Should helmet laws be relaxed?

[gerundium]

For me personally helmet laws sound ridiculous. But that mostly has to do with perspective, i am from the Netherlands. Bicycle infrastructure and attitude towards us is vastly different from the situation in Australia.
Because of the higher quality infrastructure, generally reasonable attitude towards cyclists (everyone in those cars rides a bike themselves regularly) and possibly a higher standard for driving licenses means riding with a helmet isn't really necessary when commuting or running errands. The only group of people that wear helmets are people on race bikes here. The higher speeds, more aggressive position and thin tire puts them at higher risk and thus a helmet is worn.

 

[BroDeal]

People can die falling on their head from any speed. If someone gets hit by a car, 9 times out of ten they die from there head heading the concrete as opposed to the injuries from the impact of the car.

I crashed on my head at 65km/h and survived, what your telling me is that if I wasn't wearing a helmet I would still be alive with no significant brain damage at all because helmets are minimally effective? If a person can die hitting their head on cement falling at 10-20km/h, even less, how the hell would i survive it at any speed being catapulted off a bike?

I know helmets aren't super effective but I know it's saved my life on more than two occasions. I daresay if I had crashed without a helmet in any of my crashes I would've been in hospital for longer than 4 or 5 hours.

You can tell me all about kinetic energy as much as you want but i'd prefer to have some protection as opposed to no protection, but hey, if you don't want to wear a helmet, go for it, it's your life. As far as that last statement goes, cyclists take risks, it's part of racing, helmet or not, helmets save lives full stop.

The problem with helmets is not helmets, it's people like you who base their decisions on faith rather than reason. Your faulty thinking is evidenced in your ridiculous statement that people die from falling at any speed. You obviously have not stopped to think through the implications, like you could just as well die from slipping in the shower or tripping over a crack in the sidewalk while walking your dog. Do you wear a helmet while showering? Do you wear one while walking your dog? If not then why would you make a patently stupid statement that amounts to, "You could fall over at any time and die?" Yeah, so what? That's life. Tomorrow you could be hit by lightning, killed by terrorists, or anally probed by aliens.

I don't know if you are mathematically challenged or what, but, from a quick in-my-head calculation, the kinetic energy at 65 km/hr is roughly nine times greater than the speed that helmets are designed to protect against. You can believe that the helmet's 11% reduction in impact energy saved your life but your belief is based on nothing but faith. That 11% is likely a high figure because there is evidence that bike helmets do not function as designed during actual impacts; the foam does not show compression like it does when a rigid 5 kg weight is used for testing purposes. This is probably due to the elasticity of the skull spreading the contact point over a large area inside the helmet.

As counter intuitive as it may seem, a rider descending at 50 km/hr without a helmet is at less risk of death than one descending at 60 km/hr with a helmet, and that does not take into account that the helmetless rider will ride more cautiously in ways other than simply reducing speed. People like you who are convinced that their helmet will save them are at the most risk of all.

To repeat, I am not telling you or anyone else not to wear a helmet. There are some situations where one might help. A lot of other situations they are a Hail Mary. I am just saying take the fact that helmets are largely ineffective at actual cycling speeds into account while wearing one and stop the scaremongering where people are afraid to ride around the block without a helmet because they might fall over and die. Assess probability when making decisions about risk.

 

[stainlessguy1]

For me personally helmet laws sound ridiculous. But that mostly has to do with perspective, i am from the Netherlands. Bicycle infrastructure and attitude towards us is vastly different from the situation in Australia.
Because of the higher quality infrastructure, generally reasonable attitude towards cyclists (everyone in those cars rides a bike themselves regularly) and possibly a higher standard for driving licenses means riding with a helmet isn't really necessary when commuting or running errands. The only group of people that wear helmets are people on race bikes here. The higher speeds, more aggressive position and thin tire puts them at higher risk and thus a helmet is worn.

There you go , very well written . I hope Woodie and poly read your post.

 

[stainlessguy1]

If you expect the government to pay for your health bills with tax payer's money then the taxpayer has a right to ask you to minimise your health risks. It's like seat belts.... or don't you wear those either?

