AIBU // Bike Helmets...

[TryingToDad]

All my four children, and I, wear helmets when we're out on our bikes. My husband frequently removes his, or doesn't wear one altogether, usually claiming it makes his head too hot. I think he's a bloody idiot and I'd rather not have to explain to my kids why Daddy died because his head was too hot!!! AIBU or should I chill out a bit...? His suggestion...

Coffee and beans- you do realise there are thousands of people who cycle who would never consider doing 'a jump' on a bike in a thousand years. They literally just cycle at moderate speeds on flat land.

I'll take that 70% reduction in risk of serious head injury over being 'a bit hot' any day thank you.

Those stats are meaningless unless you know what % of cyclists will have a head injury in the first place.

If it's 100% annually, 70% reduction is a no-brainer (ha) but most people would feel 30% is too high and not bother cycling.

If it's 0.001% annually, I will happily take not being hot and sweaty and having to carry a helmet around every time I get off the bike over reducing my lifetime risk of serious head injury from 0.09% to 0.06%

As someone has said almost no one wears helmets in the Netherlands, and they have a much lower cyclist fatality rate than us. How do you explain that if helmets save lives?

Infrastructure: The Dutch invested in proper off road fully segregated cycle lanes. And have done since the end of ww2. We (U.K.) invested in roads instead.

Culture: the bike is king, almost everyone cycles. Even If you are in a car you probably are also a cyclist, if not your mum, dad, siblings or kids will be. This reduces that ‘them and us‘ cars v cyclists thing. Dutch drivers generally behave better around cyclists. As do pedestrians.

I don't know the frequency either. But helmet use only became common in my twenties and there wasn't an epidemic of brain-injured cyclists before that.

Totally agree WelcomeToTheMountainTop. Comparing data from The Netherlands to UK data is comparing apples and pears. The situations are totally different. And the key word is segregated. My Dutch friends can't believe that a white line 18 inches from the kerb is often what constitutes a cycle lane here. I know a few what you might call "serious" Dutch cyclists and when they are riding their road bikes in conditions more comparable to here, or are racing or training seriously then they wear helmets and proper cycling gear, but when they are riding their every day Dutch bikes to the shops or work they wear jeans and no helmet, because the circumstances are quite different.

user

February 2012: The New Zealand Medical Journal published Evaluation of New Zealand's bicycle helmet law (PDF 209kb) by former British Cycling Federation coach and road safety instructor Colin F Clarke, showing a massive plunge in cycling levels and a 20% higher accident rate since helmet law enforcement.
Public on-road cycling participation in New Zealand fell by 26% between 1989 and 1998, according to the Land Transport Safety Authority Cyclist Travel Survey (PDF 108kb page 42). New Zealand's population increased by 406,390 - or 11% - during that time. In the five years prior to 1994, average annual cyclist injury totals were 991. In the five years after 1994, average annual injury totals were 707 - a reduction of 29%.
The LTSA estimate of total New Zealand bicycle trips dropped from 181.5 million in 89/90 to 110.8 million in 97/98. Estimated hours of cycling fell from 39.2 million to 26 million, and the number of kilometres cycled dropped from 351.6 million km to 284.2 million km.
Cycling trip numbers in New Zealand plunged by 51% from 1989 to 2006 (PDF 72kb), according to LTSA figures, with crash rates for fatalities dropping by 51% and by just 21% for serious crashes.

But of a C&P stuff up there,

Those figures are from here.

www.cycle-helmets.com/zealand_helmets.html

As I say, I always wear a helmet, as do my family. But in terms of your and your families health, it’s more important that you get off the sofa and on to a bike than get bogged down in helmet vs not helmet debate.

To be honest I knew the answer 're Netherlands /UK- no properly segregated and joined up cycle paths and the appalling attitude of many motorists.

But wouldn't it be amazing if it was otherwise? Instead, people don't cycle (who could,) because traffic is too dangerous. So they go short journeys by car and increase the traffic.

As a horse rider, with a helmet that has protected me from near certain death on two separate occasions, I view cyclists who choose not to wear helmets as something akin to natural selection.

It’s your brain, up to you to take care of it.

And yes, if you get hit head on by a car your helmet isn’t going to save you but is there any proof that it’s going to make your injuries worse?

To my knowledge there is not (willing to be proved wrong) there was a lot of analysis done on hat shape in relation to equestrian falls - which is why peaked hats and helmet cams are banned in certain competition as the addition of these was proven to have a negative effect.

And yes there are certain studies that have shown that wearing a hat results in increased confidence that may be more likely to put the user in a position where they might need a hat but honestly, presented with a situation such as a head on collision with a car (or a rock on a trail as you head first over your handlebars) why would you choose not to protect your head?

I don’t understand it.

What % of cyclists get head injuries every year?

Injuries in car accidents are greatly reduced if the occupants wear helmets, yet people don't seem keen to wear them in cars either.

Most cyclists that fall off that I've seen it happen too tend to fall off at low speeds (< the magic 12mph quoted). So it seems to me in the majority of cases a helmet would be rather useful.

Totally agree if you are hit by a car doing 30+ then a helmet won't help but since most accidents are people simply falling and hitting their heads then it seems to me a helmet is a very good idea.

