Any regular road riders not wear helmets?

DiscoBoy

The last time I rode without a helmet my friend was hit by a car, and his helmet probably saved his life.

Now, he's a tetraplegic and I wear a helmet.

Ringpeace

I wear a helmet when I am going out just for a ride and when I know I am going to be going down some fast descents at 40 MPH +

When I am just commuting or going on journey's of less than 15 miles and when I know I am not going to be going down many fast descents - I don't bother.

I have been hit by cars twice and dogs twice - both times without a helmet. Chainring gouges to legs, broken ribs and a broken wrist - by putting my hand out to brace the inevitable fall.

Ironically the one time I did hit my head was when I attempted a small wheelie at about 5MPH over a 00 Gauge train track and the wheel slipped on some goose shi7. No helmet, no ill effects.

It's all about personal choice. 80% of my journeys are under 5 miles and there isn't the option to get big speeds up.

I can say for a fact that I do not see any riders on road bikes NOT wearing a helmet when we go on proper rides. About town, commuting - I often don't see many nowadays and do seem to be in the minority.

And I really don't care!

supermurph09

Sprogthedog wrote:

I personally don't wear a helmet. I don't like how they feel and i don't like how they look on me, so I don't bother.However, i do notice i am very much in a minority and i do sometimes wonder why.
Years ago hardly anyone wore helmets, now it seems like some people only have to sit on a bike and they think they have to wear a high-vis vest and a helmet.
I don't want to get into a whole big thing about the pros and cons of helmets, everyone will have their personal reasons either way. I am just curious how many other riders don't bother. I would say in the last few months, I can only recall one other rider without one on.
Anyone else not bother?

I don't like how some jeans feel or look on me, that's why I find something different to wear. If feel and style are what is troubling you then I do believe there are more than 1 or 2 helmet styles available. First helmet I wore seemed perched on top of my head, so after a few months I swapped it for a boardman and it fits and feels great. I've never had one ride where I've thought "this helmet really annoys me". I think you just need to find one that fits and suits, you're bound to be better off long term.

Analysis of whether helmets save lives is very subjective, but I like to quantify it in simple terms. You pull upto to the junction, suddenly you cant unclip, you fall and your head hits the road. Would you rather have a helmet on offering a line of defence or not?

neilo23

I'm sure that if the danger factor was removed all riders would prefer to ride without a helmet. I'm prepared to ignore the risk for the pleasure of feeling the wind in my hair on a nice ride. I'm just as likely to fall over drunk and hit my head as I am whilst riding

Ringpeace

Supermurph09 wrote:

Analysis of whether helmets save lives is very subjective, but I like to quantify it in simple terms. You pull upto to the junction, suddenly you cant unclip, you fall and your head hits the road. Would you rather have a helmet on offering a line of defence or not?

I'm sorry but that is a completely ridiculous justification to wear a helmet.

Firstly, if you can't unclip WTF are you doing riding clipless pedals?

Secondly - if you can't unclip and you know that you will only fall sideways. How will you hit your head? Instinctively you would put your hands out.

Thirdly - if you can't unclip easily maybe adjust the tension.

Fourthly - don't ever again use being able to unclip - at a junction - where presumably you are stationary - as a reason TO wear a helmet.

Farcical!

MattC59

paul2718 wrote:

if the helmet has broken then it hasn't worked, it is designed to absorb impact by crushing not snapping.

That's fundamentally incorrect. The helmet is designed to dissipate energy, not absorb it. if it has cracked in an impact, then it has dissipated energy. A low energy impact may dent/crush the polystyrene, but a higher energy impact wont.

Mikey23

Being in my 60s and follically challenged I like my helmet cos it makes me look 20 years younger...

supermurph09

Ringpeace wrote:

Supermurph09 wrote:

Analysis of whether helmets save lives is very subjective, but I like to quantify it in simple terms. You pull upto to the junction, suddenly you cant unclip, you fall and your head hits the road. Would you rather have a helmet on offering a line of defence or not?

I'm sorry but that is a completely ridiculous justification to wear a helmet.

Firstly, if you can't unclip WTF are you doing riding clipless pedals?

Secondly - if you can't unclip and you know that you will only fall sideways. How will you hit your head? Instinctively you would put your hands out.

Thirdly - if you can't unclip easily maybe adjust the tension.

Fourthly - don't ever again use being able to unclip - at a junction - where presumably you are stationary - as a reason TO wear a helmet.

