[Drunk_Engineer]

99% of bike fatalities involve car crashes. There is no styrofoam helmet which will protect against that, and the VaTech test notably does not model that type of crash.

To my knowledge, the only group that tried to test bike helmets against a car is Volvo -- and all helmets failed.

[usrusr]

The key service performed by a cycling helmet is not turning a death situation into a permanently maimed situation (they do that, but that's a very rare occurrence), it's turning a life changing injury situation into a situation of some fractured bones that will be almost forgotten two months later. The life and death part is overrated.

I guess one reason people are so focused on that is because it's easy to quantify.

[rnewme]

X-Rays of Rob Pike's Shoulder http://herpolhode.com/rob/xray.html

[usrusr]

Yeah, there are clavicle fractures that clearly don't need any surgery, but when in doubt, always slap on some titanium. Just try to get rid of the plate before the next fracture opportunity, because then you'll get an AC joint separation instead of a fracture and that stuff won't grow back. Ask me how I know, I had surgery to swap a fracture plate for an AC plate (those AC plates really, really suck)

[jibal]

https://www.facs.org/about-acs/statements/statement-on-bicyc...

Helmets reduce the risk of head injury by 48%, traumatic brain injury by 53%, facial injury by 23%, and fatal injury by 34%.2 Pediatric non-helmeted bikers have a 3-fold higher risk of serious head injury compared to helmeted bikers;3 one study suggests that helmet use may reduce the risk of head injury by 83%.4

Bicycle-related head injuries and deaths have decreased in states that have enacted bicycle helmet laws.5

Larger effects are found when legislation applies to all cyclists than when it applies to children only. 6

[Drunk_Engineer]

"one study suggests that helmet use may reduce the risk of head injury by 83%"

That one study has been thoroughly debunked...yet decades later it still gets cited.

https://www.seattlebikeblog.com/2013/06/04/feds-no-longer-ba...

[kakacik]

Yeah some random blog from keen bikers is really debunking it all globally, including common sense.

I don't get this fanatical defense of no-helmet-at-all-fucking-cost stance many here often express. I personally know a person who died in bike accident helmet-less, she went head first due to slamming front brake too hard, straight on the head on tarmac, no complex situation, it was more than enough.

I had similar situation - new xc bike bought cca 2007, for the first time buying helmet, spent whole childhood and adulthood without one. Within 3 weeks, I had to slam brakes on narrow winding forest path due to my GF stopping abruptly behind the corner. Don't have memory of that situation, remember opening eyes while laying on the ground, looking at crumpled helmet and visor, and seeing how my forehead went perfectly into a sharp stone sticking out of the ground, not much cca 5cm. More than enough to kill me, and GF told me I hit the ground with quite a bit of force.

I have friends with broken collar bones, shoulders, wrists, scars on heads, from various common bike situations, mostly in the city. Many were skeptics, all of them wear helmets now (sometimes due to hard push from their SO). Most of our friends are doctors due to my wife being one, every single one of them had to do some time in emergency in biggest Swiss hospital, and every single one of them had seen rough head injuries including death from all those folks who swore to never wear helmet, it limits their view (bullshit), their senses (huh?) and so on.

Every single sport facing death risk is maximizing their survival chances by smart behavior and better equipment, which often include helmets. But somehow these folks feel like (since this is hard emotional debate, not factual one) they are outside normal risk envelope thats valid for every single living thing on Earth.

But sure, don't wear the helmet, but lets agree you will cover full lifetime costs of any injury treatment to head/neck/shoulders, including all after care due to permanent disabilities. And don't whine when your kids die because daddy was a bit fanatic and picked up wrong hill to wage their insecurities/arrogance battle on.

/rant

[jibal]

Yeah, it's funny that some guy who baselessly claims that "99% of bike fatalities involve car crashes" (when people say "99%", odds are that they are pulling it out of their nether regions) then says that a study cited by the American College of Surgeons (which only says that "one study suggests") "has been thoroughly debunked", offering a citation that doesn't say that. What it does say is that the number from the study hasn't been replicated and other studies consistently show lower numbers. How much lower? It doesn't say. But one thing that is clear is that our drunken correspondent is himself highly prone to exaggeration.

And he notably has nothing to say about any of the other numbers and consequences mentioned by the ACS.

P.S. The 1989 "debunked" study isn't even what ACS cited! Their citation was an overview paper that used a broad range of studies: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10796827/

[jibal]

That's not what the ACS cited; this is: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10796827/

[Drunk_Engineer]

Same author, same BS.

[jibal]

It's not BS just because some intellectually dishonest drunk declares it to be.

[robin_reala]

99% of bike fatalities involve car crashes.

US or globally? Got any stats to link to on that?

[Drunk_Engineer]

US.

Here are 2017 numbers (ok...only 96% that year). https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/...

[adammarples]

Looks like 99% of the bulletholes are in the wings here...

[Theodores]

The helmet business is amazing, and proof that one is born every minute. It deserves to be shown how many logical fallacies there are. Top of the list is anecdotal evidence, everyone with a mouth can tell you about someone that had their life saved by magic styrofoam.

There is a grain of truth to the anecdotal claims. But, even then, this is very much an imagined grain of truth. What makes it fun is if you work for a specialist bicycle shop or up the chain, distributing thousands of helmets. With customer interaction at the showroom level, fitting hundreds of helmets, then selling gazillions at B2B, the question has to be asked, where are the broken ones, the one sent back for money off, as a replacement discount?

Indoctrination into the polystyrene club is also very easy. Customer buys new bicycle, customer gets upsold a helmet, as an easy win. The far more practical high vis jacket costs $5 and you make no profit on that, whereas the $50+ polystyrene is just money for the taking.

The testing was originally to a SNELL standard, but the helmets were too heavy. So manufacturers switched to the lame self-test consumer testing, 'trust us bro'. This became the new benchmark, anything aiming at SNELL or other meaningful test just did not survive the market.

Hence I keep it simple. If cycling for conspicuous leisure purposes (fitness, racing, stunts) then get the helmet and make sure the straps are tight. You will need it for organised events so you might as well get used to wearing it.

If not cycling for conspicuous leisure purposes, but merely for transport, whether that be the commute or errands, then you don't need a helmet. Get the lights, mudguards and high vis instead.

I am learning the counter-logical-fallacies, so I can counter the life saved anecdote with quality nonsense that has the same logical fallacies. For example, "I know a true Scotsman that has been cycling every day for fifty years without a helmet. Once he got hit by a car and his life was saved because he was not wearing an ill-fitting helmet, he would have been strangled by the straps had he been wearing a helmet, plus the driver would have given him less room, so the accident would have been far worse."

I digress, as for the article, the helmet is excellent for conspicuous leisure cycling. Now give me your money!

[hgomersall]

Of course, wearing a helmet is a choice and many get on just fine without it. I've come off my bike enough times where my helmet prevented a nasty bump to the head to wear one, but I suspect I'd have survived just fine without it. I view my helmet as insurance against my own incompetence - slipping on a wet manhole cover for example. For context I ride thousands of km a year for transport, but have done much riding as a conspicuous leisure activity too. I just wear a helmet and I'm not really bothered by it.