Apparently it was a Scandinavian study.

If you want statistics, how about:

Efforts to increase helmet use, whether though legal requirements or promotional campaigns, actually have the effect of reducing cycle use (particularly among teenagers) and increasing injury risks for those who continue cycling.

In places where efforts to increase helmet-wearing (or worse still, laws banning cycling without helmets) have reduced the number of cycle casualties, all evidence suggests that this is because cycle use has fallen, usually by a greater amount than the fall in casualties. This implies not only a loss of valuable health benefits, but also that the risk for those who remain cycling has actually got worse, substantially so in some cases. It follows that there must be hazards associated with helmet wearing, which must equal or outweigh any benefits they may have.

· In the USA, where helmets have been strongly promoted (with compulsion either for children or for all cyclists in certain counties and states), the proportion of cyclists wearing helmets increased from 18% to 50% between 1991 and 2001. However, this coincided not only with a 21% reduction in cycle use but also a 10% increase in the absolute number of head injuries for cyclists, amounting to a 40% increase in cyclists’ head injury rates for those who continue to cycle.

· In Western Australia, cycle use fell by 30-60% after cycle helmets were made compulsory in 1991, whereas cyclists’ head injuries reduced by only 11-21%[/url][ii]. By 2000, cycle use was still 10-20% below its pre-law levels, yet the cyclist proportion of all people hospitalised by serious road crash injuries rose in this period from 17% to 26%[iii] – indicating that the risk of serious injury for cyclists had increased by around one-third.

· In Victoria, Australia, after a law was passed banning cycling without a helmet, the reduction in cyclist admissions to hospital was almost equal for non-head injuries as for head injuries, suggesting that this was related to reduced cycle use[/url][iv] [v]. In Melbourne, the numbers of cyclists observed fell post-law by 24% for adults and 48% for children[vi]. Among those who continued cycling, helmet-wearing rates were lowest among teenagers – just 25% said they wore a helmet whenever they cycled (despite it being illegal not to do so)[vii].

· In New South Wales it is estimated that the overall cycle injury risks for children increased by 68% relative to cycle usage after laws were passed banning cycling without helmets[viii].

· The overall picture from Australia suggests that laws banning cycling without helmets have had no discernable impact on cyclists’ head injury risks[ix].

· In New Zealand (where a widely-obeyed helmet law was introduced in 1994 following extensive helmet promotion), the time spent cycling fell by 34% between 1989/90 and 1997/98[x]. The increase in helmet wearing rates in the run-up to the law’s introduction was found to have had “little association with serious head injuries to cyclists as a percentage of all serious injuries to cyclists”, and that a reduction in mild concussions and lacerations was balanced by an increase in more serious neck injuries[xi]. Although one study found that cyclists’ head injuries fell by 19% after the law’s introduction[xii], re-analysis of the data showed that this was no different for the trend in head injuries of all causes[xiii].

· In Nova Scotia, Canada, helmet wearing rates increased from 36% to 86% in three years as a result of helmet wearing laws. In this time the proportion of cyclists with head injuries halved[xiv], but cycle use fell by 40-60%, i.e. by around the same amount[xv].

· In Britain, there is no law requiring helmet use, but cycle helmet wearing has climbed from very low levels in the mid 1980’s to 16% in 1996[/url][xvi] and then 22% in 1999[/url][xvii]. Between 1985 and 1997, the involvement rate of cycles in reported crashes rose from 462 to 615 per 100m vehicle-km[xviii]. Cycle use has been observed to decline in areas where helmet use is promoted[xix]. It has been found that 12-17 year olds are more resistant to helmet-wearing than younger children or adults[/url][xx].

---

Consumer Product Safety Commission, reported in New York Times, 29th July 2001. Reproduced at http://www.sptimes.com/News/072901/Worldandnation/Despite_helmets__head.shtml.

[ii] Hendrie D et al (1999). An economic evaluation of the mandatory bicycle helmet legislation in Western Australia. Department of Public Health, University of Western Australia. (see www.officeofroadsafety.wa.gov.au/Facts/papers/bicycle_helmet_legislation.html).

