http://www.bhsi.org/testing.htm

Notice the test criteria are nothing like what a car accident is like, and in fact bear little resemblance to the conditions of almost any bike accident.

Here's a summary of the tests: they test vertical drop onto the top of the helmet from no more than about 6 feet in height, no rotation involved, no horizontal movement, no side impacts. They also test with only the approximate weight of a human head, as if there would never be a body attached to that head in an accident.

On the other hand the typical bike accident, particularly one where the head could be injured, involves a vertical drop element (from the bike to the ground), horizontal motion (from the speed of the moving bike), and a rotational element (since a biker's head is usually at the top of their body, and the body would need to rotate in order for it to impact with the ground or another hard surface)

According to the Highway "Safety" Institute, most cycle fatalities are helmet-less, adult male riding in early evening or nighttime. Thus, the obvious safety solution is sex-change for all male cyclists.

Now, you may scoff and say being male has nothing to do with overall safety -- and you would be correct. The same argument applies to whether the rider was wearing a helmet. Correlation != Causation.

A major confounding factor in road safety statistics is cycle and driver behavior. We have observational studies that find helmet-wearing, lycra-wearing cyclists are much more risk-adverse. They avoid riding at night and are much more likely to follow the vehicle code (i.e. not engage in wrong-way or sidewalk riding).

So, when we find most fatalities are cyclists who do not wear helmets -- is the death due to lack of helmet, or is this simply a characteristic of a particular at-risk demographic? The "Institute" doesn't say, but I think we know the answer. It would be far better to educate that type of rider in bike safety rather than engage in pointless helmet promotion.

Thought I'd let ya'll know that the cyclist is my brother and he's doing well.

Ryan

Provide a link to a study the proves this.

In over 25 years of bike commuting, most of it in urban settings long before there were bike lanes and bike paths I have yet to be hit by a car. On the other hand; potholes, trolley/train tracks, gravel, poorly maintained roads, and dogs have been a bigger problem. The three accidents I have had have involved rain, a pothole, and a pedestrian who tried to cross the street against the light.

Oddly enough, where I choose to never wear my helmet in GG Park, which is where this guy got hit (I live near it and use it as my route towards downtown). I always figured it's so much safer than the streets with its few intersections, wide visibility and such, but I guess you have to leave room for idiots like these.

@Aaron:
I agree. We can look to countries like Australia (a country with US-style traffic engineering) which passed a nationwide mandatory helmet law. In very short time, the rate of helmet use more than doubled, providing a good dataset to test helmet effectiveness.

If helmets were "90%" effective as claimed by automobile groups like the Institute for Highway Safety (a real misnomer), this would have been reflected in cycle injury and fatality statistics. Instead, there was no evidence of any impact from the legislation (other than a decline in cycling popularity).

There are a number of papers out there on this. I have a copy of Robinson BMJ.2006; 332: 722-725, but only the graphs are available on the web.

Your argument about the graph of bicycle deaths and helmet usage is fallacious because that is not an accurate measurement of the effectiveness of helmets. All that shows is that there are many factors involved in bicycle fatality rates. The lack of correlation does not mean lack of causation. Those countries with lower fatality rates despite low helmet usage have other, much more effective safety measures - mainly road design, and since countries like this one have bad road design... yes, of course the fatalities will still be higher.

The only true measurement of helmets' effectiveness is comparison of accidents with helmets and accidents without helmets, which I have provided and you've ignored. Yes, roads should be made safer, and yes, the media, gov't and society should not put the burden of responsibility of cyclists. I think pretty much everyone here agrees with those notions. But it sounds like the only argument you're trying to win here is to rationalize your not wearing a helmet even in the face of bad circumstance such as those in this city and country. Even I will wear my helmet when I know I'll be riding in dangerous traffic, if only part-time.

you said:

"Helmet design has evolved considerably and your claims are excuses that you use when you know better."

Exactly what claims are excuses?

Helmets do make make ones head hotter, simple fact. Helmets making people's heads hot is a common complaint about helmets. Styrofoam is insulating and most heat is lost through the head, so a helmet can significantly impact a person's ability to get rid of excess heat. Heat can affect brain function, thus increasing risk to a rider that is overheating. Adding holes can reduce, but not eliminate, the problem, but at the cost of lowering the protective abilities of a helmet.

The helmet I have does direct more wind right past my ears, which makes it harder to hear. It is quite obvious when going faster than 15mph. This is due to the fact that the helmet rests just above the ears, the preventing air from rising above the head.

The helmet does block some of my view, not all, but that's why I said "slightly".

My bike ride today (done without a helmet) left me less tired than my bikeride last thursday (done with a helmet) even though I felt a little sick today.

I never tried to say that helmets are bad, I am just pointing out that there are trade-offs and each person should choose for themselves.

By the way, helmets are not designed for the number 1 cause of major bike injury: impact with a moving automobile. The tests they are subjected to are not even remotely close to the sort of impacts sustained in that sort of crash.

Actually, it is the other way around. Whereas the original Bell helmet complied with Snell standards, any helmet made in the last 15 years falls under watered-down CPSC regulations and has less crash energy protection.

Moreover, neither Standard tests for crash energy which occurs in collisions faster than walking speed. And both standards specifically state that certification process does not apply to collisions with motor vehicles (and other "3rd party" objects). Thus, any tales about how helmet saved the life of bicyclist in motor vehicle collision falls in the category of "anecdote" or "lucky charm."

I don't know what you are wearing, 25 years ago when the Bell Biker helmet came out you could make this claim. h\Helmet design has evolved considerably and your claims are excuses that you use when you know better.

While a helmet may not help if it is not a head injury. Remember this, broken bones heal, brain damage does not heal.

I agree with you on this point.

A helmet is also of no benefit when the injury is NOT head trauma.

I have seen credible arguments that helmets can cause a false sense of security resulting in people taking risks they wouldn't have taken were they not wearing a helmet. A helmet is also of no benefit when the injury is head trauma.

I am of mixed opinion as to the value of helmets. Personally, I feel less fear of death or injury from a crash while wearing a helmet, but on the other hand I feel less aware of my environment when wearing a helmet (it funnels the wind past my ears, making me less able to hear cars behind me, and somewhat blocks my vision when I'm looking behind me). It also makes me much hotter, and I feel more tired at the end of a ride when I've been wearing my helmet, making me worried about being more likely to make an error while on my bike that will cause me to get into an accident.

I personally think that whatever a person is more comfortable with regards to helmet wearing is the right way to go.