Farcical!

Didnt mean it like that, don't focus on the unclipping, focus on the type of bump a minor crash could cause. I was using the unclipping as an indicator of force.

bigmat

I think you're missing the point, surely it was just an example of a regular low speed incident that might cause you to hit your head? In fact, a helmet is less likely to be useful crashing at 40mph, although there are too many variables to consider. Fact is, you could slide along the tarmac and smack your head on a rock, just as you could fall over sideways at 0mph and whack a kerb. You mentioned above not wearing helmets for commuting - in my experience that is when I'm most likely to hit the deck, usually when pedestrians step out into my path. Never mind instinct, I've had crashes where I have face planted at 20mph+ and had no chance to put my hands out. Interestingly, I have only once crashed where I felt my head take the impact (and had to replace my helmet) and that was over 20 years ago. Even so, I almost always wear one as it has just become habit and I can't see any real drawback Totally against compulsion though (in fact, thinking about it, I cycle the few hundred yards between the gym and my office without a helmet most days...)

The other reason I wear one is that they are compulsory for most races / sportives etc these days - usually due to insurance i.e. people who have carried out an informed commercial risk assessment on a large scale.

neeb

paul2718 wrote:

There are two huge assumptions on display in any thread like this.

1. Helmets as usually worn reduce head injuries in accidents usually suffered.
2. A broken helmet is evidence that it was useful.

It's true that it's difficult to prove the truth of those assumptions because of the problems with getting large enough bodies of reliable data, but I do actually think that the balance of probabilities strongly favours them being warranted in most cases.

Cycle helmets are very limited in the protection they can offer while still being wearable and are designed to pass impact tests that are very divergent from the type of impact adults having either high speed crashes or being involved with cars need protection from.

Yes, the way helmets are designed is not going to make them sufficient to protect from high speed impacts from motor vehicles or direct impacts at 40mph, but most bike accidents aren't like that. Even when you crash at 40mph, you need to be pretty unlucky for your head to hit the tarmac at 40mph. What usually happens is that another part of your body hits first (decelerating you) and then your head hits at a lower speed, and often at a glancing angle so that the actual force to the head is a lot less than if it was hit directly. Bike helmets are actually pretty good at protecting the head from common impacts of this type, or at least significantly reducing the force absorbed by the head.

And if the helmet has broken then it hasn't worked, it is designed to absorb impact by crushing not snapping.

This doesn't follow - if the helmet is broken it will almost certainly have partially crushed first. It may show that the force has exceeded the absorption capacities of the helmet, but it doesn't show by how much. So a broken helmet may have absorbed 80% of the impact force before breaking and then transferring the other 20% to the head, but that's still going to be a lot better than your head having taken the full 100%!

Ringpeace

I think what is really needed is a definitive study of just how effective helmets are.

Surely they could take the data from the big bike races like the TDF and find out how many serious head injuries, that basically turned the riders into cabbages, from when helmets weren't and were compulsory?

This is another futile argument that gets no one anywhere. I don't always wear a helmet - you do. Good for you.

I ALWAYS use lights - day & night - do you?

I am ALWAYS cursing the shocking state of the roads and some motorists quite frankly terrifying driving. 90% of the time to speed up to a red traffic light!

Sort the state of the roads and educate drivers - instead of pathetic lip service and often pointless and annoying "cycle lanes" - and the roads would be a much safer place for all.

Ringpeace

neeb wrote:

paul2718 wrote:

There are two huge assumptions on display in any thread like this.

1. Helmets as usually worn reduce head injuries in accidents usually suffered.
2. A broken helmet is evidence that it was useful.

It's true that it's difficult to prove the truth of those assumptions because of the problems with getting large enough bodies of reliable data, but I do actually think that the balance of probabilities strongly favours them being warranted in most cases.

Cycle helmets are very limited in the protection they can offer while still being wearable and are designed to pass impact tests that are very divergent from the type of impact adults having either high speed crashes or being involved with cars need protection from.

Yes, the way helmets are designed is not going to make them sufficient to protect from high speed impacts from motor vehicles or direct impacts at 40mph, but most bike accidents aren't like that. Even when you crash at 40mph, you need to be pretty unlucky for your head to hit the tarmac at 40mph. What usually happens is that another part of your body hits first (decelerating you) and then your head hits at a lower speed, and often at a glancing angle so that the actual force to the head is a lot less than if it was hit directly. Bike helmets are actually pretty good at protecting the head from common impacts of this type, or at least significantly reducing the force absorbed by the head.