As for my 2km/h crash. It was a combination of cracked pavement, soaking wet mouldy leaf litter, downhill and cornering while braking. Maybe a pro rider like you who "never crashes...period" would have done a wheelstand through this stuff, but I went down and smacked my head on the concrete so hard I have no doubt I would have been serously injured.

Poly please , we are not saying dont wear a helmet.

I think with all the hurt in this world, your tax dollars are embezzled in so many areas, regarding the infrastructure , that it is mind boggling.

i dont think you need to worry about your tax contribution over a emergency health care call.

To put it in some kind of perspective , The IRS would like to thank you for last years tax contribution, and we are please to say that your funds have moved the USS Nimitz exactly 1.250 inches.
Unfortunately we are going to have to ask you for more money due to the tidal surge on that day the distance made good was not exactly 1.237 inches to north but actually ended up being 1.125 inches to the south of its original position. Since this is a loss of 2.375 inches from our target position , please send us the same amount of money again , any left over funds will go towards munitions .
thank you for your kind regards to your contributions.

 

[stainlessguy1]

The problem with helmets is not helmets, it's people like you who base their decisions on faith rather than reason. Your faulty thinking is evidenced in your ridiculous statement that people die from falling at any speed. You obviously have not stopped to think through the implications, like you could just as well die from slipping in the shower or tripping over a crack in the sidewalk while walking your dog. Do you wear a helmet while showering? Do you wear one while walking your dog? If not then why would you make a patently stupid statement that amounts to, "You could fall over at any time and die?" Yeah, so what? That's life. Tomorrow you could be hit by lightning, killed by terrorists, or anally probed by aliens.

I don't know if you are mathematically challenged or what, but, from a quick in-my-head calculation, the kinetic energy at 65 km/hr is roughly nine times greater than the speed that helmets are designed to protect against. You can believe that the helmet's 11% reduction in impact energy saved your life but your belief is based on nothing but faith. That 11% is likely a high figure because there is evidence that bike helmets do not function as designed during actual impacts; the foam does not show compression like it does when a rigid 5 kg weight is used for testing purposes. This is probably due to the elasticity of the skull spreading the contact point over a large area inside the helmet.

As counter intuitive as it may seem, a rider descending at 50 km/hr without a helmet is at less risk of death than one descending at 60 km/hr with a helmet, and that does not take into account that the helmetless rider will ride more cautiously in ways other than simply reducing speed. People like you who are convinced that their helmet will save them are at the most risk of all.

To repeat, I am not telling you or anyone else not to wear a helmet. There are some situations where one might help. A lot of other situations they are a Hail Mary. I am just saying take the fact that helmets are largely ineffective at actual cycling speeds into account while wearing one and stop the scaremongering where people are afraid to ride around the block without a helmet because they might fall over and die. Assess probability when making decisions about risk.

Applause , very well written .

 

[elapid]

What was this a cartoon crash. The kind you find on stunt ride videos in Americas favourite videos?

There is that* I dont want to pay for someone elses rehab* That seems to be the collective theme with all you people. So i guess the people walking and slipping on ice hitting their head and putting their hip out , better not come to suit you for liable regarding that they fell infront of your house because you forgot to shovel the snow and break up the ice. I guess your defence is they werent wearing a helmet , your Honor.
Get those older people to put their helmets on while walking to the library . \
Ps. your insurance isnt going to go down in any way , neither will your taxes if everyone is or is not seeking medical attention , for a helmet issue or otherwise.

The system is different in Australia, at least it used to be when I lived in Victoria. Medical costs associated with collisions on public roads are paid for by the Traffic Accident Commission (TAC), not private or public health insurance. The TAC is funded by car registration costs. This is one of the reasons why there is such heavy advertising for road safety awareness in Australia as well as compulsory helmet laws for cyclists, because the TAC are wanting to reduce their costs by reducing injuries on public roads.

 

[stainlessguy1]

The system is different in Australia, at least it used to be when I lived in Victoria. Medical costs associated with collisions on public roads are paid for by the Traffic Accident Commission (TAC), not private or public health insurance. The TAC is funded by car registration costs. This is one of the reasons why there is such heavy advertising for road safety awareness in Australia as well as compulsory helmet laws for cyclists, because the TAC are wanting to reduce their costs by reducing injuries on public roads.

