Interesting article on the effect of seeing a rider without a helmet has on drivers. Basically, if you don’t wear a helmet, they give you more room. They also speculate that you will ride more safely helmetless (which I would buy into as it has a similar “smell” to some research that was done a number of years ago with regards to face masks in ice hockey. Face lacerations went down when they were introduced, but head and neck injuries went way up, conclusion was that the helmet provided a sense of invincibility.)
For full disclosure : My own helmet etiquette. Mountain biking - always (high likelihood of crashing). Road riding while living in Europe - almost never. Road riding since return to US - almost always (but if I forget it, I will still ride). Riding my bike to the beach or on a bike path - never.
While you may have a slightly less chance of being in an accident without a helmet, you have a significantly higher chance of injury or death if you are in one. I’d be dead had I not worn one last year when my head hit the pavement at 35 mph. I’m a big fan of them.
Where are the statistics that include all the people who fell and hit their head and, because they were wearing a helmet and weren’t hurt, they went on about their way and never reported the incident to anyone? Those data points never make it into anyone’s analysis.
When the teenage driver of an oncoming car was talking on a cell phone and decided to swing an unsignaled left turn directly into me and I went off her windshield at 30 mph, witnesses said I went 30 feet straight up … and landed on my head. Though I sustained many serious injuries and my helmet was shattered, I had NO head injuries.
If you’re willing to ride on the road without a helmet … EVER … then you must believe nothing like this can ever happen to you. You’re wrong. And when it happens, it’ll happen in a flash. In an instant.
But hey … it’s a fee country. People are free to be as stupid as they want. There’s certainly no shortage of it.
.
I’ve said this before here that it is each person’s own decision if they don’t wear one, but they (and unfortunately their families) have to deal with the consequences should something happen to them as a result. Mine saved me last year where the helmet cracked from above the left ear all the way to the top when my head smacked the pavement, but I had no head injuries or concussion.
I understand that all possible data points are not available. But to that same point, you can’t measure an accident that doesn’t happen, so if an accident is avoided because you are not wearing a helmet (either because you’re more careful, or the driver is) that never shows up in the X% of people killed in accidents didn’t wear a helmet stat.
Also, I would say that the primary purpose for a helmet, and where they will do the most good, is in a single or multiple bike crash. They cannot be expected to save your head from a bumper (although they do help).
I don’t buy that it is stupid, as you do not see runners wearing helmets, and I’m sure that many on this forum can run faster than my wife can ride :). My friend got hit by a car walking down a sidewalk, stuff happens. I feel that there is a risk associated with an activity, and you can choose to protect yourself in which ever way you see fit, (wear a helmet, or take only back roads). I do know that helmets on bikers is nearly 100%, rare you see someone without one. Where as in skiing and snowboarding, it has yet to be as prevalent (grown by leaps and bounds but still not the same saturation rate.) I can also tell you that I have hit my head at least 100X skiing, maybe 5X mountain biking, and never once road biking or roller blading. I know, it only takes once, but the first step of risk mitigation is an understanding of the risk.
Over the past 20 years I’ve crashed 3 times and none of them involved an automobile…
I’m thankful I was wearing my helmet each time. The 1st two times I was a 17 year old kid who rarely wore a helmet, I was very fortunate that I was wearing one on both of those occasions.
If there is a car involved I think the helmet is the last of my concerns.
I guess that if you walk down the road and cross the street without a helmet, and get hit by a car, you deserve what you get. Or go to the beach without sunscreen and then get skin cancer. Its a nonsense response. Nobody deserves to get hit. Nobody deserves the consequences, and furthermore its BS when someone says you would have been dead if it were not for (the seat belt, air bag, helmet, etc.), fact is since it’s n=1 maybe you would have been fine without it, but since you can’t “re-live” the crash with the other option, we will never know.
The article had an interesting perspective in that the drivers recognized the fact that the cyclist was more vulnerable, and as a result provided more room. Based upon that finding alone, bike awareness campaigns have an “education avenue”. Maybe they should stress the vulnerability of pedestrians in lieu of their “right to the road”.
While you may have a slightly less chance of being in an accident without a helmet, you have a significantly higher chance of injury or death if you are in one. I’d be dead had I not worn one last year when my head hit the pavement at 35 mph. I’m a big fan of them.
Unfortunately statistics have not been able to show any improvement in morbidity and mortality in places that have made mandatory helmet laws.
Some postulate that the extra distance a helmet sticks out even makes the head more vulnerable and more likely to hit your helmet/head in a fall to the ground whereas your head by itself might not have hit the ground.
I however will continue to wear my helmet each and every time I throw my leg over the bike. At least I feel like I’m doing something that may prevent serious injury.
Your reply cites examples that aren’t even related to my point. You’re trying to draw an apples to apples comparison, but with the examples you cite, it’s more like apples to hamburgers.
If you make a bad decision, or hell, an assinine one, you do deserve the consequences that are derived from that decision. Going for a ride without a helmet is not a incidental thing, it takes time and energy to prepare for your ride and it takes a conscious deicision to not ride with a helmet. If you go running down a street and don’t look before crossing, or run across a busy highway then in my humble opinion, you deserve what you get. You knew the risks and you still did it anyhow. No tears from me. Sorry.
I’ve crashed twice in five years of riding. Both times it was without the aid or intervention of a car and I had not had my helmet, I would not be functioning normally today. How do I know this? When a helmet is physcially deformed from the impact, I could only imagine what it would have done to my unclad skull. Say what you will, but my helmet saved my life.
