Bike Helmets Might not be so Good at Saving LivesPuede que los cascos ciclistas no sean tan buenos salvando vidas
By: Keith
Parents say bike helmets save lives. Your local government might even have bike helmet laws designed to save your kids’ lives. Your neighbor would probably chastise you if she saw your kids riding their bikes without helmets. Everyone, it seems, buys the notion that helmets saves lives. I have always contended, however, that they do not. Just the opposite seems to be true. The statistics clearly show that helmet laws not only do not make people safer, they discourage bike riding and make the people who do continue to ride less safe rather than more. Helmets also cause uncoordinated people to do things on a bicycle that they would otherwise be too smart to attempt. The absence of a help, I contend, makes us all just a little smarter with our safety and, no matter how effective technology might seem to be, it doesn’t make up for stupidity. But, I wouldn’t be writing this article if it was just my opinion lending weight to it. There is research to back me up.
The Numbers:
The Vancouver Sun newspaper has published an article about the subject and included some safety statistics that have been around a while but which I had not seen before. Please read the whole article for more context, but here are a few of the raw numbers that were gathered:
1. Between 1991 and 2001 helmet usage increased to 69% among American children and 43% for adults. During that same period there was a decline in overall ridership but an increase in accidents, including a 51% increase in head injuries.
2. In Western Australia, head injuries declined by 11-21% where there were helmet laws, but bicycle usage fell by more than 30% which therefore resulted in a higher, rather than lower, ratio of head injuries to riders.
3. Studies that found reductions in head injury rates where there were helmet laws did not adjust their numbers for changing ridership and are therefore seriously flawed.
4. Canadian provinces that had helmet laws saw hospital admission fell by 10% while those without helmet laws saw a corresponding decline of 22%. Still, no helmet riders seem to be safer.
5. The author makes a good point that the Netherlands has high ridership and low injury rates. Almost nobody in Amsterdam wears a helmet (I can attest to that as I have seen it first hand).
It’s nice to know that there are credible experts who agree with me that helmet laws both discourage riding, and do nothing to save lives. Much like stoplight cameras at intersections, they might even be counterproductive.
When you Were a Kid:
Nobody wore helmets when we were kids. I use that argument occasionally, and I’m always amused when the response is “yeah, and a lot more kids died, too!” No, they didn’t. In fact, fewer kids died. A helmet will mitigate damage on direct impact. In that sense, helmets do save lives. But, like the article says, a helmet increases your profile. What would have been a narrow escape before becomes a glancing blow now, and that has resulted in more hospital visits (internal bleeding and such). I remember one particular crash that I had riding down a steep hill when I was a kid. I was riding no hands, and I hit a patch of sand. As I fell I made a conscious decision to protect my head from the pavement. I aimed my fall and wound up badly skinning the entire left side of my body. I’m sure my head narrowly escaped hitting the pavement. If I had been wearing a helmet, my head might have bounced off the pavement because of its increased size or I might have not been as maneuverable in the first place, thereby causing even greater damage.
I knew a kid who was in a coma and who suffered brain damage from a fall. He was not wearing a helmet. Of course he was also attached by a rope to the back of an ATV. The ATV stopped, and he didn’t which resulted in him flying over the ATV and landing on his head. I knew another guy who was wearing a helmet riding his motorcycle at 25 miles per hour in a residential neighborhood. He swerved to miss an intersecting car, fell off the bike, and just happened to hit his head on the curb. He died as a result, regardless of him wearing a 400 dollar helmet. What’s the point? Simple. Individual cases do not prove anything, statistics do. There are people who might be saved by wearing helmets. There are also people who will die. The only way to prove a point is to wait for the numbers to come in and see what they say. On first glance, it might make sense that helmets would save lives, but it seems that our collective assumptions about helmets have impaired our ability to read the facts. We have opted instead for sensational advertising and peer pressure to guide us. 