WEll thank you for the enlightenment. I was not aware that Australia had a totally different approach. That explains that, as to why people from downunder are so pro helmet. But i sure hope they improve on the helmets because the hard shell helmets with styrofoam inners hurt like hell . Some how the cusion should be improved on . So you end up with a helmet similar in comfort to the old leather hairnet style. This will absorb shock, without changing the weight or ventilation.

ok so if they make a new helmet that has all that , i can then sail to Australia and i can ride my bike around when i get there. Otherwise i have to go to sail to Holland or Denmark or someplace . lol .

 

[Granville57]

Three parts...

Oh boy. I've been avoiding this thread like the plague. I can tell my response is going to be a long one. Maybe instead of the 1,500 word missive that would make even Francois The Postman blush (and raise the ire of BroDeal) I’ll offer it in installments.

I've been meaning to bump another thread from a couple of years ago on this very topic.
Craig1985 started a poll about helmet use that generated 23 pages of some, at times, very interesting debate.
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=2832&highlight=helmet
I plowed through the whole thing many, many months ago and many of the same issues are coming up here.

Part 1

Here are some of my own personal thoughts on the matter.
One of the great joys for me is riding on a hot summer day... without a helmet.
What I really don't get though, is that the only dickish response I ever get, is from other cyclists!

My real problem with the debate is this:
I simply don't buy into this misguided notion, by some, that I am somehow being a recklessly irresponsible member of society by increasing my chances of sustaining an injury that will somehow be calculable directly to their own personal finances. As has been alluded to by Le Breton earlier in this thread, and recently elaborated on by BroDeal: Helmets should then be mandatory for any and all occupants of a car. Wouldn't this certainly reduce head injuries that occur during accidents? Might this not save lives? Are you so irresponsible as to place your own children inside a vehicle without a helmet? If so, how do you justify it? Are you some kind of monster?

As far as my own responsibility to society when I'm out on a bike:
Before anyone here condemns me for leaving my laughably under-designed skull protector in my closet when the temps outside are +35C/95F let me ask you this: How-in-the-hell is a descending at hill at 50mph/80kph "responsible" in any way, shape or form whether I'm wearing a helmet or not? Should speed limits be imposed on cyclists as well? (And I'm not referring to traffic speed limits so don't play dumb with me). How is riding a bike under any circumstances considered to be "responsible" if safety is suddenly the greatest factor in all decisions that we, as individuals, should be allowed to make?

Serious questions.

Or what if I were to be descending (with a helmet) and a squirrel, deer or bear crosses the road in front of me? (All of those have happened) And what if I were to suddenly swerve out of the way in an instantaneous reaction of self-preservation, but in doing so cut off a tractor trailer? And what if the driver of the Big Rig swerved to avoid me and, in the process, collided, head-on, with a 15-seat passenger van that contained four generations of one family on their way to a wedding? And what if the collision caused a fiery blaze that killed all the occupants of both vehicles and sent debris flying through the air that landed in a driveway where newborn twins were just returning home from the hospital in their mother's loving embrace—and they too suffered a horrible and painful demise?!?!

Should I really have been allowed to be on the road in the first place? Are you some kind of monster? Shouldn't bicycles be banned, period?

 

[Granville57]

Part II

I don't ride a bike "to be in shape." That's a pleasant benefit that comes with the territory. I ride because it's exhilarating and liberating. There is nothing "responsible" about it. It's a purely selfish endeavor. I don't commute to work to save the planet, I do it because I love to ride. Do I feel better—much better—about saving money on fuel, not burning gasoline, and not adding to traffic congestion?
You betcha'!
Is that why I do it? Nope.

There are some interesting links in that other thread about accident statistics around the home. You can imagine how those play out. Although BroDeal just covered a similar point...My sister once had a very bad fall in the shower when she was younger. She never fell off her bike with any consequence however. We get naked and stand on a hard, wet, slippery surface every single day (some of us). Is that "responsible"? Is there an acceptable age when you're willing to let your child shower by themselves with no head gear? Are you some kind of monster?