[iii] Gillham C. Mandatory bicycle helmets endanger public health. www.cycle-helmets.com[/url].

[iv] Robinson D L (1996). Head injuries and bicycle helmet laws. Accident analysis and Prevention Vol. 28(4) (For abstract, see www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00014575).

[v] Robinson D L (1996). Cycle helmet laws – facts, figures and consequences. Paper to The International Bicycle Conference, Velo Australis, Freemantle, 1996 (see http://www-personal.une.edu.au/~drobinso/velo1/velo.html).

[vi] Finch C et al (1993), Bicycle use and helmet wearing rates in Melbourne, 1987 to 1992: the influence of the helmet wearing law. Report 45, Monash University Accident Research Centre, Melbourne (see www.general.monash.edu.au/muarc/rptsum/ab45.htm).

[vii] Finch C (1996). Teenagers’ attitudes towards bicycle helmets three years after the introduction of mandatory wearing. Monash Univeristy Accident Research Centre, Report 64 (see www.general.monash.edu.au/muarc/rptsum/es64.htm).

[viii] Robinson D (op cit – see reference 10).

[ix] Robinson B (1996). Is There Any Reliable Evidence That Australian Helmet Legislation Works? Proceedings of Velo Australis 1996, Fremantle, Australia (see www.helmets.org/veloaust.htm).

[x] Land Transport Safety Authority (1999). New Zealand Travel Survey Report. LTSA, New Zealand (see www.ltsa.govt.nz/research/travel-survey/).

[xi] Scuffham, PA, Langley (1997), JD. Trends in cycle injury in New Zealand under voluntary helmet uses. Accident Analysis and Prevention Vol. 29(1) (For abstract, see www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00014575).

[xii] Scuffham P et al (2000). Head injuries to bicyclists and the New Zealand bicycle helmet law. Accident Analysis and Prevention Vol. 32(4) (for abstract , see www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00014575).

[xiii] N Perry. The bicycle helmet legislation, curse of cure? Paper to Cycling 2001 conference (see www.mondrian-script.org/cycling2001/). [xiv] LeBlanc J.C. et al. Effect of legislation on the use of bicycle helmets. Canadian Medical Association Journal, March 5, 2002; 166 (5) (see www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/166/5/592).

[xv] Chipman R (2002). Hats off (or not?) to helmet legislation. Canadian Medical Association Journal: CMAJ 2002;166(5) (see www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/166/5/602).

[xvi] Bryan Brown K & Taylor S. Cycle helmet wearing in 1996. Report 286, TRL (abstract can be viewed from www.trl.co.uk/800/search.asp).

[xvii] Bryan-Brown K & Christie N. Cycle helmet wearing in 1999. Report 487, TRL (abstract can be viewed as above).

[xviii] DETR (1999). Road Accidents Great Britain 1998 (compare with previous editions for years before 1989). The Stationary Office (the most recent data is at www.transtat.dft.gov.uk/tables/2002/ragb/download/tables/xls/table09.xls).

[xix] Bryan Brown K & Taylor S (op cit – see reference 22).

[xx] Taylor S & Halliday M (1996). Cycle helmet wearing in Britain, Report 156, TRL (abstract can be viewed from www.trl.co.uk/800/search.asp).

not wanting to start a flame thread between roadies and triathletes. here in our place, roadies tend not to wear helmets( i guess too much tour de france videos for most) and you won`t catch a triathlete not wearing one. i for one feel naked when riding without my helmet. a friend`s dad is one of the best neurosurgeons here and he said he once operated on a roadie who could have saved himself $2,000 (operation cost), cheap here compared there (but then again we are here in asia) if he only wore his helmet. i for one know my helmet saved me countless times from high speed crashes to as simple as hitting a pothole when drinking and holfing your bar one hadn LOL..even saw the road slowly closing on my face and my helmet hitting the road first...

---

"Pain is NOT temporary,you remember every bit of it"

Bicycle-Related Head Injuries

---

How large is the problem of bicycle-related head injury in the United States?