Los padres dicen que los cascos ciclistas salvan vidas. Puede que tu gobierno local hasta tenga leyes sobre cascos ciclistas diseñadas para salvar la vida de tus hijos. Puede que tu vecino, probablemente, te regañe si ve a tus hijos andar en bicicleta sin sus cascos. Cada quien, al parecer, ha caído en la noción de que los cascos salvan vidas. Sin embargo, yo siempre he contendido que no lo hacen. Justamente lo opuesto parece ser cierto. Las estadísticas claramente muestran que las leyes de cascos ciclistas no solamente no hacen a las personas más seguras, sino que desalientan el andar en bicicleta y hacen que las personas que deciden seguir haciéndolo menos seguras que antes. Os casos también causan que las personas con poca coordinación hagan proezas con sus bicicletas que de otra manera hubieran sido más inteligentes en no intentar. Yo contiendo que, la ausencia de ayuda, nos hace un poco más listos con nuestra propia seguridad y, no importa qué tan efectiva parezca ser la tecnología, ésta no recompensa la estupidez. Pero, yo no estaría escribiendo éste artículo si solo fuera mi opinión guiándole. Existen estudios que me respaldan.
Los números:
El periódico The Vancouver Sun (El Sol de Vancouver) ha publicado un artículo sobre este tema e incluyó unas estadísticas sobre seguridad que han estado disponibles por algún tiempo pero que yo no había visto antes. Por favor, lee el artículo completo para más información contextual, pero aquí te presento algunos de los números puros que fueron compilados:
1. Entre 1991 y el 2001 el uso de cascos ciclistas se incrementó un 69% entre los niños americanos y un 43% entre los adultos. Durante ese mismo período de tiempo hubo una decadencia en el uso en general de las bicicletas pero un aumento en el número de accidentes, incluyendo un 51% de aumento en lesiones a la cabeza.
2. En Australia occidental, las lesiones a la cabeza disminuyeron de un 11-22% en lugares donde había leyes de cascos ciclistas, pero el uso de las bicicletas disminuyó a más de un 30% lo que por lo tanto resultó en una mayor, en lugar de menor, proporción de lesiones a la cabeza por ciclista.
3. Los estudios que encontraron tasas de reducciones en las lesiones a la cabeza en lugares donde existían leyes de cascos ciclistas no ajustaron sus medidas para también mostrar la cantidad de ciclistas cambiando, por lo tanto, sus resultados son seriamente defectuosos.
4. Las provincias canadienses que tienen leyes de cascos ciclistas vieron las admisiones a los hospitales disminuir en un 10% mientras que aquellas sin leyes de cascos ciclistas vieron una declinación correspondiente a un 22%. Aún, ciclistas sin cascos parecen estar más seguros.
5. El autor hace notar acertadamente que en Los Países Bajos hay una gran cantidad de ciclistas y una baja tasa de accidentes. Casi nadie en Ámsterdam usa casco (yo puedo atestiguarlo, yo lo he visto personalmente).
Es bueno saber que existen expertos fidedignos quienes están de acuerdo conmigo en que las leyes de cascos ciclistas desalientan el andar en bicicleta y no hacen nada para salvar vidas. Bien parecido a las cámaras en los semáforos en las intersecciones, tal vez hasta sean contraproducentes.
Cuando eras niño:
Cuando éramos niños nadie usaba casco. Yo ocasionalmente utilizo este argumento, y siempre me sorprende cuando la respuesta es “ah sí, ¡y muchos más niños murieron también!” Pero no, no fue cierto. De hecho, mucho menos niños murieron. El casco mitigará el daño en un impacto directo. En ese sentido sí, los cascos salvan vidas. Pero, como lo dice el artículo que mencioné, el casco aumenta tu contorno. Lo que hubiera sido el apenas librarla se convierte en un golpe directo, y eso a resultado en más visitas al hospital (con hemorragias internas y cosas por el estilo). Yo recuerdo un choque en particular en donde yo iba en bicicleta cuesta abajo cuando era niño. Iba manejando si n manos, y le atine a una pila de arena. Al ir cayendo tomé conscientemente la decisión de proteger mi cabeza contra el pavimento. Dirigí mi caída y terminé raspándome por muy severamente todo el lado izquierdo de mi cuerpo. Estoy seguro de que apenas y libré el que mi cabeza golpeara el pavimento. Si yo hubiera estado usando un casco mi cabeza pudiera haber rebotado sobre el pavimento porque hubiera sido de tamaño más grande o yo no hubiera podido ser tan maniobrable en un principio, de ese modo causando un daño mucho mayor.