Out of the 3 scars on my head, two are from bike and scooter accidents as a child when I've not worn a helmet. I was very lucky both times not to have been more seriously injured.
I saw an air ambulance programme where a woman was on a cycle path, not going at any speed, she hit a stone which caused her to wobble and fall off. She wasn't wearing a helmet, hit her head on the tarmac and ended up with quite severe damage. No helmet, no bike/scooter. I would not go on rides with my partner if he didn't set a good example. Children learn what they see more than what we say.

just ask yourself, in that split second moment that passes in slow motion as you depart your bike heading for the ground, after the initial ' oh shit this is going to hurt' thoughts, will your next thought be:
a) 'I'm glad i'm wearing a helmet' / 'I wish i'd worn a helmet'
or
b) 'thank fuck i'm not wearing a helmet' / 'I wish i hadn't put a helmet on today'
options for both the helmet wearers and non wearers.

@BanjoStarz exactly, you wouldn't go on a horse without helmet even for a slow walk so why would a much quicker bike be any different (I know horses can go fast but they are usually seen plodding at walking pace along the road,etc)

Ultimately it's his choice, so make sure you've got lots of lovely insurance (both life and critical illness) for him and have a chat about organ donation.

It's not that the arguments for "IF you have an accident, you'll be glad of a helmet" aren't valid, it's that they also apply to so many other activities that no-one thinks of wearing a helmet for like driving, drinking, walking in high heels, DIY...

So why is cycling in particular singled out?

Simply, it's because (1) subconsciously you know the actual danger is from cars and you can't do anything about that, but putting on a magic hat is something you can do, and (2) the magic hat product exists and is normalised so you do it.

The only thing bike helmets are 100% effective at is making money for bike helmet retailers.

As someone has said almost no one wears helmets in the Netherlands, and they have a much lower cyclist fatality rate than us. How do you explain that if helmets save lives?

Holland has a comprehensive network of cycle paths so cyclist seldom have to use the roads. Cyclists don't come hurtling down hills on mountain bikes because there aren't any!

Holland has a comprehensive network of cycle paths so cyclist seldom have to use the roads.

So it's roads not cycling that's dangerous then? And yet helmets are only designed to protect slow, low impact collisions like falling over on a bike, not impact with cars. Hmmm.

Incidentally, Dutch accident stars show MORE head injuries to cyclists that wear helmets. The reason being that Dutch cyclists only wear helmets when taking part in riskier activities like racing or off-roading.

12mph seems quite fast.

We've been out on bikes and go around 12kmph . We use paths and cycle paths so don't put put helmets on.

Infrastructure: The Dutch invested in proper off road fully segregated cycle lanes. And have done since the end of ww2. We (U.K.) invested in roads instead

If you get hit by a car a helmet will not help you in most cases.

People get criticised for not wearing helmets cycling on level paths in parks "because what happens if they fall off and hit their heads". So the Dutch example still stands, it's nothing to do with infrastructure. So my question is still: why are their heads harder than ours?

The only thing bike helmets are 100% effective at is making money for bike helmet retailers

Yes. Love this: twitter.com/tweetymike/status/792394346385575936

Also worth reading this: www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/mar/21/bike-helmet-cyclists-safe-urban-warfare-wheels

A helmet will save your life at a slow speed but is pretty useless if you and/or the car the hits you are going fast. However, I wear mine because I'd be really annoyed if I died just by falling off over a curb at 2 miles an hour and hitting my head which, whilst is probably not going to happen, might.

I also like the fact that it makes my head hot because I always feel very cold when cycling.

I know that there is evidence online for both sides, so I go by empirical evidence.

I have fallen off my bike a few times and most of the times yes, it was fine BUT I can testify that at one occasion:
(gravity) x (relative weight of my skull) x (velocity) = (hard impact on road)
The internet can say what it wants. I was there and my helmet did protect my head!

3 weeks ago my 8 yo flew off his bike on the road, no car involved thankfully, a smallish pothole was the cause. Again, despite the internet saying otherwise, the helmet did its job.

Not sure why empirical evidence is less acceptable than some internet forums.

Not sure why empirical evidence is less acceptable than some internet forums.

Well my empirical evidence is I've been cycling to work through London for a decade without a helmet and not had a head injury. I can't even remember the last time I fell off my bike but it certainly wasn't in the last five years. So based on my empirical evidence, helmets are a total waste of money.

Which is why we need stats and research, like what % of cyclists will have a head injury annually. Until that question is answered, any other stats are meaningless for risk assessment.

Although, given the number of people who seem to fall off bikes and only be saved by their helmet vs the much smaller number of non-helmet wearers suffering fatal or critical injury, one might reasonably wonder what on earth helmet-wearers are doing to keep falling off so often!

A Hövding would be a good compromise, advertised as an airbag for your head and safer than a normal cycle helmet.

% are welcome, but I am not disputing the fact that a small % of injuries are avoided by helmets. I am disputing that helmets are useless as stated multiple times on this thread.

I know that they are no protection against a lorry/bus turning left but they do fulfil a role. The debate tends to be an all (compulsory helmets) or nothing (they are useless).