• In 2000, 687 bicyclists were killed in motor vehicle-related crashes, down 8% since 1999 and 32% since 1975.1
• In 2000, 29% of bicyclists killed in traffic crashes were 16 years or younger.1
• 500 individuals die as a result of bicycle-related head injuries every year.2
• 17,000 individuals are hospitalized with bicycle-related head injuries every year.2
• 153,000 individuals are treated in emergency departments with bicycle-related head injuries every year.3
• Bicycle-related head injuries account for 2/3 of all bicycle-related deaths and 1/3 of all non-fatal bicycle-related injuries.2
• In 1991, societal costs associated with bicycle-related head injury or death resulting from head injury were more than $3 billion.4

How well do bicycle helmets protect against head injury?

• Bicycle helmets have been shown to reduce the risk for head injury by as much as 85% and the risk for brain injury by as much as 88%.4
• It is estimated that 75% of bicycle-related fatalities among children could be prevented if all children on bicycles wore helmets.4
• Universal use of bicycle helmets by children aged 4 through 15 years old would prevent between 135 and 155 deaths, between 39,000 and 45,000 head injuries, and between 18,000 and 55,000 scalp and face injuries annually.4

And from the Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute:

• There are 85 million bicycle riders in the US
  
  
• More than 600 bicyclists die in the US every year
  
  
• About 540,000 bicyclists visit emergency rooms with injuries every year. Of those, about 67,000 have head injuries.
  
  
• Bicycle crashes and injuries are under reported, since the majority are not serious enough for emergency room visits.
  
  
• 1 in 8 of the cyclists with reported injuries has a brain injury.
  
  
• Two-thirds of the deaths here are from traumatic brain injury.
  
  
• A very high percentage of cyclists' brain injuries can be prevented by a helmet, estimated at anywhere from 45 to 88 per cent.
  
  
  
  

Many years of potential life are lost because about half of the deaths are children under 15 years old.

Direct costs of cyclists' injuries due to not using helmets are estimated at $81 million each year.

Indirect costs of cyclists' injuries due to not using helmets are estimated at $2.3 billion each year.

Helmet use in the US varies by orders of magnitude in different areas and different sectors of our society. White collar commuters probably reach 80 per cent, while inner city kids and rural kids would be 10 per cent or less. Overall, our best wild guess is probably no more than 25 per cent. Sommers Point, NJ, where a state helmet law is in effect, found that only 24 of the 359 students who rode to school in one week of the Winter of 2002 wore helmets (6 per cent) until the School District adopted a helmet rule. North Carolina observed 17 per cent statewide before their law went into effect in 2001.

---

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W

[reply]Aha, at Interbike I saw just the thing - a little stretchy ear cover that clips to your helmet straps and supposedly cuts down windnoise. I even have a free trial pair![/reply]

OOoooooooooooo I need a pair of those. Do you remember who made them?

---

---

PM me so that I remember and I'll find out for you

Interesting....DualFual's statistics seem damning towards not wearing one but the duncan's are pretty damn conclusive that it is nearly irrelevant. DualFual where did that post come from?

---

---

[reply][.reply]So when will I get one good reason for not wearing a helmet?[./reply]

You obviously ignored my post. She was almost killed BECAUSE she was wearing a helmet. I gave a couple of other good reasons too. But go ahead and ignore any contrary information that might get in the way of a quality foregone conclusion.[/reply]

I saw it and I saw one very fluke occurance and two reasons that are pure bs if you have a properly fitted helmet. A helmet with a proper fit will not inhibit vision in any way and the wind noise is there regardless of a strap or not.

So I am still waiting for one good reason.

---

______________________________________________________

Proud Founder of the Jamis Mafia- Daring to be different.

Damn statistics! ;)

FYI mine were from: http://www.ctc.org.uk/...Chelmetpromo8brf.doc

I would tell you, but you would have to carry out a very risky experiment...

"had with a friend who has a PhD in fracture mechanics of the skull"

Oh really?

And I am betting that you (or he) got a BS in how to make up a good story.

I further bet that a hardshell helmet has less friction than skin or skull on pavement.

And helmets not helping "a great deal" with penetrative blows is preferable to not having any help at all.

Don't you think? Oooops. I forgot. Sorry!