Yo conocía a un niño que estuvo en estado de coma y quien sufrió daño cerebral debido a una caída. El no estaba usando casco. Por supuesto él también estaba atado con una cuerda a la parte trasera de una cuatrimoto. La cuatrimoto se detuvo, y él no, lo cual le hizo volar sobre el vehículo y aterrizar sobre su cabeza. Yo conocí a otro chavo quien estaba usando casco mientras andaba en motocicleta a unas 25 millas por hora en un vecindario residencial. El se dio la vuelta para evadir a un carro que venía en sentido contrario, se cayó de la moto, y su cabeza golpeo la orilla de la banqueta. El murió como resultado de este accidente, a pesar de haber estado usando un casco de 400 dólares. ¿Cuál es el punto? Simple. Los casos individuales no prueban nada, las estadísticas lo hacen. Hay personas que puede que se hayan salvado por haber usado cascos. También hay personas que han muerto por la misma razón. La única manera de probar el punto es el esperar a que los números sean coleccionados y veamos qué es lo que dicen. A primera vista, pude que tenga sentido que los cascos salven vidas, pero parece ser que nuestras suposiciones colectivas acerca de los cascos han dañado nuestra habilidad de leer los hechos. Hemos optado por la publicidad sensacionalista y la presión por parte de las personas que nos rodean para guiarnos.
Interesting take. i’ll still wear a helmet, though, as one saved my life 5 years ago. it’s a shame more people don’t ride their bikes.. (not glorified in the movies I suppose and eating a big mac diet doesn’t exactly incline one to want to ride.) I’d like to live in a place like the Neatherlands, a nation which respects riders… where most people are riders or are closely related to one. When I lived in Sylvania, OH I was warned by riders several times to ride east from our house when I did get on my bike as the hicks to the west regularly ran riders off the road for sport. Lots of people on this planet need a good smack from their mamas.
I was in a go-cart accident and flew into a ditch bc i slid to avoid a dog. Thankfully I was wearing a helmet bc I smacked the crap out of the roll cage with the side of my face. I hate helmets and I refuse to wear one while riding a bike.. They’re stupid.. It’s not like its a seat belt.
I think I need to disagree here as well. I’m a long time cyclist and have been in several accidents. Two of my accidents shattered my helmet, but, not my skull. It’s an Interesting point, but, the evidence is just too strong in favor of helmets. Over 90% of all bicycle deaths each year since 1994 occurred because the rider was not wearing a helmet. Since 1994, the number of deaths while wearing a helmet was never over 10%. Even if you discount extenuating circumstances like drunk driving, the stats are just too consistent to prove that bicycle helmets don’t save lives.
Rob: My facts must be wrong then? It isn’t that my facts are wrong, it’s just that wearing a helmet seems like such an intuitive thing to do that most people can’t believe it might be a flawed concept.
Something else to consider — The vast majority of incidents, like mine, are never reported. Unless the accident victim ends up in an ER, it will likely never be reported. So, of the three posts in this thread, I count at least four incidents that involved a bike helmet. That’s…compelling.
Rob: No, I don’t think individual cases are compelling. I think statistics are compelling. Because you have a belief about bike helmets, you will naturally find evidence that supports you. I have the opposite belief, and I’ve found facts that support me. My facts are not wrong, and neither are yours. Presenting them simply gives people something to chew on. But, no, individual examples don’t mean anything to me, nor should they to anybody who’s interested in the facts.
