>Why wouldn't you wear a helmet as a cyclist anyway?
Because a dinky bicycle helmet won't change anything if you are hit by a car. Even a motorcycle helmet won't help. The only time a helmet helps is in low speed accidents.
Because a dinky bicycle helmet won't change anything if you are hit by a car. Even a motorcycle helmet won't help. The only time a helmet helps is in low speed accidents.
Edit: you are correct that at high speeds (over 50km/h) bike helmets become less effective when hit by a car. However, many car/bike accidents occur at speeds below 50km/h, in which case helmets can and do save lives. [1]
One could make a similar statement to yours regarding any safety device. A seatbelt probably won't save me if I hit a truck going 120km/h in my car. But it will help in a lot of other situations, so I'll still wear it.
[1] http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/experts-prove-cycle-hel...
What's the bottom end of that effectiveness curve look like?
It's 100% clear that helmets have zero effectiveness at 0km/h[1] - I bet the "effectiveness" of helmets is statistically the same a zero at 1km/h and 3km/h as well - where's the data that shows the shape of that curve? How does that compare with various categories of cycling?
I note that what the linked study/article "proves" is that if you have a crash in which you might die, a helmet will improve your outcome in some of those cases. To me that has (at least) two obvious responses: 1) wear a helmet, or 2) don't have those sorts of crashes. Me pedalling to the shops or the cafe at 10-15km/h on cycle paths or quiet backstreets is enormously safer than me riding at 25km/h on a busy or main road, or on a downhill mountain bike course - with or without a helmet. Why to "the helmet guys" get to choose which risk minimisation strategy I'm required to employ?
[1] to be more accurate, the benefits of having a helmet on while stationary on a bicycle are no different from the benefits of having a helmet on while standing still - something the safety-crats haven't (yet) suggested is necessary...)
Maybe best to try and find the original paper to clarify that one.
EDIT: http://bast.opus.hbz-nrw.de/volltexte/2013/692/pdf/41_Than.p... looks relevant, but I can't see the claims repeated in e.g. the Mirror article.
A bike helmet is made to slide across the pavement in the event of a crash. This allows you to decelerate at a slower pace and minimize damage.
Think of a bike helmet more like a ski helmet. It protects you from the ground, and will do very little if you ski into a tower. http://www.bhsi.org/mips.htm
Yes, a helmet won't help if you have a full-frontal collision with a car going at 100km/h, but there are many situations (most situations?) where that isn't the case and a helmet will help.
Anyone just blindly downvoting snovv_crash should check out the video above and any number of other resources, such as this one:
http://www.cyclinguk.org/campaigning/views-and-briefings/cyc...
There are strong feelings on both sides, but many cyclists feel helmets are a distraction from the real issues which make cyclists unsafe: poor road design and unsafe driving. Cycling itself is (counter-intuitively) a very safe activity which looks dangerous; everyone assumes driving and walking are safe but often they are not. Yet nobody seriously proposes helmets for pedestrians or drivers, just cyclists.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachm... [XLS]
That's 8,643 pedestrians killed between 2000 and 2013 on UK roads. It's not even solely when people are crossing the road: cars frequently mount the pavement (sidewalk) and kill pedestrians.
In majority of bicycle deaths, the most serious injuries are to the head, and the "dinky" helmet is what makes a difference.
A large majority of bicycle deaths are low speed accidents. (Over here (Finland) a majority of them actually does not even involve a motor vehicle; here we have a pretty good segregated bike/pedestrian route network.)
There's quite a few studies recently that've revealed quite glaring errors in the claims that bicycle helmets reduce injuries in any significant fashion for typical cyclists. Sure you'd be foolish doind a mountain stage of the Tour de France without a helmet - but for a typical non-heavily-trafficed-commute or a weekend ride-in-the-park - there's very few accidents where a helmet makes any statistcal difference.
I also recall recently reading a study that calculated the overall benefit of bicycle helmet laws were negative when the reduction in cyclists was taken into account, and it's resultant lower level of public health. Have stringent helmet laws, and fewer people ride bicycles; fewer people riding bicycles results in more overweight/unfit people. Nett cost to health system goes up, not down.
I will never question your choice to wear a helmet - either always or occasionally. I do question your motives for supporting the establishment to _require_ (with threats of punitive fines) me to wear one, without conclusive and in-controversial evidence that it is of statistically significant benefit _to the sort of riding I do_...
If you want to "lowest common denominator" the argument - explain to me why you don't wear a helmet with driving/riding in a car? Have a guess as to what the most serious injuries in cases of automotive deaths are…
When there's an accident, the helmet makes a difference.
"It seems intuitive that bicycle helmets would be an effective means of reducing head injury, and indeed helmet manufacturers and standards associations worldwide conduct rigorous tests to determine the impact absorption and other qualities of helmets. It is however, important to go beyond laboratory tests and understand whether helmets reduce injuries in the event of a crash in real‐life; hence the review by Thompson et al.1 This review included five well conducted case‐control studies and found that helmets provide a 63–88% reduction in the risk of head, brain and severe brain injury for all ages of bicyclists. Helmets were found to provide equal levels of protection for crashes involving motor vehicles (69%) and crashes from all other causes (68%). Furthermore, injuries to the upper and mid facial areas were found to be reduced by 65%, although helmets did not prevent lower facial injuries. The review authors concluded that bicycle helmets are an effective means of preventing head injury."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2598379/
And then my personal anecdata: 25 years ago I went over the bar as I hit the brakes to stop before a child that ran to the cycle path from a bush. I broke my radix but not my head - I did not have a helmet. I realized how lucky I had been. I started to wear the helmet.
Last winter I fell when I didn't notice ice on my home road. Before I could unclip, I was falling sideways. I bruised my ribs and hit my head on the ground, but avoided cracking my skull because I did have on my helmet that I've been wearing the 25 years since the previous bone breaking fall.
Don't be stupid. Wear helmet when riding bike.