Here's one problem for me:
I grew up riding steel frame 10-speeds like most kids in the neighborhood. None of us wore helmets. Ever. Do you how many of us hurt our heads? Zero. Did other kids elsewhere hurt their heads? I suppose. Did some kids, somewhere, die after hitting their heads in a bicycle accident? Very probably. Sad but true. Is there a point? Not really. I just never hit my head as a kid when riding a bike. Neither did my friends. You can run that through whatever statistical mechanism you like. I'm just giving you facts.

Or is it, as some suggest, that the thought of encountering me laid out in a bloody pool of my own misguided life force is just so disturbing, so unnerving, so soul rattling, that I owe it to the greater good to do everything within my powers to prevent such an event from ever occurring? Well, if that's the case then I would suggest that you lock your doors, pull down the shades, and by all means —and I implore you on this one—don't ever turn on the television. If, however, my riding without a helmet awakens your own insecurities in a way that you are not entirely comfortable facing, well then that's a different matter altogether. Now, if you are just truly looking out for someone based on your own innate compassion for another sentient being, then that's cool. I appreciate it. I wish you well too. But then we should probably both stay off our bikes if we are so stagnated by our fear of what might happen to either one of us.

 

[Granville57]

Part III

I see first graders on their way to school, on tricycles, barely rolling along, not more than a few inches off the ground, with their parents right by their side, with helmets on and think, WTF is that? (Yes, I realize they are following the law). Is it even possible for that tiny kid to hurt themselves? If so, why isn't the parent just walking them to school? They'd get there just as slowly. Why take the inherent enormous risk of having them on those terribly dangerous death-mobiles?

I started skiing when I was four-years-old. Did I ever wear a helmet? NO.
Did any kid in the '60s or 70s wear a helmet on the ski slope? Perhaps, but I never saw them. You know how many times I injured my head? Zero. How about my friends? Zero. Now all you see on the slopes are helmets. Can recreational skiing be determined to be a responsible endeavor for any participants? People die all the time on ski slopes—before helmets and afterwards. But (downhill recreational) skiers don't carry on under some guise of lowering their carbon footprint or leading a healthy lifestyle. It's fun and exhilarating—and sometimes deadly. Should it be allowed?

In the '70s, I also skied quite a bit at a place in Quebec called Mount Sutton. You know what? They didn't even have safety bars on the chairlifts.
But I'll admit, that was pretty f'ing scary to a 12-year-old! But I never fell out. Not even once (probably would've hit my head if I had though. )

I rode skateboards a lot too. But did we wear helmets for that? Hell yeah! We weren't crazy. We looked up to guys like Tony "Mad Dog" Alva and his crew. If you don't know who he is then you don't know jack about skateboarding. Skateboard helmets were cool, and we were deliberately doing some pretty dangerous stunts. Never wore them on the bike though. We just rode those — no stunts.

Fast forward to the modern era...
Now we have carbon frames, carbon shoes, fancy padded gloves...and helmets. If I'm not careful, I hardly even recognize the feeling of riding a bike. FWIW, I definitely leave the gloves at home too if it's at all warm out. FFS, live a little and feel the road!

To answer what often seems like the rhetorical question of why I don't dig the helmet:
If you've never felt the freedom of feeling the wind in your hair on a bicycle on a hot summer day, then I truly feel sorry for you. Leaving the helmet and the gloves at home heightens the entire experience for me many times over. If helmets were mandatory here, I probably wouldn't even ride in the summer.

As I stated previously: riding, to me, is all about the sensation and the experience of it. Leaving the helmet behind greatly heightens those sensations and makes the whole process much more enjoyable. I really don’t ride for any other reason, and I don’t pretend to. It’s all about the sensation!

Now, I have no problem, whatsoever, wearing a helmet in cooler weather or when racing (which, admittedly, I don't do a lot of on the bike), or riding with a group. But that’s a no-brainer, there are few things more dangerous to a cyclist than another cyclist. But whenever I pull into my driveway after a seven hour solo ride, on a hot, humid, summer afternoon, trust me, I am ecstatic over the fact that my helmet didn't come along for the journey.

Once I turned forty I came to the conclusion that I had earned a few things in life. One of those is not having anyone else tell me how to ride my f'ing bike. I don't care what you do on yours, so if you see me out on a ride, and my safety equipment doesn't measure up to your own personal standards...please, I beg of you, STFU! Or just say hi.