We’re talking about different stats…you’re arguing ridership as a result of helmet usage. I’m just showing that there’s an obvious link between helmet use and safety. So, no, I’m not arguing the link, but, I just can’t buy there’s no “need” to wear them. If you want to talk warning labels, I’m right there with ya…I should be able to teach my kids not to stick a foot long hot dog in their mouth. But, we can’t control car traffic on the road. That’s the problem. It’s kind of like saying — my kids are great swimmers, so, they don’t need a life jacket in the boat. That’s great, but, if the boat capsizes and they’re stuck in the middle of a lake channel and knocked out, great swimming isn’t going to help them. So, we may be safe riders, but, if somebody’s sending a text message while driving and plow into me (or my kids), responsibility kind of flies out of the window. A skull is no match for a curb…no way to argue that one.
Rob: I’m not JUST arguing ridership. I’m arguing actual safety. I believe people ride smarter and are ACTUALLY more safe when they don’t wear helmets. It’s true that ridership decreases with bike helmet laws. But it’s also true that there are fewer ER visits when people do not wear helmets. There are also fewer head injuries and deaths when people do not wear helmets. Unless, of course, you don’t agree with the reporter’s interpretation of the facts. That’s entirely possible.
That’s cool. I get your argument, and, it’s an interesting argument. I’m not really even disagreeing with it. When my kids ride around the driveway, they’re not usually wearing helmets. And, I do see how helmets might cause somebody to take more risks. But, the premise is still flawed for a couple of reasons. (by the way, thanks for the debate…life in toddler-land gets a bit mundane:) I’m sure people “might” ride smarter, though when we were kids we weren’t exactly smart, I would say. I haven’t always worn a helmet. But, when I’m on the street, I would just be stupid not to wear one. I can’t control the morons driving around me. How do you account for that in the riding smarter scenario? I’ve done several cross-state and one cross country tour, so, I feel like I know a little about cycling. I wear a helmet because if somebody ELSE is stupid, or, I hit a road hazard, I CANT control the after-effects. Please explain the advantage you gain from hitting the concrete without a helmet and something to absorb the shock? Second, forget individual cases…you’re right about that. Anecdotes don’t prove anything. But, factor the “statistics” from the website I provided @ http://www.helmets.org/stats.htm. The difference between cases who survive accidents with or without helmets is huge…10% vs. 90%, consistent over a decade.
This argument will always go on and on.
Helmet use for kids (my kid) was paramount in keeping the “dings” and crying to a minimum after a crash and burn, sure we still had our fair share of “path/sidewalk rash” but increasing the odds of eliminating concussions was mission critical and worth the money invested.
-MileHighDad
.-= MileHighdad´s last blog ..Now This is What Im Talking Bout =-.
I agree with this because I am 25 and want to buy a bike sooo bad! I have found some beautiful vintage cruisers I’d love!… but really?! I have to put that on my head?! Im very comfortable with me peripheral vision thank you, and who wants their bangs strapped to their forehead blocking their vision; Let alone ruining my style. I didn’t ever own a helmet when I was a kid and my head is fine! It was the fact that I didn’t wear shoes or socks while riding that resulted in me ripping my big toenail off when I was about 7. I flew over the handlebars and I was fine (I was doing a stunt). Riding barefoot should be illegal.
i have been riding a bike without training wheels since i was 3 years old and for the last 29 years of riding i have never worn a helmet. last year i was hit by a car that decided to advance early on a red light and i went over the handle bars, and from my lessons learned early in life that “falling hurts and head injury is bad” my hands came up to protect my head i rolled off my forearms and continued over onto my back and back up onto my feet. my only injury was a small scrape on the back of my head where my head touched the asphalt. if i was wearing a helmet i would have had a neck injury or a broken neck from the increased size of my head due to the helmet. same thing happened horseback riding when my horse tripped and went ass over teakettle hands went up to protect the head. evolution has made children’s heads and bones soft with more fluid around the brain is to allow them time to develop the agility and reflexes to protect themselves which they will never learn without cuts and scrapes to teach them falling hurts and falling on your head hurts more. and one last thing because i didn’t get injured i was not reported in any statistic against helmet use.
This is such a stupid argument. Of Course HELMETS SAVES LIVES. Until someone can prove that helmets are the CAUSE of bike deaths then there is no reason to believe that they aren’t safe.