---

adrialin

(BOMK, racing drug and supplement free since 1985)

[reply]Direct costs of cyclists' injuries due to not using helmets are estimated at $81 million each year.
[/reply]

Ok there at least is an estimated direct health insurance cost. Soooooo...since the healthcare industry last year was around 2 TRILLION dollars, this is a measly 0.004% of the cost. Hold me back I am furious that 0.004% of my insurance costs go to cure head injuries. Can we ignore the strawman argument about insurance premiums now?

---

---

[reply][i]"had with a friend who has a PhD in fracture mechanics of the skull"[/i]
I further bet that a hardshell helmet has less friction than skin or skull on pavement.
And helmets not helping "a great deal" with penetrative blows is preferable to not having any help at all.
[/reply]

The studies specifically said hardshell helmets (like motorcycle ones) protect against penetrative blows...soft shell and thin shell ones like we all wear DO NOT substantially protect against them. :)

---

---

[reply]I saw it and I saw one very fluke occurance and two reasons that are pure bs if you have a properly fitted helmet. A helmet with a proper fit will not inhibit vision in any way and the wind noise is there regardless of a strap or not.[/reply]

LMFAO the wind noise is there regardless. Go ride in a headwind with your helmet and then without in the same spot. The noise level is about 5-10dB higher with the helmet strap next to your ear. This is easily verifiable. Regarding the vision, if your helmet has a decent front protrusion and sits at the proper spot on your head (fairly low in front) then try this. Put your helmet on, bend your head down as though you are looking at your water bottle. Look up with your eyes and not your head...you see the helmet and not the world. Your eyes can move extremely fast in a panic situation, your head does not. That would be called peripheral vision. It's also the time most likely to be in an accident...while looking down putting in a bottle, etc. If you don't see the helmet doing this experiment maybe you have a disproportionately large forehead. ;-)

Regarding the neck injuries, go read some of duncan's links. Apparently it isn't a fluke. Educate yourself. Several studies showed decreases in head injuries (but failed to note that bike mileage also decreased by about the same amount) but increases in neck injuries. So which is worse...a concussion or a broken neck? Thanks I'll take a concussion.

"In early 2005, the prestigious international peer-review journal Accident Analysis and Prevention published a paper disproving the conclusions of most international case control studies since 1989 that have been used to justify the mandatory wearing of bicycle helmets"
http://www.cycle-helmets.com/curnow.pdf

In that pdf their review of the helmet studies most often quoted (including the 88% reduction stated above) specifically omitted data that would prove their case wrong. "Third, 22 casualties are excluded from the analysis because their helmets were dislodged in the crash, thereby reducing the number of head injuries among helmeted cyclists." This basically says "we are lying to you by omitting crashes where the helmet popped off and the person was killed anyway." The whole point of the helmet is to stay on and protect the rider. McDermott specifically omitted data that would have proved his numbers wrong. This isn't even borderline fraudulent, this IS fraud. The analysis in that pdf alone is pretty damning if you read the whole thing, not to mention the other peer-reviewed sources. Maybe it is no coincidence that McDermott was the head of the Victorian Road Trauma Committee that convinced the government 2 years before publishing the data to implement the helmet laws.

Not only that, but the Seattle study widely quoted apparently compared helmet to non-helmet injuries and found a huge decrease in helmeted users. They failed to account for the fact that the helmeted users were in huge proportion white and riding on bike paths in the city's parks, and the non-helmeted users were predominantly young blacks riding on inner city streets. Which group do *you* think is more at risk to serious injury?

---

---

Seriously though, there are those times when wearing a helmet can become an encumbrance. Like, you know, when you stop at the supermarket and fill up your rucksack to bursting with groceries, or are perhaps riding to a meeting point for a weekend away racing or mountainbiking with all your kit strapped to your back, and your rucksack is so full it's hitting the back of your head. Or, for women, when you're cycling into town in the evening to go out and don't want to ruin your carefully styled hair. Even for men, black tie and cycling helmet is a pretty stupid look.

All sound familiar?

Right there with you. I've made some of the exact arguments in previous threads.

yup...and I'm still waiting for your reasoning for not wearing a full face helmet, body armor, knee and elbow pads, etc..., since they would reduce your risk of injury even more. I've given you my reasons for why I don't wear a helmet on occasion. Let's hear your answer. this is now the third or 4th time this question has been asked. I'm willing to bet you still don't give an answer.