 

[stainlessguy1]

ok Granville rocks

Granville you rock.

PARTS 1, 2 AND 3 ARE SO ON REALITY THAT IT DESERVES A STANDING OVATION.

Our over entitled , over coddled , electronic youth of today have never learned the art of life itself.

i dont even want to carry on and start that can of worms.
+++++AAA1 for Granville. triple thumbs up.

thank you .

 

[woodie]

helmets dont do anything except sit on your head. They in themselves dont save lives , Its all up to the type of crash you have. You cannot prove that you would of died in a 65 km crash or any other , but in all likely hood if you werent wearing a helmet you would of been on your brakes way earlier and not gone 65km down a hill in the first place and thus not even crashed.
Most of the time , rides and whether or not you crash is a very subtle difference of only a few km per hour ,, and how you approach turns etc.
NO one here says you cant wear a helmet . Wear it , if it suits you. In the mean time , upgrade your bike handling skills. Relax your mind and train of thought from the prescribed i am going to crash if i am not in full uniform.
The last part i leave you with is the part that amateurs have a lot of trouble with .
NO , NOT every commute is a race. ( but that comes with age. )

The crash was in the last two laps of a sanctioned race in a large bunch not going down some random hill out training. I'm glad your so pro you don't need a helmet good for you, go have a race with a bunch of people you don't know and we'll see if you want to wear a helmet then

 

[stainlessguy1]

The crash was in the last two laps of a sanctioned race in a large bunch not going down some random hill out training. I'm glad your so pro you don't need a helmet good for you, go have a race with a bunch of people you don't know and we'll see if you want to wear a helmet then

Woodie we are not talking about organized racing on a closed course. the world already wears helmets on these events.

Please re-read the original posters , post. Also please review the short news clip from your local news.

here it is again:

http://www.news.com.au/national/bid-...-1226183149319

Oh by the way , are you sure you were doing 65 km in the last two laps of the race in a big bunch with guys you dont know , did you look at your cycle computer while riding in the bunch to verify that. ?
Did you have time to check for heart rate and cadance as well.?

 

[elapid]

I have read the OP and some of the replies, and was heavily involved in a similar thread on helmets a number of years ago which was linked by Granville57. Here's my 2 cents:

Cycling is very different in North America and Australia compared to Europe (first hand experience). I am not surprised that there are fewer injuries in Europe because of their excellent infrastructure and much greater bike awareness. Bike use in Europe is also very different where the majority of km ridden are for utilitarian uses (commuting, shopping, etc).

Cycling in North America and Australia is largely motivated by fitness (non-specific exercise, training and racing) rather than utilitarian uses. The infrastructure for utilitarian bike use in North America and Australia is quite poor in most locations, as well as cyclist awareness, especially compared to Europe, which results in greater likelihood of cyclist interactions with pedestrians, cars, other cyclists, etc.

Most of us on this forum have ridden for many years and would consider ourselves quite experienced on the road. In addition, as others have pointed out, we often ride in terrains or at speeds for which a helmet MAY not prevent injuries. However, I think we are the minority in the eyes of bureaucrats and this may be appropriate. Helmets are likely useful in minimizing head injuries for those that use their bikes for utilitarian purposes in areas with poor biking infrastructure where low speed interactions with other road users is more likely.

I will always wear a helmet because I grew up in Australia where it is compulsory and I feel naked without one. However, I know a helmet will not prevent a head injury or even death depending on the speed and direction of the impact, but I also know that in certain situations it will minimize the risk of a head injuries. There are many studies that show this and these were discussed in detail in the previous thread on helmet use.

However, I also am pro-choice and would not criticize a cyclist's choice not to wear a helmet (or to wear a helmet). In Australia, I can see why someone would see they have the right to criticize a helmetless cyclist because it is their tax dollars that are footing the bill for surgery and rehabilitation of cyclists injured on public roads. In North America, where this is not the case, the situation is obviously different and each cyclist has to take responsibility for their own actions and the consequences of their actions.