Post all the statistics you want about increase in accidents, but what is important to note as that when an accident does happen a helmet can be the difference between life and death.
Statistics have nothing on common physics. Head hitting cement, cement wins. Head with helmet hitting cement, I’ll take my chances with the helmet.
You are a fool if you believe otherwise.
Lewis: Sorry the research was inconvenient for you. Did you read it? There are several reasons they state that could be the cause of fewer injuries without helmets. Glancing blows for one (that’s pretty basic physics, right?). So, before you call people fools, I suggest you respect that fact that there are people doing research into the question. If you know all the answers already then there is clearly no reason for scientist to ask the questions in the first place. Of course smoking is good for you! It kills harmful bacteria, duh. Of course getting a tan is healthy! It stimulates vitamin D production, Duh. Naturally a steel car is safer than a carbon fiber or aluminum one! It’s stronger material, duh. Do airbags save lives? It was once taken as fact that they do. While they do save some lives, what is the net effect? New research is finding better ways to make airbags and ways to disable them for people who would actually die if they went off. But, you know, screw finding answers because scientists and facts are stupid.
So all the science behind the invention and design of helmets is not relevant. You can fan some kind of statistics to argue any side of an argument. There are studies claiming seatbelts kill. Like you’ve mentioned there are studies that say airbags kill. But there are also overwhelming studies that say seat belts and airbags have saved much much much more lives than they’ve harmed. There are risks in any event, but the popular outcome outweighs these rare risks and occasions.
These helmets are designed for a purpose, to help save lives. Would you discredit the effect of a bullet proof vest because people have died while wearing one? No, every law enforcement/military personnel will wear them because they know it works. Just as every professional cyclist road and off road will wear a helmet, because they know it works.
i know it works, I run a bike tour business, and we take hundreds of people on bike rides every week. Skills may vary, and I’ve seen accidents happen to the best and worst of riders. An obvious observation is that with any accident involving a hit to the head, the biker would have been knocked unconscious or even worse died. But those who have experienced the accident have always came back with the thought “Thank God I was wearing a Helmet.”
I will say it again, anyone who thinks a helmet will do MORE HARM than good is a fool. A fool not because they have opinions, but a fool because they risk their own, their kids, others safety because of some pride issue where they have to feel they are above these safety devices and are invincible to any tragic event that could occur on a bicycle.
Lewis, you missed the point. What I said, and what I was quite clear about was that if you know all the answers then there is no need to research anything because it’s all perfect. I’m not saying bike helmets don’t save lives. OF COURSE that’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying where there are bike helmet laws that there are more hospital visits due to head injuries. That’s a stone cold fact. Now, I happen to think you’re foolish for saying science and research isn’t useful for you. You can live certain and secure in your little world of facts; I don’t really care. I, however, will continue to ask questions and not assume that what appears to make sense is actually true without solid evidence. Then, when better research methods are developed, and there is a greater body of evidence to work with, and another theory or explanation is proposed, I will again open my ears to listen. You, however, will continue to believe what you once knew as fact despite being present with compelling arguments to the contrary. In fact, you will not only believe it, you’ll call people who propose a different explanation fools. Nice, stay classy Lewis. God forbid there’s something you could learn. You “knowing” something isn’t exactly a compelling argument — sorry. And, hey! I’m a FOOL! So, there, you win. I applaud your coherent rhetoric.
So the amount of people riding has gone down after the introduction of helmet laws. I’ll wager that these people who have stopped riding are the one who chose to not wear helmets. Rob states very well that even if we are smarter without helmets, othere pople may not be, breaking road laws and knocking us off our bikes. The design of a helmet is to make a crash less serious; have you ever wondered why they have that piece of plastic on top? Thats to make the helmet slid on the road, preventing injuries such as broken necks. Helmets to save lives and are desinged in such a way to make sure that the injuries we sustain are less serious. Mayby bike injuries have gone up in this decade but so have distractions for drivers, not to mention faster and more complex vehicles. I agree with the choice of wearing helmets but it is pretty indibutable that they save lives. People who choose not to wear helmets may do so but they can do say away from me. Feel free to take your self out of the gene pool giving us a safer world to ride in.