Next time that I decide to ride through a red light or into a car, I will be sure to wear a helmet. The point is, one chooses to ride a bike, not to get into a crash.
My point was not apples to hamburgers. Everything has a potential risk associated with it, but you are choosing the activity, not the risk. How you choose to protect yourself (or not) does not cause one to deserve (or not deserve) the consequences of an accident. Your analogy was more apples to hamburgers, riding without a helmet is not analogous to running across a busy highway, and if you believe that it is, we will not come to agreement on this point.
I wonder if anyone has ever survived a bad bike accident without a helmet and remarked “wow glad I didn’t have a helmet on”, truth is, I think that more than anything else, a helmet makes people feel good, like they’re actively doing something to protect themselves.
Maybe if you were not wearing a helmet you would have anticipated the accident, slowed down, etc…whatever caused your crash, and avoided it…
There are risks associated with everything. You have free will to engage in behaviors with higher risks than others. If you decide to ride a bike without a helmet and crash or run across a highway and get hit, you made those decisions, not me. In both cases, you knew the risks and still engaged in the behavior. In instances like that, I do not feel sorry for you.
If you ride without a helmet you are, IMHO, an idiot. Do you deserve to get hit? Hell no. But you know the risks and accept the consequences should you get into an accident, by whatever means that might occur.
As I said, I might see black and white on this issue, where others see grey. For that I will not apoligize.
It seems to me that you’re lumping conscious decisions and unconscious decisions all on the same mental platform and trying to come to a definitive, conscious conclusion. That’s not really fair.
For instance, when I go for a ride, I consciously decide to put my helmet on. When I’m driving and see a cyclist, I don’t think to myself “see cyclist, give him/her adequate space”. I just do it. I don’t think I’m the only one who is like this, so I don’t really accept the point that drivers give unhelmeted cyclists more room because they’re not wearing a helmet.
Further, you’ve commented on how someone not wearing a helmet might make a different decision while approaching an obstacle because they know they are making a decision. That’s great in theory, but accidents don’t always, or often, happen in such a linear, causal manner. Accidents happen unexpectedly, so there’s not thought on the part of the cyclist as to, “I can handle this because I’m wearing a helmet” or “I can’t handle this because I’m not wearing a helmet.”
So, I think your point is kind of moot. Unless you’re trying to make some ridiculous point about fatalism, just wear a helmet.
Rational response, thanks. I get your point about conscious/subconscious however, that’s the point of the study. I’m sure that all of the drivers did not connect those dots, but on average, that’s what they did. You’d probably see similar results if you compared your driving speed on a given road with and without the presence of children. (you’d probably slow down, and may or may not realize it).
Regarding decisions made, with and without a helmet. Again, it’s not a conscious decision, but I know that I would not bomb through the woods at the same speed if I didn’t have a helmet, and thus I would reduce the chances that I crashed. I know that I have crashed my MTB and my road bike more since I got my first helmet (~96) than I did beforehand. Also, per my ice hockey example, I am much more aware of everything around me playing without a face shield than I am with a face shield.
My point (per the OP) was only that there was an interesting article about the effect that seeing a cyclist without a helmet has on drivers. From there it degenerated into “you’re an idiot and you get what you deserve” and “my response to that” thread.
Well, I am one sitting here to tell you that I have been told by numerous medical professionals in the past 2 months that if I wasn’t wearing a helmet I would be dead today. I was hit on April 21st, virtually head on by some idiot in a pickup truck. No chance for me to avoid the accident as he crossed the lane into me. Anyway, I am sitting here today because of my helmet. I have 8 fractured vertebrae, broken rib, clavicle, finger, brachial plexus injury, etc. 2 fusion surgeries & a disketomy later (T7-T9 & C6-C7), I am thankful to be alive and not paralyzed. If I knew how to paste a picture of my helmet, I would. The thing virtually disintegrated but I had no head injury at all.
Any way if you don’t want to wear a helmet, feel free, but during my rehab appointments I see plenty of people trying to recover from head injuries. It isn’t pretty.
If when someone is stupid, and messes their head up, had no impact on others, yep. But, these folks that become
vegatables rather than die have to be paid to live by someone. And, guess who that someone is, us.
That was the main reason I heard when Calif forced the helmet law for motorcycles. They DO NOT only impact themselves!!
Yeah, I see your point, and I think that’s fair enough. I guess my bone is about the decision the driver makes, or supposedly makes.
To continue your example, If I’m driving down the street and see children, I think to myself, “Children; slow down.” The only time I don’t think about it is when children run directly into the street, whereupon I’d slow down instinctively. In that situation, it doesn’t really matter what runs into the street – could be a ball, person, animal, ghost, or whatever ridiculous example we come up with – I’d still slow down without thinking about it. I see your point here, though; however, there’s a million variables involved.
In the cyclist example, I really don’t accept the idea that people drive with more caution around helmet-less bikers. You know, on further thought, I think I have an issue with the consequences of the cyclist situation. IF we accept that someone drives further / more cautiously around a cyclist with no helmet, it seems to me that it MUST be true that the driver consciously thinks, “Oh, he’s wearing a helmet, it’s OK if I buzz him closely.” I don’t buy that at all. I think people buzz cyclists because they’re assholes, and they give them room because they’re good people – not because of whether or not the cyclist is wearing a helmet.
That’s the line of thinking I disagree with, and I think that’s the slippery slope the conclusion of the study teeters on.
