cushioned room in a bomb shelter, only eating the food you make and distilling all your drinking water?

 

Personally, though, I know that since biking onroad makes me a part of traffic much more than being a pedestrian does, and because it's quite easy to fall when biking, I think wearing a helmet is worth it. Still, sometimes I just don't bother, since the helmet is uncomfortable. Shows how stupid I am, I guess.

 

The reason I don't wear a helmet in the car is it shouldn't be necessary. I wear a seat belt and there's an airbag. If the collision is strong enough to kill me despite those, then a helmet wouldn't save me. The car hull should endure MOST projectiles that my helmet could stop (possibly, though, a falling rock might be slowed down enough by the windshield). A bicycle doesn't have a protective exoskeleton. And a car doesn't fall over just like that.

Edited July 8, 2008 by PaRa$iTe

[»Ducky]

No, I understood your point Bak. I'm just confused why we are talking about it. Maybe I'm confused because I come from a state that doesn't have a helmet law for motorcycles or bicycles and never thought about whatever it is you are asking.

[NBVegita]

I would say a law making you wear a helmet is on par with laws making you wear a seatbelt.

 

Either way I think it should be your decision.

[Russky]

i never wore, and very likely never will and i ride my bike everyday

[AstroProdigy]

I once ran my bike into someone else's in front of mine, flipped over a full 360 with my head hitting the ground and got up with only scrapes on my arms and legs. I understand requiring helmets for motorcycles as its the difference between life and death and where I come from in Cyprus people die from not wearing helmets on their motorcycles all the time, but bicycles are hardly dangerous enough to require helmets. Then again that fall might have caused brain damage and I aint not thinking too good. Edited July 8, 2008 by AstroProdigy

[FMBI]

I've never worn a bicycle helmet, but that's because I've always lived in small towns where I knew all the bad intersections, and I was careful to get the !@#$%^&* out of the way if I saw a driver being reckless. The closest I've ever come to any kind of accident was when I managed to get my shoelace stuck in a pedal ( ) and flipped over, and I still reacted fast enough to take the impact on my arms and legs.

 

If I lived in a city / busy suburban area, I'd wear a helmet, though, because you're always moving at a higher speed, and you can put a lot less faith in the good judgment of the people driving around.

 

And Veg, don't be stupid - we know from experience that thousands of car accidents happen a year, and seat belts have a major impact on reducing injuries / deaths. Compare this to a bicycle, where if you're careful, accidents are unlikely in the first place, and helmets are only useful in a grey area between shattered skulls and bruised fingers. If something happens on either side of the "helmet zone," then it's useless to you. Seat belts are always effective in cars, though, since they protect your entire upper body, and there's far less room for error when you're going 65 MPH in a 3,000 pound vehicle.

[NBVegita]

So if the government decided that cholesterol was too dangerous to your health and decided to ban foods above x cholesterol you'd support that?

 

If I choose to wear a seat belt or not, vice versa if I choose to wear a helmet or not, the only person effected is me. If I want to take a chance with my life so be it. Being I'm not hurting others why shouldn't I be allowed not to wear one?

[Russky]

seat belt and helmet are very different... cars go 100 easily, i don't think you can do that on your bike... i've tried downhill at my max i did a 60... (km/h)

[Samapico]

So if the government decided that cholesterol was too dangerous to your health and decided to ban foods above x cholesterol you'd support that?

 

If I choose to wear a seat belt or not, vice versa if I choose to wear a helmet or not, the only person effected is me. If I want to take a chance with my life so be it. Being I'm not hurting others why shouldn't I be allowed not to wear one?

Well, I don't know about USA, but here in Canada, there is a government agency that regulates food... stuff that is dangerous is simply not allowed, and that's fine.

 

On the other hand, the good ol' "do what you want" rules would make place for more Darwinist evolution. Stupid people doing stupid or dangerous things would get cleared of the gene pool.

[NBVegita]

Well we do have the FDA that makes sure things that are inherently bad don't get to us, but Heart disease is the highest leading cause of death in the U.S. and the single greatest cause of Heart disease is Cholesterol.

 

!@#$%^&* I ~12,000 people died from guns last year (half of which were suicides), ~42,000 died from car accidents and as of 2004 ~870,000 peopled died of heart disease.

 

I mean shouldn't we be more worried about cholesterol than gun safety or seat belts?

 

If you found a regulation that cut the automobile deaths by 50% you would save 21,000 lives. If you could reduce heart disease deaths by 1% you would save 4 times as many people.

[Bak]

it's not like 1 in 10000 burgers randomly kills you though (if it were they'd ban it).. heart disease is slow over time. a car accident is all or nothing, same with guns (all or nothing, not randomly killing )

[FMBI]

Exactly. Heart disease is a long-term, "insidious" killer, that "adds up over time," as the media puts it. To prevent you from acquiring it, the government would have to be able to monitor your entire diet, and, by extension, your everyday living. On the other hand, seat belts are a proven boost to safety during a specific act - driving - that is a transitional act, rather than an intimate part of your life. It's far less of a privacy violation for cops to fine you for not wearing a speed belt than it is for cameras to monitor your kitchen.

 

And guns are another issue altogether. You're 45 times more likely to have an accident at home than you are to repel an intruder, so you're taking a relatively large risk upon yourself for a relatively small payoff. Compare that with a seat belt, where it's pretty much a one-way proposition - wear it, protect yourself if you have an injury.