Safety first. That’s what I always instill on my child’s mind as i introduce to him his new schwinn tricycle. Wearing protective gears can save lives so we have to always adhere to safety guidelines because we are the ones who will benefit from it. Thanks for this post!
I have been riding bikes for 38 or so years. I’ve jumped them off ramps, over ditches, down stairs from second story apartment balconies, ridden in mountains, through creeks, in fields and on city streets. All without wearing a damned helmet. I’ve been in plenty of tumbles and had my share of scrapes and bruises but never broke a bone. I’ve whacked my head several times and according to at least two specialists in their field it hasn’t effected my 130 IQ in the least. Looking back, I can’t imagine the idotic things I may have attempted if I had a helmet on. Frankly, the only way I know of to get injured on a bike is by doing something irrational and stupid. I refuse to wear one, I refuse to allow my kids to wear one and am in the process of fighting with our school district and city council to get rid of the stupid bike helmet policies they have adopted. Aside from being demonstrably useless bike helmet laws by their nature imply that as a parent I am incompetent and incapable of deciding what is best for my kid’s safety. That is offensive, insulting and absurd.
hey ned, you must be one of the jerks who rides down the middle of the damned road who I constantly wish I could run over. Please explain how a helmet will help protect my 6 year old. Protect her from what? The 12 inch drop to the pavement when she loses her balance? She doesn’t exactly go bike riding down the road by herself you know……I or her mother are always there next to her. It’s my job to protect her not some pointy nosed fucking do gooder like you who thinks you need to tell the rest of us how we should live. FUCK YOU AND ALL LIKE YOU
What about the statistic that says there are more cars on the road than when you were a kid? Isn’t there some sort of stat that would suggest the increase in cars on roads shared with cyclists has lead to an increase in car vs bicycle collisions? I am also sure that there is a stat that suggests when a car and bicycle hit each other the person operating the bicycle fares a lot worse than the person operating a motorized vehicle.
Also, using stats from the Netherlands (or many Scandinavian countries and Europe in gneral) in comparison to the North America is not entirely fare. I could easily say that the Island of Cayman Brac in the Caribbean has the least amount of bike injuries in the world and no one wears helmets. Of course, the island is pretty tiny and there are no cars on it and the odds are that if you fall of your bike you are falling onto the beach…
Have you been to the Netherlands? Hardly anyone drives there as it is easier to get around on bike and their mass transit system is far superior to ours. Except for the highways and the relatively few suburbs most streets and roads have been in place since well before the invention of the combustion engine. If you live in a city the odds are you don’t drive.
Yes, I have been to the Netherlands. Spent a month there. You’re wrong about the number of cars. Amsterdam has loads of motor vehicles and buses. It’s a very busy city. It has tons of cyclists, but it also has tons of cars. That’s a commonly repeated myth about Amsterdam, that nobody drives.
helemts suck
am i right or am i right
ok i get it. you think that people stick feathers up their butts, call themselves chickens, and then try to fly. but helmets DO NOT MAKE you invincible.The only reason that you could get into more accidents as a capped biker is if you were to somehow blur the line between cyclist and motorcyclist because you’re wearing two inches of plastic, forget this fact, and subsequently act like you weigh 200lbs more.
That BEHAVIOR is NOT THE HELMETS FAULT. If anyone thought that, they would be better off not riding in the first place because they have logical problems that aren’t contingent on their choice of safety gear. But this is a moot point- the circumstances of your research are assuming too many things. Namely that anyone with a healthy fear of motorized metal death or any logical sense would be so easily swept up by the mumbo-jumbo of after-school psa’s.