I also have to wonder...how many times does your helmet take the impact simply because your helmet is much larger than your head. ie..if you weren't wearing a helmet during the crash, then your head would have never been hit in the first place since you would have ducked or tucked it out of the way in the first place.

You also bring up a very good point about crashes where the helmet becomes dislodged. Point being...how many people are actually wearing their helmet correctly? From what I've seen with kids in the neighborhood and people on bikepaths, I'd have to guess the percentage of them wearing a helmet correctly is very low. Usually kids have them on crooked with the strap so loose it would basically render the helmet useless.

I'm not saying that helmet use is a bad thing...I use mine most of the time...just that I don't think these studies are telling us everything.

Hey...if you're a big enough spaz that a leisurely bike ride in your neighborhood is a life threatening experience, then by all means...wear a helmet. ;)

This is meant to no one in particular...

Let people do what they want: helmet or no helmet (unless they are under 18).

I personally always wear one and wonder why others don't do the same - I believe it's like the Harley Davidson tradition in my state: basically no one on a Harley wears a helmet and all others on Japanese and European bikes do. Cyclists have a tradition to not wear one on hot days/easy training days.

It would be unfortunate if someone smashed their heads open and had their brains all over the road, but that's one of the freedoms allowed in some states in this country: the freedom to be unsafe.

My only problem is when the cyclist doesn't have insurance and we taxpayers have to pony up for his/her stupidity.

[reply]I also have to wonder...how many times does your helmet take the impact simply because your helmet is much larger than your head...

You also bring up a very good point about crashes where the helmet becomes dislodged.[/reply]

I think the increase in neck injuries is mostly due to the size of the helmet. The fact is that the helmet will reduce the severity of direct impact, but won't help at all (and probably makes it worse) in twisting impacts. This is part of those studies, but I think (without evidence) that you are right one the size contributing the impacts. I bet that those type of impacts are pretty minimal overall in severity though.

I would hope that the people on ST all have their helmets fitted correctly, although I've seen some really stupid people leaving T1... :)

---

---

I give up...it's obvious there is not one good reason not to wear a helmet. All I hear about are fluke injuries on and off the bike and people wearing helmets that inhibit their vision when looking straight down while riding (who has to look straight down to get a bottle???) and people who ignore scientific research that says helmets help. What did I expect it's the same thing I have seen in ever thread like this on any cycling or tri board. Later.

---

______________________________________________________

Proud Founder of the Jamis Mafia- Daring to be different.

I never wore a helmet until my last year of high school (sooo long ago) - I was clipped by a car and left lying in the middle of an intersection - front tire torn off, fork twisted - me torn up. After I got the bike fixed my older borther handed me a box - it was a helmet - at the time Skid Lids were it and it was bright yellow, but I never went with out a helmet after that.

[reply]I give up..
...and people who ignore scientific research that says helmets help. What did I expect...[/reply]

Maybe read the scientific research that says there are detractions to helmet use as well as advantages. Edumacation is what separates people from sheep...not that I am saying you are part of the flock.

BTW-put a "sun visor" on your helmet and your vertical vision gets even worse...scarily bad.

---

---

Twisting is also dangerous for the brain. The brain sits in fluid, and being heavy has a lot of inertia. If the skull is rapidly twisted from a tangential blow then, whilst the skull twists, the brain remains static, and then can hit the sides of the skull, potentially causing brain damage. Potentially the increased effective head diameter from the helmet could increase a rotational acceleration from a tangential blow, thus exacerbating the chances of this. However, the helmet could also help reduce the impact of the blow, and may also slide better than a bare head, thus reducing the tangential acceleration. The latter point is important - it's better to choose a helmet with a smooth exterior, rather than one wth vents that stick out and could catch on the ground. My first ever helmet had a nylon cloth cover - you don't see this any more because in a sliding impact the cloth covers would melt and stick to the ground - very bad news!

Maybe. I do know that his PhD supervisor drafted one of the cycle helmet standards.