There are far more fatalities (and head injuries) when driving a car compared to those on a bicycle, yet drivers do not wear helmets? This nonsense about "we call them organ donors" or "do we have to learn this lesson again" is really the pot calling the kettle black considering how little factual evidence there is to suggest that helmets actually save lives.
Below 20 kph (~12 mph) you are more likely to fall and hit the ground or obstruction with your hands/arms/shoulders/knees and hopefully walk away with some scratches or bruising at best, or a broken bone at worst. Above that speed, an impact is serious enough to kill, regardless if you are wearing a helmet or not. This is based on various reports on hospital visits by cycle accident victims around the world.
What about those who suffer neck injuries or even death as a result of wearing a cycle helmet - the helmet causing the damage when it fails (as in the concussion examples posted above) or, for example, the helmet getting wedged under a vehicle in such a way that the cyclist cannot escape?
bikenewengland: your post is little more than anecdotal evidence - there are hundreds of such 'experiences' reported, yet they are still minor compared to the overall number and types of accidents or deaths related to cyclists - and doubles as a veiled advertisement about products that are substandard at best and
actually fail when put to the test: "...helmet that cracked, but my head stayed together with just a small concussion". Had the helmet been up to even the
minimum of standards for a motorcycle helmet (which is DOT certified), you would not have destroyed the helmet and possibly have been spared the concussion. A product that fails is
not a good product.
hippiebikerchick: insulting people you do not know based on an opinion with no supporting facts is "forum troll" behavior at best. You've been in three accidents where you had to replace the helmet three times. There seems to be a pattern forming.
Recent studies are beginning to show that car drivers actually drive closer to cyclists wearing helmets. There appears to be a false sense of security being developed on both sides: the driver thinks the cyclist is safer and is paying attention; the cyclist believes the helmet makes them safer and typically begins to take more risks.
Educated cyclists are the ones that know the limits of their bodies and the equipment they use. Proper knowledge of road conditions, driving defensively, using mirrors/bells/horns/lighting and being aware of your surroundings (other vehicles, pedestrians, cyclists, pets) will save your butt far better than any current cycle helmet in existence.
That said, people should not be
required to wear helmets. In the end it should always be a choice to wear a helmet once you are fully educated as to it's limits or benefits. Insulting people into a guilty feeling based on sketchy information or anecdotal stories is just bad form, and a pitiful attempt to lobby the use of helmets.
I
do support wearing helmets in increasing your safety with certain uses: it's a great platform for mounting additional lighting (fore and aft), or for adding a visor mirror to increase your awareness of traffic. Occasionally I wear one when I know the roads I will travel are alongside highways where the chance is good of getting hit in the head by stones thrown by cars/trucks. It can also be good for keeping the head cool or warm.
But please don't assume it will save your life, or make you safer! Only *you* can do that.
For more information to educate yourself, check out:
Cycle Helmets: an international resource
Linear Mode
