[Arelius]

Among others, these two points scream of grasping at anything to throw at the argument:

> wearing a helmet may create a false sense of security and induce risk-taking that cyclists without head protection might not make.

> Bike helmets discourage cycling

We are not discussing if not wearing a helmet should be legal, A competent adult should be able to go base jumping, ride a motorcycle, or just bang their head against the pavement if they please, but that doesn't mean your not an idiot for doing it without any good reason.

But as he opens,

> Several of them asked me: Where is your bike helmet?

We're clearly discussing the validity of the choice as an individual to choose to not wear a helmet, and the argument that it induces risk-taking? Well consider that fact, and use your head and don't take extra-risk.

Or about discouraging cycling? Does the existence of helmets discourage cycling? Does me, or you wearing helmets discourage other people from cycling? The study at least says that mandatory helmet laws discourage cycling.

Now, if you choose to go base jumping for the adrenaline, to ride a motorcycle for the freedom, and thrill, fully aware and accepting of the risk, that's great, and better to you.

Similarly, if you want to ride without a helmet because it you think it makes you look cooler, you like the wind in your hair, prefer the convenience to the safety, or even if you are just trying to be different, a contrarian. Sure, do what you want. But stop fucking pretending it's because "It's safer".

[xxgreg]

Did you read this bit:

Risk of head injury per million hours travelled

Cyclist - 0.41 Pedestrian - 0.80 Motor vehicle occupant - 0.46 Motorcyclist - 7.66

"but that doesn't mean your not an idiot for doing it without any good reason."

So by this logic someone not wearing a helmet while in a car is also an idiot ;)

[Arelius]

> So by this logic someone not wearing a helmet while in a car is also an idiot.

That may also be true, assuming that we have similar data showing that helmets help as much in cars as they do on bikes.

Considering that car incidents are vastly different however, I suspect a helmet in a car incident doesn't have quite the same affect on head injuries.

And even if they have proven to be useful, the studies are almost certainly with helmets that much more closely resemble a motorcycle helmet. In which a case the convenience and comfort helmet have a much more significant impact, which plays directly into my comment of "without a good reason"

Additionally, I'd really like to see the paper where that statistic came from, sadly it doesn't give the numbers in the abstract. And while it's totally anecdotal I know a non-zero amount of people (directly or indirectly) who have had a head injury cycling, yet zero as a pedestrian. Despite knowing vastly more people who spend vastly more time walking. Saying that you're more likely to get a head accident walking is a pretty strong claim. Thus I'd like to see strong evidence.

[knowtheory]

It should also be noted that cars have a number of safety devices which bicycles do not, airbags, seat belts, crumple zones, and so on.

Cars also travel under different conditions from bicycles as well (certainly not many highway bicyclists), and as such i would presume that motorists would be involved in many more high speed crashes (although data on that would be interesting to see).

So comparing injuries on bikes to injuries in cars definitely seems like an apples to oranges comparison at first blush.

[xxgreg]

I'd like to see strong evidence too. Where I live there have been a far larger number of pedestrians seriously injured by cars than cyclists - but you're right far more time is spent walking.

[zurn]

We can see from racing sports that helmets are good to have in high speed car crashes. Rally drivers, Formula 1 drivers etc all wear them.

[welly]

What car drivers, outside motor racing, are driving at 150mph plus down the high street?

[Arelius]

They aren't simple bicycle helmets though...