[Anderkent]

I'd be interested to see the fatality rates for riders without a helmet. The article seems to suggest that it's fine to do because cars are careful around cyclists - but that misses the point completely. The helmet is not there to save you from a car crash. It's there to save you when you get distracted and miss a pot hole or hit something.

Perhaps my perception is skewed because I've had two friends be saved from a serious head injury only thanks to their helmets. One rode into a parked car (she doesn't remember how it happened due to amnesia), riding at relaxed speed, and was unconscious for a couple days.

It seems really weird to take that risk just to avoid a slight discomfort.

[apendleton]

It's a very hard thing to measure, mostly because double-blind studies are unethical, and well-controlled case-control studies are generally difficult. An 85% reduction in head injuries is often cited, but it's based on a study from the mid-'80s that, it turns out, had some pretty substantial methodological flaws, so it's generally agreed that that number overstates helmets' efficacy pretty considerably. More recent studies put the number somewhere around a 20% reduction in head injuries for adults in the US, accompanied by a slight increase in the rate of torsional injuries to the neck because of the larger circumference of a helmeted vs. unhelmeted head. In general, though, helmet use is not an especially good predictor of the outcome of a bike accident; it's much less well correlated with likelihood of death than, say, the cyclists's speed at the time of the accident.

[ht_th]

Because there isn't much risk, really. It is very, very uncommon for an experienced Dutch cyclist to have a serious one-sided accident. Children learning, sick elderly and tourists on the other hand do have accidents more often and for them helmets is a good idea. You see more and more young children wear helmets in the Netherlands when they start out learning to ride a bicycle.

I've been riding bikes in traffic for almost 30 years and never had a serious accident one-sided or not. For about 6 years I also did cycling racing and wearing a helmet was obligatory to participate in training and official KNWU races. And that's a good thing for I did have a number of accidents while racing: falling in the bunch, not holding a bend, jumping from small sand cliffs, breaking equipment, and so on. However, these accidents only happen because while racing one takes risks one does not while riding a bike to work: the speed is significantly lower, they way one sits on a bike is different, the stakes (i.e., winning) are lower, the bikes themselves are a lot sturdier than those racing bikes, and so on.

I think many foreigners don't really understand this difference between riding for transportation and riding for sport or challenge.

To add: I've had many more accidents, serious and not, while walking. Tripping isn't uncommon for me, I've tripped at least once or twice a year. The same for injuring my ankle, walking against a door or window, falling from stairs, and so on.

[_delirium]

On the last point, that's something that comes up occasionally when helmet laws are discussed in Denmark: is there evidence that wearing a helmet on bike is more helpful than wearing a helmet as a pedestrian? If not, shouldn't a mandatory helmet law also mandate it for pedestrians?

There is also evidence that wearing a helmet in a car can reduce head injuries in some kinds of accidents, especially at highway speeds. Therefore one might wonder if a mandatory-helmet law should actually include all forms of transportation, including cars, bicycles, and walking. Or perhaps a subset, such as required for bicycles only when on major streets, and for cars only when on highways.

[dalke]

Start with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_helmet#Science:_measuri... .

Helmets only protect from certain types of injuries and they are often misworn. The larger analysis also need to consider that some people won't ride a bike if required to wear a helmet; eg, to prevent helmet hair while on the way to an opera. There are also health benefits to biking, vs. driving or taking mass transit.

My personal view is that biking slower than 10 mph (which is the same as running a 6 minute mile) doesn't need a helmet for the cases you are talking about any more than street runners need a helmet.

10mph is considered a slow biking speed, but it's what you'll find with city bikes in an urban environment like the Netherlands.

[_delirium]

The larger analysis also need to consider that some people won't ride a bike if required to wear a helmet; eg, to prevent helmet hair while on the way to an opera.

In Denmark a more common reason isn't hair so much as where to put the helmet. People bike everywhere, and usually you just leave your bike in some random location on a sidewalk, with the rear wheel immobilized with a built-in device that most bikes have (minor theft deterrent). Then you're left either having to carry the helmet with you everywhere, or to try to lock it to the bike somehow (presumably with an extra lock you carry just for that). Also, it drizzles a lot, so your helmet will be very wet if you leave it outside, unless you carry an extra bag or cover for it that works together with a lock.

For commuting between home and office it's not an issue, and more people wear helmets in that case. Of my coworkers, I would say about 1/3 wear a helmet when commuting, skewed towards those who live further (~10km), and those who are somewhat older (>40 y/o). Parents with young kids also tend to wear helmets, rather than trying to explain to the kids that they have to but mom and dad don't.

[mrweasel]

I think people make the "where to put the helmet" into a bigger problem that it is. I wear a helmet when biking, and I ride my bike everywhere (I'm Danish). I always just hang the helmet on the handlebar, my reasoning "who would steal a helmet". I've been right the last 10 years.

Also really, do you care it's wet? It has holes in it, your going the get your head wet anyway.

[ufmace]

I have taken the view that helmets don't usually help much, but that people often perceive wearing a helmet as being the definition of safety, rather than obeying the rules of the road and paying attention to the road and what is going on around you. In my view, those are far more important than what you have on your head.

Personally, I haven't seen anyone saved thanks to a bike helmet, but I have seen people get into minor accidents because they were ignoring traffic rules and not paying attention to the road. Lots of people in the US seem to treat bikes as more of a kid's toy, to be cruised around the local neighborhood without a care in the world. They don't have the damage potential or expense of cars, but they are still vehicles that are many times faster and less maneuverable then you are on your feet, and so deserve your respect and attention.

[bkor]

There have been various studies done regarding bicycle helmets. My conclusion on those: helmets make biking more annoying. You need a helmet, you need to put it on and off. It is a minor annoyance, but huge problem in making biking popular and easy/thoughtless.

Secondly on the safety: there are studies where they compared the average distance between people on bikes with helmets and without. Cars gave bikes less distance to people wearing helmets. The likely explanation is that because they seem more safe, you need to pay less attention to their safety (decreasing distance is a result).

Lastly: There is a TED talk about making bikes more stable using electronics. Apparently the most common bike accident is a one-sided accident by "old people", IIRC.