And if the helmet has broken then it hasn't worked, it is designed to absorb impact by crushing not snapping.

This doesn't follow - if the helmet is broken it will almost certainly have partially crushed first. It may show that the force has exceeded the absorption capacities of the helmet, but it doesn't show by how much. So a broken helmet may have absorbed 80% of the impact force before breaking and then transferring the other 20% to the head, but that's still going to be a lot better than your head having taken the full 100%!

This is a sensible and well thought out post.

I was hit by a car turning left deciding not to check his mirrors or indicate. I was traveling about 14 MPH but saw him in time, swerved out the way, hit the back of his car and went a%% over t!t - whilst clipped in - but put my hands out to save myself - thus a nice broken wrist.

No helmet.

slowbike

Supermurph09 wrote:

Analysis of whether helmets save lives is very subjective, but I like to quantify it in simple terms. You pull upto to the junction, suddenly you cant unclip, you fall and your head hits the road. Would you rather have a helmet on offering a line of defence or not?

Simple terms - without taking into the account of probability ...

What's the probability of pulling up to a junction and not being able to unclip?
Then what's the probability of falling over?
Then what's the probability of hitting your head on the road?

The first is unlikely for most of us - although most ppl have clipless moments at some point - usually early on.
Second is quite high if the first as occurred - unless you're skilled at trackstands, can change your mind and ride off or there's something beside you to grab then you're going down.
I would think that the probability of hitting your head on the road is reasonably low - natural instinct is to put your arm out and you'll naturally try and stop your head from hitting anything - if there's something protruding - like a bollard then you may not get much choice, but most of the time I believe that ppl can fall over without hitting their head.

The dumb question - that gets raised every time - would you prefer to be wearing a helmet when you hit your head - that's ignoring the risk of hitting your head to start with.

I'm not an anti-helmet guy (i've got 3) - I wear one for any ride where I'm likely to be pushing myself - commuting, club or training rides - but I'm quite happy not to wear one for a ride to the pub or like the other morning - ride to the cafe for breakfast - rides where I know I'm not pushed for time or need to put in any sort of effort. Yes, the risk of an accident is still there - it never completely goes away - just the level goes from "reasonably unlikely" to "highly unlikely".

paul2718

neeb wrote:

It's true that it's difficult to prove the truth of those assumptions because of the problems with getting large enough bodies of reliable data, but I do actually think that the balance of probabilities strongly favours them being warranted in most cases.

If you read the standards that helmets are tested to then I think it's clear what cycle helmets are designed to do. It's worth considering whether that is where the risk for your particular usage lies.

Yes, the way helmets are designed is not going to make them sufficient to protect from high speed impacts from motor vehicles or direct impacts at 40mph, but most bike accidents aren't like that. Even when you crash at 40mph, you need to be pretty unlucky for your head to hit the tarmac at 40mph. What usually happens is that another part of your body hits first (decelerating you) and then your head hits at a lower speed, and often at a glancing angle so that the actual force to the head is a lot less than if it was hit directly. Bike helmets are actually pretty good at protecting the head from common impacts of this type, or at least significantly reducing the force absorbed by the head.

It's not high speed impacts as such, it's what happens in glancing blows, for example, where the helmet can make things worse.

This doesn't follow - if the helmet is broken it will almost certainly have partially crushed first. It may show that the force has exceeded the absorption capacities of the helmet, but it doesn't show by how much. So a broken helmet may have absorbed 80% of the impact force before breaking and then transferring the other 20% to the head, but that's still going to be a lot better than your head having taken the full 100%!

I think it does follow. Consider playing with a piece of polystyrene and a hammer. The material a cycle helmet is made from is intended to absorb impact by crushing, and it does a very good job in that mode.

I think that where a helmet breaks it may be a consequence of a poor fit or loose strap, so it's definitely worth thinking about. If the inner surface of the helmet were touching the skull all over how could it snap first?

I think two layer helmets with a structural composite shell would be a significant improvement, separating the structural integrity from the impact absorption. I don't see why weight or ventilation would be an insuperable problem. Cost might be an issue, but I would pay significantly for significant head protection.