[»Lynx]

Did not read this, because there's too much text to just talk about wearing a bloody helmet.. lol

 

Anywho - it's a simple conclusion, thankfully in England you do not need to wear a helmet by Law - so you can decide whether you're actually going to need one for your journey.

 

I was skim reading, and noticed something about seat belts - that's a completely different ball game. In a car you're going significantly faster, and ergo, have much less control, and ergo, have a much higher chance of doing otherwise damage in the event of the worst happening. On a bicycle, you're going relatively slow (most of the time) - and if you're not, you should be wearing a helmet.

 

I used to do Dual Slalom and Downhill, and I only ever wore Full Facer - I've seen way too many broken jaws, broken noses, cracked cheekbones to want to do anything other than ride Full Face on a gnarled track.

 

I was going to babble, and I now see where these long replies are coming from...

 

Be a !@#$%^&* man! Use your superman reflexes will falling off to do a triple back flip instead of waking your head - at least thinking like that you won't worry so much..

 

-Lynx

[»Ducky]

I think the debate is more in line with people hitting you as opposed to randomly trying to do a wheelie and falling from your bike. That's where the seatbelt analogies come in. Edited July 9, 2008 by Ducky

[NBVegita]

I still fail to see how Cholesterol isn't a more pressing issue.

 

You're trying to justify seat belts and gun control because they save lives instantly? Well how's this:

 

You've been driving since you were 16. you are now 56 and have never been in a car accident. You now get into a car accident. The seat belt saved your life.

 

You've been eating low cholesterol foods from 16 to 56. Now you have a heart attack. Low cholesterol saved your life.

 

No matter how you beat around the bush, heart disease is a more pressing issue than either of those. !@#$%^&* it would take you 72.5 years worth of gun deaths to equal just one year of heart disease deaths.

 

Your "save lives instantly" only works in unique situations. If you've never been around a gun then gun control will never help you. If you've never been in an accident, your seat belt has never helped you. If you never eat Hydrogenated oils, that has helped you every single day.

 

You're 45 times more likely to have an accident at home than you are to repel an intruder,

 

Can you post that? I'd like to see how they can create a reliable a statistic on a gun repelling an intruder, but !@#$%^&*uming you're right, the problem doesn't come from lack of gun control, it comes from lack of gun safety/education. I would 100% support having to a universal standard for getting a gun license that forces the gun education on you, similar to how they don't just let you start driving if you have enough money to buy a car.

 

It's far less of a privacy violation for cops to fine you for not wearing a speed belt than it is for cameras to monitor your kitchen.

 

Who ever said they have to monitor your everyday habits? Just stop importing foods high in fat and cholesterol. Or simply have the FDA ban them. If the FDA banned all food being produces with H-oil, I bet you would save more lives in one year than you lose to guns and cars combined.

[Bak]

Who ever said they have to monitor your everyday habits? Just stop importing foods high in fat and cholesterol. Or simply have the FDA ban them. If the FDA banned all food being produces with H-oil, I bet you would save more lives in one year than you lose to guns and cars combined.

Yeah you're right here. It's not a matter of it being unenforceable.

 

However think of it this way: there is nothing I can do with cholesterol today that's going to kill me. However, given a gun or a car, I could come up with a way in which I would die.

[NBVegita]

But on the other side, if you don't get in an accident today, wearing your seat belt didn't help you in any way.

 

But if you watch your cholesterol, you are actively helping yourself everyday.

 

A seat belt is useless unless you're in an accident. Watching what you eat is beneficial every single day. It also compounds. If you don't wear a seat belt for 20 years, then wear one for the next 5, if you've had no accidents there is no difference. If you eat high cholesterol for 20 years and watch it for 5, you're already in the negative due to the progressive damage done.

 

I understand where you come from with the instant gratification part, but ideally we should be looking beyond the instant. Heart disease isn't a concern for the majority of young people, but specially for men, it's a bigger problem than cancer.

 

**BTW this all stems from the concept that the government has more right tell you that you have to wear a seat belt, over a bike helmet, because wearing seat belts save more lives.

[Bak]

not sure what you meant be the last part. If it was a case for not wearing helmets, it's hard to say since more people drive than ride bicycles.

[Suicide_Run]

I think a helmet should be wore but if you don't its pretty much your problem if you get into an accident that killed you, but a helmet could have saved you if you wore one.

 

One thing I do find a problem with bikers/pedestrians general is that, some of these ASSS don't bother looking before they do anything like crossing the road/parking lot.

 

Not to mention how some bikers ride on the street when theres a fking sidewalk with NO one walking. I kinda get it if theres a wave of people like in downtown area but they still do these !@#$%^&* in rural areas.

 

While doing a comparison of helmet vs seat belts: Unless you get in an accident on a bike where your head is landing first, the chances of a helmet saving you is lowered. While in any accident in a car, the seat belt will have a higher chance of saving you in general.

 

NB, I would find cholesterol would be a serious issue if the places we buy food/ingredients from has only high cholesterol products, otherwise no since its the consumer's fault for buying high cholesterol products.

 

Besides, there are other things to prevent high cholesterol like exercising. People these days are getting lazier and they should be the ones who pay for that.