In my city, there are a LOT of stupid people who ride bikes. FIXIE hipster types who ride on the wrong side of the road and ride drunk and text pedal, all sorts of moronic things exacerbated by the fact that they don’t even think about riding defensively, or consider maybe donning some safety gear. If the city of San Diego made it a law to wear a helmet, these kids might also fall victim to the fallacy of your assumption that they are now somehow invincible, and would continue to act in an increasingly foolish matter.
however, In my experience, riding on the road with cars is an imperative for helmet use, and to argue against that is only evidence that you have never ridden in the inner city, with all of it’s bad drivers and car doors and potholes, and other sorts of terrible hazards that actively seek to end your life. It is repeated on this thread, and i RE STATE: you can not control stupid people. But you might as well attempt to have a healthy fear for your own life.
Why would you try to argue against this point? Wouldn’t a better effort be to simply make sure your kids are able to draw more cogent correlations to facts, and to be simply more conscious of their physical safety in general? I really feel like you are just trying to be contrary, as if you wanted to be known for some radical opinion, some bold form of non-conformity.
You’re not fooling anyone.
When someone cuts you off (if you even ride a bicycle) and you are faced with your life, and the inane subject matter of this–and likely other incessant rants– i trust you will feel differently, and likely wish you had a helmet.
Pete: Brilliant analysis. Completely disregard the facts, science and research and call me crazy or “contrary” armed with nothing more than your own unsubstantiated personal opinion. Yup, you got me. I’m not fooling anybody am I? I’m just making an opinion comment based on some pretty good research. That’s it.
I came across this post while doing research for a post I am doing for my blog in this topic. A helmet saved my life this summer.
I crashed into another cyclist while riding at a speed of about 29 mph. My head was the first thing to hit the pavement. I shudder to think what would’ve happened had I not been wearing a helmet. I was very fortunate to come out of this with nothing more than a headache and a cracked helmet. And of course road rash and bruises but I was most concerned with my head. I kept my cracked helmet as a reminder of its importance.
I respect free will but there is also something to be said for common sense. What happened to me can happen to anyone, anywhere at any speed.
Keith,
First, I could not find the article your link pointed to, but I looked up several terms you used, especially ‘glancing blow.’ What I found about ‘glancing blows’ was that some helmets grab the surface impacted and create rotational injuries. But hardshells don’t. That doesn’t speak to the issue of near misses compared with glancing blows, but if much of the ‘glancing blow’ risk is related to rotational injuries, that part of your argument becomes weaker because that only refers to a need for improvement in helmet materials.
And for me, the near miss/glancing blow argument is the strongest argument you and the statistics you use make.
HOWEVER, I think you are analyzing the data at the wrong point. Helmets are only designed to improve survival rates and injury severity in an accident involving head injuries. I don’t care what the public relations angle is; it’s about what happens when your head is involved. I want to know how well people survive head injuries, when they happen. And those statistics seem to clearly support the choice to wear helmets. [And, I would argue they support laws requiring helmet use because, I would speculate, the cost of the injury would be increased by the severity of the head injury and a helmet makes it possible to lower those costs; but that's my intuitive speculation which holds about as much water as my hand.]
I understand that you and others are arguing that, perhaps, helmets are increasing all accidents because of a larger rider profile, but I can’t find much to support that claim. I’ll keep looking. And, if fewer people are riding or stupid people are riding, that’s actually a separate problem. Helmets can’t make you smarter before an accident, and, except for cost, they can’t stop you from riding. If people use helmets as an excuse not to ride or as an excuse to be stupid, there are better ways to attack that problem than to increase their risk of a serious head injury.
Thank you Heidi!
I have been reading all the comments, in hopes that someone would address the issues I had with Keith’s article.
I don’t doubt Keith’s stats, ( I’ve heard similar about about riding declining in areas with mandatory helmet laws, and have read about increased numbers of accidents when riding with helmets ) but the rates of death or severity of injury between similar accidents with or without a helmet are the important ones.
I don’t care if I crash and scrape my knee twice on my bike with a helmet instead of once without a helmet. I care if I can read and write, know my name, and can kiss my husband after an accident involving my head.
I prefer the statistics on accident survival rates I have seen WITH a helmet vs No helmet, so will continue to battle helmet hair.