I guess the basic point is that while cycle helmets are so marginally effective in real world accidents that measuring their effectiveness is difficult to impossible, then getting too dogmatic about their usage is futile. This isn't like motorcycle helmets or seatbelts.

Paul

Ringpeace

Slowbike wrote:

Supermurph09 wrote:

Analysis of whether helmets save lives is very subjective, but I like to quantify it in simple terms. You pull upto to the junction, suddenly you cant unclip, you fall and your head hits the road. Would you rather have a helmet on offering a line of defence or not?

Simple terms - without taking into the account of probability ...

What's the probability of pulling up to a junction and not being able to unclip?
Then what's the probability of falling over?
Then what's the probability of hitting your head on the road?

The first is unlikely for most of us - although most ppl have clipless moments at some point - usually early on.
Second is quite high if the first as occurred - unless you're skilled at trackstands, can change your mind and ride off or there's something beside you to grab then you're going down.
I would think that the probability of hitting your head on the road is reasonably low - natural instinct is to put your arm out and you'll naturally try and stop your head from hitting anything - if there's something protruding - like a bollard then you may not get much choice, but most of the time I believe that ppl can fall over without hitting their head.

The dumb question - that gets raised every time - would you prefer to be wearing a helmet when you hit your head - that's ignoring the risk of hitting your head to start with.

I'm not an anti-helmet guy (i've got 3) - I wear one for any ride where I'm likely to be pushing myself - commuting, club or training rides - but I'm quite happy not to wear one for a ride to the pub or like the other morning - ride to the cafe for breakfast - rides where I know I'm not pushed for time or need to put in any sort of effort. Yes, the risk of an accident is still there - it never completely goes away - just the level goes from "reasonably unlikely" to "highly unlikely".

Exactly. A lot of my journeys are under 5 miles where I know I'm not going to have the chance to go for it - there seems to be traffic lights every 1/4 or 1/2 mile where I live. If a car actually hits me then more than likely it will do more damage.

It's like wearing gloves. In the summer a lot of the time I don't bother. Last summer I had been out on a proper ride so had some gloves on. 1/2 a mile from home I took a right at traffic lights at the most 10MPH and not leaning at all.

Next thing I know - back end had completely gone from some invisible diesel and I had come off and skidded - hands first along the ground. Rear mech was scratched but still functional - gloves were ripped to shreds and saved my palms.

When I learnt how to ride a bike 30 years ago bike helmets wasn't even a "thing" - lol!

supermurph09

OK, for clarification can we all move away from my clipped in comment. I was citing it as an example of the typical force that you might bump your head from ANY mishap on the bike, thanks to those that have not had a bump on the head and were able to understand that. I was trying to convey that if I was to have a little off that resulted in a bump to my head I'd rather be wearing a helmet than not.

Surely this comment contradicts your whole argument?

Ringpeace: Next thing I know - back end had completely gone from some invisible diesel and I had come off and skidded - hands first along the ground. Rear mech was scratched but still functional - gloves were ripped to shreds and saved my palms.

Ringpeace

"I was trying to convey that if I was to have a little off that resulted in a bump to my head I'd rather be wearing a helmet than not."

Yeah but who wouldn't say that?

Dick-Dastardly

I stopped riding a bike on London roads 20 years ago. I never wore a helmet then, just as I never wore a helmet for skiing (but they were generally only for ski racers in those days).

Now I wear a high quality helmet for skiing and I'm thinking of getting back into cycling, although probably not road riding. If I did start cycling on London roads again I would most definitely invest in the best quality helmet I could find, as well as other forms of protection.

slowbike

Supermurph09 wrote:

I was trying to convey that if I was to have a little off that resulted in a bump to my head I'd rather be wearing a helmet than not.

If I was confronting a gunman in a bank robbery I'd rather be wearing a bullet proof vest than not.
If I was in a building fire I'd rather be carrying a fire extinguisher than not.

If If If If IF

it's the probability of the IF that needs consideration - then you look at ways to mitigate the issue - IF the risk is high enough ...