 

[Granville57]

I have read the OP and some of the replies, and was heavily involved in a similar thread on helmets a number of years ago which was linked by Granville57. Here's my 2 cents:

Very good post, elapid. I think this is a good discussion to have and it's important that it doesn't get oversimplified. As you have stated, different locations and circumstances should be part of the equation.

To all, I agree wholehearted with this:

To repeat, I am not telling you or anyone else not to wear a helmet. There are some situations where one might help. A lot of other situations they are a Hail Mary. I am just saying take the fact that helmets are largely ineffective at actual cycling speeds into account while wearing one and stop the scaremongering where people are afraid to ride around the block without a helmet because they might fall over and die. Assess probability when making decisions about risk.

Given the rolling terrain where I live, I suffer enough on the bike (and that is greatly part of the "pleasure"), and even more so when it's hot. Riding without a helmet on those hot summer days alleviates much of the "unwanted" suffering. But if I'm doing any kind of CX or MTB riding, then I definitely wear one. I think helmets do an excellent job of protecting against trees and low-hanging branches. I do have to wonder though, for those who prefer to preach on the topic, if, when the temperature drops, you substitute your minimalist road cycling helmet for full MTB downhill headgear or, even better yet, a motorcycle helmet. Wouldn't that provide many more times the protection?

The other times I personally opt for the helmet is when I'm in a new, unfamiliar city, or when I’m commuting. My commute is about 15miles/24km, so not too long of a ride. Plus, I'm in amongst stop-and-go traffic in a way which is quite different than my usual solo rides. It's on the occasions where I am not wearing one that I just don't have the patience for the glares, occasional remarks, and overall sense of superiority that I sometimes encounter with other people who are doing the same thing I'm doing: riding a bicycle. Which, by the way (in case some have forgotten) people have been doing since the late 1800s — most of those years, sans helmet.

If it makes anyone feel any better, here's a pic of me from a recent trip to Chicago.

Now that I've said my fair share on the topic, I'll link just one comment from the previous thread that I feel is worth repeating.

No helmet here, thanks for asking.

To be honest, given the sheer volume of 'my helmet saved my life' type comments that crop up on every helmet thread, I'm amazed that any of us made it into the last decade...

Interesting article by John 'Cyclecraft' Franklin which explains some of the issues. Apologies if it's already been cited (no, I haven't ploughed through all 200+ posts).

It frustrates me that people are happy to simplify the question of helmets to a ridiculous level (eg 'wear one and you are safe and responsible' vs 'if you don't wear one you are a stupid maniac and will surely die'). The bigger issue is that the constant emphasis on the peril of cycling has a detrimental effect on the number of people riding. If you insist that people must wear PPE to do an activity then less people will choose to do it. Less people on the road leads to more dangerous conditions (though driver error) than a whole bunch of people not wearing magic hats.

 

[stainlessguy1]

researched article

http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/health/risks.htm

I just found this interesting article, because i was trying to find statistics of other sports vs. cycling crashes etc.

I stumbled apon this and i sure do hope you all read this . It is very interesting how we arrive at statistics and what type of average we use, but to this day, cycling still seems to come out best of all.

Please enjoy the article and for those who continue to cite the * i dont want to pay line* you may well note you are going to pay one way or the other. Boy are you going to pay for the amount of illnesses that are preventabe by simply bike riding and living better.

http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/health/risks.htm

 

[BroDeal]

If it makes anyone feel any better, here's a pic of me from a recent trip to Chicago.

I am more shocked by the wifebeater than the helmet. That is a clear violation of rule #7.

 

[Granville57]

I am more shocked by the wifebeater than the helmet. That is a clear violation of rule #7.

In my defense, that was necessary to dissipate the heat due to the containment vessel atop my cranium. However, upon reflection, it seems I clearly crossed the line on #27 as well.

 

[stainlessguy1]

yes relax

Time to join the civilized world, yes relax the helmet laws.

Technically people who text and walk on their cell phones should wear helmets with radar warnings. 3 beeps for lamp post , 2 beeps for mail box 5 beeps for subway stairs going down , one for up and lastly zero beeps for another texter dead ahead. Oh so sorry are you alright , yes i am ok are you ok , ah ,, i was just texting , yes me too . Perhaps a coffee , would you have time for coffee or tea.
lmao .