Another poster has asked before "If I was to hit your head with a hammer would you prefer to be wearing a helmet - yes or no" ... well - that's a stupid question because you're mitigating against a stated certainty.
Whereas, what you want to say is "If we played a game where you had 3 goes to through two consecutively double sixes with two dice - if you do I get to try and hit you on the head with a hammer - do you want to put a helmet on?" then you're into the realms of probability - first that there is a slim chance of throwing 2 double sixes consecutively and second you have to weigh up the possibility of fending off a blow to the head should the first occur. Of course, there's no incentive to NOT wear the helmet - especially as the game is so quick ... so
You could make it more interesting by giving a financial reward in the game - throw two double sixes consecutively and win £500, but if you opt to wear the helmet then your prize would be reduced to £100. Either prize is forfeited IF the contestant is hit on the head with the hammer within 60 seconds of the second throw...

Another question is:
How many of you have suffered from a blow to the head?
Then
How many have suffered a significant life changing blow to the head?

Nobody wants to be injured for life and I sympathise with those who have been - helmet wearer or not. But the argument that the helmet WILL save your life is just not true ... it MAY lessen the impact or it MAY have no impact at all - it rather depends on the impact - either which way, do NOT rely on a helmet to have any effect whatsoever - then you won't be disappointed in its performance.
Actually - that was a crap way of saying that you have to look out for yourself and not think "I've got a helmet on so I'm safe to ride" ... it's a bonus if it gets to do it's job ...

Q - How many of those killed whilst riding in the last 12 months were wearing a helmet?

kajjal

Having seen some one go over their handle bars and head first into the Tarmac cracking their cycling helmet it's not a risk I am prepared to take. They landed on the top of their head and due to the helmet just strained their neck and shoulders.

As the main earner in the house with elderly relatives I am also responsible for there is no way I am going to risk that happening or anything similar. Maybe people who have less responsibility or not seen first hand the consequences take a different view.

neilo23

Sprogthedog wrote:

I don't want to get into a whole big thing about the pros and cons of helmets, everyone will have their personal reasons either way. I am just curious how many other riders don't bother. Anyone else not bother?

The original post...... :roll:

slowbike

Kajjal wrote:

Having seen some one go over their handle bars and head first into the Tarmac cracking their cycling helmet it's not a risk I am prepared to take. They landed on the top of their head and due to the helmet just strained their neck and shoulders.

Expert in that field are you?

I know ppl who have sustained impact to the tops of their head and come away with nothing - others have suffered fractured skulls - it's not black and white ...

Kajjal wrote:

As the main earner in the house with elderly relatives I am also responsible for there is no way I am going to risk that happening or anything similar. Maybe people who have less responsibility or not seen first hand the consequences take a different view.

Your perception of risk is odd - not that there is anything wrong with wearing a helmet - but you're more at risk for other every day activities that you probably don't protect yourself against ... and it's exactly what I was warning against ...

Wearing a helmet does not make cycling safe ...

neeb

paul2718 wrote:

This doesn't follow - if the helmet is broken it will almost certainly have partially crushed first. It may show that the force has exceeded the absorption capacities of the helmet, but it doesn't show by how much. So a broken helmet may have absorbed 80% of the impact force before breaking and then transferring the other 20% to the head, but that's still going to be a lot better than your head having taken the full 100%!

I think it does follow. Consider playing with a piece of polystyrene and a hammer. The material a cycle helmet is made from is intended to absorb impact by crushing, and it does a very good job in that mode.

I think that where a helmet breaks it may be a consequence of a poor fit or loose strap, so it's definitely worth thinking about. If the inner surface of the helmet were touching the skull all over how could it snap first?

I have actually played with my old helmets and 10kg dumbbells dropped from a height, it's quite fun..

When helmets break it is usually at the thinner bits at the corners of vents etc. I think the point is that it doesn't "snap first", what happens is that a region of the helmet gets partially crushed, which in turn causes significant deformation of the foam, resulting in it cracking at the weakest points and coming apart. This all happens within a fraction of a second. So the breaking of the foam is a secondary consequence of it crushing and deforming. If you hit a helmet with sufficient force to break it, you can actually feel it absorbing energy.

I guess the basic point is that while cycle helmets are so marginally effective in real world accidents that measuring their effectiveness is difficult to impossible, then getting too dogmatic about their usage is futile. This isn't like motorcycle helmets or seatbelts.

I think the difficulty in measuring the effectiveness of helmets is simply that it's very difficult to collect the data, not that the effectiveness is necessarily of a small magnitude. Most people who crash their bikes and crush their helmets don't report it to anyone. Accidents that are severe enough to require hospitalization and involve a head injury represent a very biased sample. It may be the case that where bike helmets are most effective is in the boundary between no injury and mild concussion, or mild concussion and severe concussion or permanent damage. But how do you get hold if the data to prove that?

neilo23

If you can't beat them join them....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pr ... ing_a_race

I counted 30 who have died during races and whilst training since 2003 (when the compulsory helmet laws for pros were introduced). More than at any other period in the modern time (since the 60s).

kajjal

Slowbike wrote:

Kajjal wrote:

Having seen some one go over their handle bars and head first into the Tarmac cracking their cycling helmet it's not a risk I am prepared to take. They landed on the top of their head and due to the helmet just strained their neck and shoulders.

Expert in that field are you?

I know ppl who have sustained impact to the tops of their head and come away with nothing - others have suffered fractured skulls - it's not black and white ...

Kajjal wrote:

As the main earner in the house with elderly relatives I am also responsible for there is no way I am going to risk that happening or anything similar. Maybe people who have less responsibility or not seen first hand the consequences take a different view.

Your perception of risk is odd - not that there is anything wrong with wearing a helmet - but you're more at risk for other every day activities that you probably don't protect yourself against ... and it's exactly what I was warning against ...

Wearing a helmet does not make cycling safe ...

I think you may be making up facts to fit your view. A sizeable impact to the head is likely to cause problems or various activities such as horse riding etc would also not require protective head wear. It is not so much the likely hood of it happening but the damage when it does. So far in twenty years of mountain biking I have had no real impact injuries but others I ride with have had various impact injuries.

There are plenty of risks in life that you can and can't avoid or negate. Not dealing with the ones you can easily do something about seems odd to me. The fervent arguing against just putting a cycle helmet on seems a very strange view to me maybe it is as I suggested just down to differing life experiences and responsibilities.

slowbike

Kajjal wrote:

I think you may be making up facts to fit your view.

really ... ok .. you can think what you like - but I'm not making it up ...

Kajjal wrote:

A sizeable impact to the head is likely to cause problems or various activities such as horse riding etc would also not require protective head wear.

Cracked vertebrae? A helmet didn't prevent that - a neck brace would've done though ...

Kajjal wrote:

It is not so much the likely hood of it happening but the damage when it does. So far in twenty years of mountain biking I have had no real impact injuries but others I ride with have had various impact injuries.

It is ALL about the likelyhood of it happening ...
What's the chances of being hit by an object falling from the sky? Practically zero - but the damage should it happen could be devastating - but we don't wander around wearing helmets all the time ...

Kajjal wrote:

There are plenty of risks in life that you can and can't avoid or negate. Not dealing with the ones you can easily do something about seems odd to me. The fervent arguing against just putting a cycle helmet on seems a very strange view to me maybe it is as I suggested just down to differing life experiences and responsibilities.

I'm not arguing against wearing one - I'm arguing for wearing it for the right reasons

paul2718

neeb wrote:

I think the difficulty in measuring the effectiveness of helmets is simply that it's very difficult to collect the data, not that the effectiveness is necessarily of a small magnitude. Most people who crash their bikes and crush their helmets don't report it to anyone. Accidents that are severe enough to require hospitalization and involve a head injury represent a very biased sample. It may be the case that where bike helmets are most effective is in the boundary between no injury and mild concussion, or mild concussion and severe concussion or permanent damage. But how do you get hold if the data to prove that?

If helmets were significantly effective then the people who today crash and crush without report would have been injured in the past. You would think there would be a clear trend in head injuries. Racing should also be a good source of trend, given that cycle racers very regularly crash, that significant injuries are newsworthy, and especially since we have a clear change in helmet wearing habits.

I think in general helmets are worth wearing, but a big dose of scepticism is necessary about how much worth. Nobody seems too bothered about walking in a helmet, or climbing stairs, and both these are common sites of fatal accidents. In the last few years I know of two people who have died of head injuries after falls and nobody who has been killed on a bike. This seems as anecdotally valid as 'I fell off and smashed my helmet which saved my life'.

Paul

crikey

http://cyclehelmets.org/0.html

A helmet saved your life? see above.
Let's make them compulsory? see above.

If they work so well, explain this graph please:



The helmet debate is both subtle and complex, the exact opposite of those who advocate compulsion.

lancew

Simple. Number of people riding since 1993 has increased as has general road usage.

crikey

Fail.

The graph shows helmet use in New Zealand, which increased to 90 odd % when it was made compulsory.
How did it affect the head injury rate?